F1 McLaren - Alonso: breakup!

[Deleted member 25]

To Shonguiz and Luw....Yes, what I'm saying is correct. Unlike the rest of the field, he was groomed and raised to get into F1 under McLaren. He isn't anything better than Piquet, Jr. So, you're telling me that if Hamilton started his season in team like Red Bull, he would still be number 2? You both must be delusional. He is good, but he is only as good as his car. People like Alonso, Shumacher and to some extent Kimi and Massa make the car, on the other hand, the car makes people like Hamilton.

NarutoRamen, of course he won't be 2 nd without the car he had, of course he can't be compared to schumacher. But i strongly disagree with you when:
1/ You say he's as good as Piquet, sorry but i see nothing that can allow you to say so, he beated him in Gp2 in his first year and Piquet has done nothing in F1 to say if he's a better or equal or inferior F1 material.
2/ You seems to think that he has done nothing to contribute to developping the car during the season, well this is not right since all of the drivers are contributing to this, Alonso has certainly done more in this field but this is evident since he's an experienced driver and Hamilton a rookie.
3/ Maybe he had a stunnig car, but he had also a great driver as a teamate, so great that he's a double champion and he has beaten him, do you think this is nothing ?

 

[450SEL6.9]

The Nurburg and Turkey are hamilton's fault ?

I think Nurburgring was his fault because he was on the wrong tyres. At the end of the day the driver decides when to put on tyres and what tyres to put on. The same goes for his disaster in China. He was having immense difficulty with his tyres in China, but Alonso and Raikkonen were on thet same tyres and stopped later.

I won't put the Turkey puncture down to him, but his costliest races this year - i.e. the two where he scored 0 points - were due to tyre/decision-making failures. The team can take the blame for these failures all they want, but at the end of the day the decision rests with the driver. When a decision needed to be made at critical moments, I think he was very poor.

 

[450SEL6.9]

Unlike the rest of the field, he was groomed and raised to get into F1 under McLaren.

People like Alonso, Shumacher and to some extent Kimi and Massa make the car, on the other hand, the car makes people like Hamilton.

Bringing up the Mclaren grooming seems to strike a nerve with some people. I was criticized for bringing that point up in the past, but I don't think anyone can rationally deny that a driver coming into F1 with the team that invested millions in his development doesn't have a massive head start on his peers. His head start is roughly nine-years and $10 million, but it's probably priceless.

Naruto, good line about how some drivers make the car, while the car makes some drivers. Mansell would have retired with a big donut if the 1992 Williams didn't make him champ. The claim about how great drivers can win WDCs with an inferior car is just a romantic myth. Even the greatest cannot win with cars that are near the top of the pack in terms of pace and reliability.

Prost taking the title in '86 is the only occasion I remember where the champ was driving a considerably slower car. Mclaren only won four races in '86 to Williams' nine, but Prost won the title because two jabronies driving for the same team took points off each other, while at the same time hating each other! Sound familiar?

I watched some videos of the '86 season before this season's finale, the pace of Prost's Mclaren was at times miles off the Williams of Piquet and Mansell. Prost needed to drive some of his greatest races that year to even have a chance!

 

[Deleted member 25]

I think Nurburgring was his fault because he was on the wrong tyres. At the end of the day the driver decides when to put on tyres and what tyres to put on. The same goes for his disaster in China. He was having immense difficulty with his tyres in China, but Alonso and Raikkonen were on thet same tyres and stopped later.

The problems in qualifying weren't down to him, without those problems, he certaily would have a much better race.

I won't put the Turkey puncture down to him, but his costliest races this year - i.e. the two where he scored 0 points - were due to tyre/decision-making failures. The team can take the blame for these failures all they want, but at the end of the day the decision rests with the driver. When a decision needed to be made at critical moments, I think he was very poor.

It may be costliest but it costed him points, and the faults are shared, in both china and japan, between him and the team.

 

[Centurion]

To Shonguiz and Luw....Yes, what I'm saying is correct. Unlike the rest of the field, he was groomed and raised to get into F1 under McLaren. He isn't anything better than Piquet, Jr. So, you're telling me that if Hamilton started his season in team like Red Bull, he would still be number 2? You both must be delusional. He is good, but he is only as good as his car. People like Alonso, Shumacher and to some extent Kimi and Massa make the car, on the other hand, the car makes people like Hamilton.

It's natural that Hamilton doesn't know how to develop a car like Shumi, Kimi or Alonso, he's a rookie. After 3-4 seasons he will be a full fledged top driver.

But does that makes him a worse driver? No it doesn't. He has done exactly what Mclaren wants him to do which is take the car and drive it like there's no tomorrow.

"He is good, but he is only as good as his car."

With that argument you make is seem as if any driver can driver like Hamilton is they have the right car. If that really was the case then Mclaren would have chosen Pedro or any other random GP2 driver to accompany Alonso this year.

Hamilton has been in right nurturing environment which has given him an advantage. But everything has a reason. Mclaren decided to nurture Hamilton because his talent is really that good. Further more there is no rule stating that too be a good driver you have to start in a car less stable than a 1950s Russian nuclear submarine.

 

[Matt530i]

It's natural that Hamilton doesn't know how to develop a car like Shumi, Kimi or Alonso, he's a rookie. After 3-4 seasons he will be a full fledged top driver.

But does that makes him a worse driver? No it doesn't. He has done exactly what Mclaren wants him to do which is take the car and drive it like there's no tomorrow.

"He is good, but he is only as good as his car."

With that argument you make is seem as if any driver can driver like Hamilton is they have the right car. If that really was the case then Mclaren would have chosen Pedro or any other random GP2 driver to accompany Alonso this year.

Hamilton has been in right nurturing environment which has given him an advantage. But everything has a reason. Mclaren decided to nurture Hamilton because his talent is really that good. Further more there is no rule stating that too be a good driver you have to start in a car less stable than a 1950s Russian nuclear submarine.

There are lots of good drivers who never develop the ability to contribute towards the development of the car. To say that Hamilton will, as opposed to may, become a 'total package' driver without some type of indication from this season is speculation.

No one has ever said that you have to start in a crappy car in your introduction to F1. However, Hamilton is the first rookie in a long time to start in a car that is capable of starting at the front of the grid. It's disingenuous to say that he's the most amazing rookie to hit F1 because he finished second when he had that car because all rookies in the past 10+ year were at a severe disadvantage to him.

I don't think that any of us are saying that Hamilton doesn't have a lot of talent and the potential to be an F1 great. But we are saying that in order to deserve all the hype he's getting he has to prove that he can live up to that potential. IMO, he hasn't proved that yet.

 

[Monster]

No one has ever said that you have to start in a crappy car in your introduction to F1. However, Hamilton is the first rookie in a long time to start in a car that is capable of starting at the front of the grid. It's disingenuous to say that he's the most amazing rookie to hit F1 because he finished second when he had that car because all rookies in the past 10+ year were at a severe disadvantage to him.

I don't think that any of us are saying that Hamilton doesn't have a lot of talent and the potential to be an F1 great. But we are saying that in order to deserve all the hype he's getting he has to prove that he can live up to that potential. IMO, he hasn't proved that yet.

Part of the reason why people are over hyping Hamilton is because his performance and results against his team mate who is a double world champ, it also helps greatly that he has one of the best car on the grid, but I do think his performance against Alonso created the majority of the hype.

I do agree with you, I will wait for another 2 years to see if Hamilton has the ability to develop a car and unlock its full potential. If he does, he would have proven he can live up to the hype. Right now he is 50% there.

 

[Centurion]

But we are saying that in order to deserve all the hype he's getting he has to prove that he can live up to that potential. IMO, he hasn't proved that yet.

How about those 109 points, don't they account for anything? He's new to F1 and naturally it will take another 1-2 seasons for us to find out his he's champion material. But so far he has done very well by beating Alonso, Massa and almost winning the championship. That's the reason why people find him to be a spectacular driver.

 

[450SEL6.9]

The problems in qualifying weren't down to him, without those problems, he certaily would have a much better race.

It may be costliest but it costed him points, and the faults are shared, in both china and japan, between him and the team.

Even if we engage in that what-if scenario, I don't think it's particularly relevant. Even with the problems that he did have in qualifying at the Nurburgring, he basically had a car that would finish no worse than 4th. With Raikkonen's DNF, Hamy, despite his qualifying crash, was on pace to get a podium until his tyre error.

I don't buy any of this stuff about bad decisions being the team's fault. It's PR! The bottom line is the ultimate decision about tyre choices and strategy is made by the driver. If he makes the wrong one, I don't see why blame is shared, proportionately or otherwise, by the team.

 

[450SEL6.9]

There are lots of good drivers who never develop the ability to contribute towards the development of the car.

It's disingenuous to say that he's the most amazing rookie to hit F1 because he finished second when he had that car because all rookies in the past 10+ year were at a severe disadvantage to him.

Yeah, I agree. The overwhelming evidence suggests that most drivers, even WDC winners, do not have the ability to further development of a car. Since 1987, the WDCs have been: Piquet, Senna, Prost, Mansell, Schumacher, Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Alonso, Raikkonen.

Of those WDCs, I think only 4/10 really had a proven ability to develop cars.

Villeneuve also won four races in his rookie year. His car was more dominant than this year's Mclaren and Damon Hill was no Fernando Alonso, but a rookie winning four races with a fast car has been done before. On the other hand, Villeneuve wasn't groomed by Williams and didn't receive any favoritism from the team or stewards either.

But so far he has done very well by beating Alonso, Massa and almost winning the championship. That's the reason why people find him to be a spectacular driver.

I don't think anyone can conclusively say Hamilton beat Alonso. They finished tied on points. Senna also "beat" Prost to the '88 title, but Prost scored considerably more points than him that year. Hamilton was hyped early in the season, even before he started "beating" Alonso. I think he was so hyped because he is so clearly marketable.

 

[Centurion]

Of those WDCs, I think only 4/10 really had a proven ability to develop cars.

Villeneuve also won four races in his rookie year. His car was more dominant than this year's Mclaren and Damon Hill was no Fernando Alonso, but a rookie winning four races with a fast car has been done before. On the other hand, Villeneuve wasn't groomed by Williams and didn't receive any favoritism from the team or stewards either.



I don't think anyone can conclusively say Hamilton beat Alonso. They finished tied on points. Senna also "beat" Prost to the '88 title, but Prost scored considerably more points than him that year. Hamilton was hyped early in the season, even before he started "beating" Alonso. I think he was so hyped because he is so clearly marketable.

Hamilton is not better than Alonso but he did beat him this year, the same way Kimi would have beaten Hamilton is they scored same points.

The hype didn't take off because he's marketable. It took off because a rookie was challenging a two time world champion. Off course he's skin colour adds a little to the media attention but at the end of the day his driving is what has earned him the attention. If he would have driven like Vettel the media would have ripped him apart.

 

[Deleted member 25]

Even if we engage in that what-if scenario, I don't think it's particularly relevant.

I agree but i am not the one i started it, i was simply replying to those who started it.

Even with the problems that he did have in qualifying at the Nurburgring, he basically had a car that would finish no worse than 4th. With Raikkonen's DNF, Hamy, despite his qualifying crash, was on pace to get a podium until his tyre error.

Here we are talking about a wet race, these races have a big gamble side, so you have to take risks that's why i don't agree when you seems to say that the carsh in qualifying is not that relavant because it's hugely relevant, the guy started 10th and had to gamble to catch the at least the podium, if he started in one pf the 4th first places, he wouldn't have to take so much risks and then the result would have been much better.

I don't buy any of this stuff about bad decisions being the team's fault. It's PR! The bottom line is the ultimate decision about tyre choices and strategy is made by the driver. If he makes the wrong one, I don't see why blame is shared, proportionately or otherwise, by the team

.
When the tire are almost destroyed, there's no driver decision, the team MUST tell him to return to the pit in order to change them because otherwise it's suicide, and they didn't. He knew that tires were very used but not as used as they really were because he couldn't see them in the mirrors. SO yes for me it's a shared fault.

 

[450SEL6.9]

Here we are talking about a wet race, these races have a big gamble side, so you have to take risks that's why i don't agree when you seems to say that the carsh in qualifying is not that relavant because it's hugely relevant, the guy started 10th and had to gamble to catch the at least the podium, if he started in one pf the 4th first places, he wouldn't have to take so much risks and then the result would have been much better.

Not trying to pick a fight with you, but I don't agree at all with your arguments. They don't add up if you look at what actually happened in the race. Wet races are a gamble for everyone, not just because Hamilton started 10th. Even starting in 10th, he had the car to catch up. He was already leading the championship by double-digits over his three main rivals and didn't need to gamble on anything.

What risk did he take that really cost him points? The freak puncture from two teammates colliding? If you think about what happened in the early laps, that puncture cost him less than in a normal race. Normally, when you pick up a puncture you lose a pitstop to the field, but he didn't. Everyone pitted.

Hamilton then spun off, got lapped despite the crane, was allowed to unlap himself. Then he put on the wrong ties and got re-lapped. Given his car's pace, points were still there for the taking, despite the "risk" and puncture. As we found out, that was not the first time bad tyre decisions cost him points.

When the tire are almost destroyed, there's no driver decision, the team MUST tell him to return to the pit in order to change them because otherwise it's suicide, and they didn't. He knew that tires were very used but not as used as they really were because he couldn't see them in the mirrors. SO yes for me it's a shared fault.

How do you know the team really didn't tell him to pit? Even if they did not tell him to come in, so what? He could easily drive into the pits and the mechanics would come running out to change his tyres. Listen to the commentary on F1 broadcasts. The final decision on tyres is with the driver. Unless a driver is explicitly told the pitlane is not open, he can always pit for tyres. That's how it works.

"He knew his tyres were very used but not as used as they really were because he couldn't see them in the mirrors?" Do you honestly believe that? That's a funny excuse. You know when your tyres are used when you lose feel, not when you see they are worn in the mirrors. By the time you see massive wear, that's too late. F1 drivers can tell when their tyres are dead without seeing them in the mirrors.

 

[NarutoRamen]

Hamilton has been in right nurturing environment which has given him an advantage. But everything has a reason. Mclaren decided to nurture Hamilton because his talent is really that good.

That is exactly my point. There is a difference between a kid who is taught to be like something from the beginning and others who have to work their way up to the top. Hamilton from the start has been groomed to be the best F1 driver he can be. Well guess what, you can teach anyone in the world as much skill as you want, but in the end it is instinct that wins. Of all the races I've seen out of hamilton, he has tremendous skill but he lacks instincts.

Please, don't give me "he's a rookie" BS. He has been racing for how long now? Instincts have nothing to do with being a rookie or not, he has been racing long enough to know the psyche's of drivers and how people react on track. You don't have to be in formula 1 to understand racing. The rookie argument people make is just an excuse. What the hell is so different about F1 cars compared to GP2 cars? Ultimately, F1 cars are faster. That's it. But hamilton isn't racing computers, he's racing humans. So the rookie argument is nullified.

I don't even know where some of you guys are getting your so called "facts" about how Hamilton helped develop the McLaren car. Please, most people will tell you it was collaboration between Alonso and Pedro, who both happen to be spaniards and both are very technical. Pedro has been developing cars for McLaren for a long time.

 

[Centurion]

That is exactly my point. There is a difference between a kid who is taught to be like something from the beginning and others who have to work their way up to the top. Hamilton from the start has been groomed to be the best F1 driver he can be. Well guess what, you can teach anyone in the world as much skill as you want, but in the end it is instinct that wins. Of all the races I've seen out of hamilton, he has tremendous skill but he lacks instincts.

Hamilton is not a Mclaren product if that's what you are insinuating. He has been a skilled and aspring driver since he was a kid. That has taken him to the top and not Mclaren. What Mclaren has done is preserved his talent and make sured that gets to put it all to practice. At the end of the day nobody can help him on the track since it he himself who decided how much gas to give, when to change gear, how to turn and everything else. Mclaren didn't teach him how to drive they just gave him the right environment to do so and develop.

Like some other people here you are implying that Hamilton has had an easy way to the top. He has worked hard ever since he was a kid and don't think that he was done when he was signed by Mclaren. When he did, the pressure was and requirements were high forcing him to work even harder than before. I'm sure there were plenty of other drivers ready to take his spot. Just because you got signed by Mclaren or get into a school like Yale it doesn't mean that you're done. You have to work even harder than before.

On the track he has done more than prove that he drives using instincts. He overtakes and has done some very daring ones, and in China he drove on worn out tires waiting for the rain to come. Or how about in Hungary when he refused to follow team orders He does takes risks and is not some academy man made driver you are trying to project him as. He's Lewis Hamilton and nothing else.

"Hamilton from the start has been groomed to be the best F1 driver he can be."

Well isn't the point and dream for all young drivers?

"What the hell is so different about F1 cars compared to GP2 cars? Ultimately, F1 cars are faster. That's it."

The big difference between GP2 and F1 is that in GP2 everyone driver more or less the exact same cars, hence nobody has any technical advantage. Hamilton won in 2006 and proved what a great driver he is.

 

[Matt530i]

Hamilton is not a Mclaren product if that's what you are insinuating.

Like some other people here you are implying that Hamilton has had an easy way to the top.

Hamilton started racing go-karts when he was 8 and was signed to McLaren's future drivers program when he was 13. McLaren took care of all the money necessary for him to keep on driving.

Look at Kubica. His family had to scrape together the money to keep him driving early on in his career. Kimi talked briefly about the struggle to get to F1 after winning at Brazil. Without the money and support of McLaren Hamilton would have had to deal with the stress and hardship of trying to get the money to keep on driving. The odds of getting to F1 would have been stacked against him and would not have been a guarantee.

He caught a lucky break when he was 10 by meeting Ron Dennis. So he's not a McLaren product? Yeah, he is. They've taken his talent and molded into something better than it would have been otherwise.

It's like saying the piece of marble that Michelangelo sculpted into David was a natural piece of art.

 

[Centurion]

Hamilton started racing go-karts when he was 8 and was signed to McLaren's future drivers program when he was 13. McLaren took care of all the money necessary for him to keep on driving.

Look at Kubica. His family had to scrape together the money to keep him driving early on in his career. Kimi talked briefly about the struggle to get to F1 after winning at Brazil. Without the money and support of McLaren Hamilton would have had to deal with the stress and hardship of trying to get the money to keep on driving. The odds of getting to F1 would have been stacked against him and would not have been a guarantee.

He caught a lucky break when he was 10 by meeting Ron Dennis. So he's not a McLaren product? Yeah, he is. They've taken his talent and molded into something better than it would have been otherwise.

Hamilton was interested in racing long before he was eight, and his father didn't exactly buy Hamilton's first Go-kart for £30.99 at Toy'R'US. They struggled as well to get Hamilton into the seat of a go-kart. Thanks to his spectacular driving he managed to interest Ron into supporting him.

If Mclaren could create drivers like Hamilton then I guess they will spit out talented young drivers like kittens the coming years?

The way he drives he would most certainly get into F1 one way or another. I've seen videos of him driving cars at a very young age and saw the fire in his eyes. If he was like any other driver he would have been dumped by Mclaren years ago. His talent has taken him to the top, not Mclaren's sterling pounds. He hasn't worked any less than the other drivers to get to where he is today. Talent, devotion and passion creates a top driver, and not a youth driver program.

 

[Matt530i]

Hamilton was interested in racing long before he was eight, and his father didn't exactly buy Hamilton's first Go-kart for £30.99 at Toy'R'US. They struggled as well to get Hamilton into the seat of a go-kart. Thanks to his spectacular driving he managed to interest Ron into supporting him.

If Mclaren could create drivers like Hamilton then I guess they will spit out talented young drivers like kittens the coming years?

The way he drives he would most certainly get into F1 one way or another. I've seen videos of him driving cars at a very young age and saw the fire in his eyes. If he was like any other driver he would have been dumped by Mclaren years ago. His talent has taken him to the top, not Mclaren's sterling pounds. He hasn't worked any less than the other drivers to get to where he is today. Talent, devotion and passion creates a top driver, and not a youth driver program.

There's a big difference between financing Hamilton between the ages of 8 and 13 (when Ron stepped in) and between the ages of 8 and say 18. Each racing series gets more and more expensive. There's no guarantee that, despite his talent, that they would have found the financing. It's not as easy as you think. So F1 would not have been a lock and most certainly his first year would not have been in one of the top cars.

Yes, he showed a lot of potential so Ron spent some money to see how he would develop. Do you seriously think that McLaren gives out thousands of dollars a year to these drivers and offers no input toward their development?

Again, I'm not saying Hamilton doesn't have talent. Even the most talented professional sportsmen have coaches, what's wrong in admitting that? It doesn't take anything away from him, except perhaps pointing out that he's not that unlike everyone else.

 

[Centurion]

Racing at the age above 13 is indeed very expensive. The way Hamilton was driving prior to getting signed by Mclaren would have attracted other sponsors. That's how people afford to saty in racing. Drive well and the sponsors will come. But naturally neither of them can compare to Mclaren.

Mclaren do account for some of his success but can only get you so far. On the track you as a driver is all alone and have to use your own intuition, technique, concentration and tactics to win races. Books and theories taught at some classroom can never measure up to natural talent.

I see nothing wrong with having a coach, and I'm glad that Hamilton had the opportunity to preserve and develop his driving in the right environment. It's a priceless opportunity.

But I just feel that some people are trying to discredit Hamilton by implying that he has only been successful this season because of the Mclaren car, that he's some Mclaren product and that he's not all that despite the 109 points gained during his rookie season.

 

[Centurion]

Alonso has Honda seat fitting

Fernando Alonso spent an entire day at Honda's Brackley factory this week and even had a seat fitting, reports from Germany on Thursday said.

Sport Bild claims that the double world champion, who is still yet to commit to a team for 2008 after splitting with McLaren, is 'nearing an agreement' with the Japanese outfit that recently tabbed Ross Brawn as its new team boss.

It is reported that the first approach to Alonso about possibly joining Honda was made by F1 chief executive Bernie Ecclestone, after the previously Nick Fry-led team embarrassingly netted just six points with its RA107 package this year.
Click here to find out more!


The publication said Alonso would take the place of Rubens Barrichello; the Brazilian veteran who would move to Honda's satellite team Super Aguri in 2008 as Takuma Sato's new team-mate.

Alonso's manager, Luis Garcia Abad, on Thursday was not contactable.

F1-Live