Nothing to worry about guys, it's just a friendly banter:P Happens once or twice a season between Steve and myself. It's certainly not the first and it won't be the last. I have one more day so i will continue to be on his case:D
Okay back to business.
Firstly , the job you are doing is one that maybe Zia, Waqas, Irteza or I should have done and in many ways we should thank you. Alonso has a car which does not work on hard tires, it does not work on softs, it doesn't work on anything more or less and he is leading the world championship. Imagine what he would do to this field if he had a good car.
Want to clear up one more thing:
In 2005 and 2006, I was routing for the driver from Ferrari so I can't be happy with what happened but whatever you say about those years, you still can't say that Renault pysched out Ferrari like RedBull did. It was just like Pakistan beating Brazil in a Football match, everyone would say that they expect the other way around result in such a match and will be astonished as to how could this result happens.
I didn't probably get it at the time but reading it again you seem to imply Renault had a fluke win with your analogy of Pakistan beating Brazil in a football match. Well, it could be that but i would slightly change it. Pakistan beat Brazil in a series of matches culminating in a world cup triumph and the previous year they had beaten, who would you like, Argentina, France, Italy, Spain, England ( For Mclaren ) in a series of matches and won the world cup ( 2005, when they beat Mclaren ) That can hardly be luck or fluke. Luck or fluke is maybe one or two wins in a season, not being beaten to both titles in 2005 and 2006.
Then you pick up my replies to questions you asked and copy paste them anywhere it's beneficial to you in your last reply.
genius83
@UK
Yes, the whole thing starts with my assumptions but I never said a single word about Alonso until you says that my assumptions are wrong, Sir, we both knows and agrees that Ferrari is struggling on softs, Right??? Thatswhy they choose Hard, Hard and Soft combination for Silverstone, but in doing that their first stint on hards was not as good and long as expected which ends them on the less favourable tyre early. If by that I am assuming that Ferrari with full fuel is struggling on hards then why is it wrong???
So your assumptions cannot be wrong? or for that matter anyone's assumptions? They are after all only assumptions:S And if someone should question your assumptions you would start taking pot shots? Plus, i was giving you proof of things and NOT making assumptions of my own while answering various things. Where i didn't know for a fact, as much as i recall i used " assume", " guess " . I did not put them across as a " fact " at least i tried not to. Maybe i have made mistakes some where but it was never my intention to make it look like that.
As for your assumptions. What can i do if they are wrong? I said Ferrari struggles on softs, they grain and it clears after a few laps. It was your assumption that Ferrari were struggling on Hards. Based on that you came to the conclusion that the coming races were going to be good for one team and not good for another. Now that may well turn out to be true but based on what we have seen this season (as it has happened in the past and we know the results-it's not an assumption) it's not true.
Secondly, you said the tire compounds for the next two races were Hards and Softs. That is incorrect because they are Hards and Mediums for Spa and Monza. Again that is a fact and not an assumption on my part. Since you based the likely performance of teams based on tire compounds being used for the next two races i asked that maybe you need to reassess.
Thirdly, you talked about the outstanding pace of Red Bull in the last 10 odd laps of the Hungarian GP. I merely pointed out that it was an eleven lap stint on fresh tires while others, namely Raikkonen and Alonso pitted on lap 45 and 43 respectively compared to Vettel who pitted on lap 58. That pace can hardly be a true reflection of where teams stack up against each other. If anything, it was Raikkonen's pace which was astonishing. I provided you with the laptimes so it was hardly an assumption on my part.
Fourthly, you jumped back to Silverstone and Ferrari's short first stint on hard tires. Now for starters, i don't think they started the race on hards because they were struggling on softs. Qualifying was wet which meant the top ten could start on any compound they wished. They tried to do something different and it didn't come off. Looking back they would admit that starting on softs would have most likely given them the victory at Silverstone, something they did like most others in Germany and won.
Not being able to run a long first stint on hards at Silverstone hardly means struggling on softs with full tanks. As i already pointed out, they reversed it in Germany, started on softs and won.
Silverstone was a gamble. The best example i can give off the top of my head is Canada 2010. Red Bull were the only team apart from Kubica who did Q3 with the harder compound tire hoping to reap the rewards in the race. The newly relaid surface was giving very little grip, almost like a green track and they hoped to run longer on their hard compound. It back fired in the race as they managed only a handful laps more and the pace wasn't that great. Thats about all there was to it, much like Silverstone where the Ferrari strategy didnt work. How anyone can assume from one race that a certain team is struggling on a specific tire compound, to the extent that they are scared of using it, i do not understand.
Another thing to bear in mind is, how many of the front runners this year have started the race on the slower compound available at any given race? No deduction can be drawn from Silverstone because only two drivers, Alonso and Hamilton started on hards. Hamilton went longer on his first stint but finished 8th. It's not always about how long you go on a set of tires but your speed and position relative to others and where you feed out after making your stop. There are many permutations.
genius83
Mine
I never shy away from admitting that I am a Vettel fan but I have always said that don't paint me as a fan who turns a blind eye against everything Vettel does. Renault's boss was Flavio who has won 2 titles previously as Benetton Boss, so he knows when to do what and so he was acting proactively rather then reactively. RedBull does not have that chance and thatswhy I was more easily following them then I had follow Alonso.
Okay, I have a question for you why you had follow Alonso and Renault in 2005-2006, is it because you are following the driver who was about to beat the best driver/team combination, if yes then why are you following Alonso and Ferrari now because it must means you think RedBull/Vettel is the best driver/team combination in the current season.
Your's
Let me get this right. You followed Red Bull because they have a crap boss? and didn't follow Renault because their boss was good, as you say in your post he was proactive. You followed Red Bull out of pity.
Hey, it's your choice man. You can like/dislike any team/driver you want but that post makes no sense. But in 2004-2005-2006 you elected to follow a successful team and driver who had won many titles plus in 2005 Red Bull were only starting and there was no Vettel so i fail to understand your point
Yes exactly. How does that make sense? One line you say Renault's boss was successful and Red Bull didn't have that so it was easy for me to follow, meaning you followed the less successful team boss. Next line, i followed Ferrari in 2005-2006 whenever, so did they not have a very successful team boss? I fail to understand this criteria but never mind, we'll pass that one.
Sir, a team is a group of people working together to bring success, it has nothing to do with the success of individual before joining that team, so even if RedBull with all its money can bring each and every best person of their respective field and still can't make a team then what purpose their investment means. If I remember correctly, that's the same thing BMW and Toyota did and it did not bring them any success. On the other hand we have example of Brawn GP which takes over Honda's operation wins the title and sells the team to Mercedes.
A group of people brought together to bring success but it has nothing to do with the success of an individual before joining that team??
Has it not occurred to you that any individual when hired and especially in the cut throat world of Formula 1 must have great credentials for a team who wants to run at the front. And to have those credentials they must have achieved something in the form of being successful. Past success is everything.
Two, BMW never spent anywhere near the kind of money you think they spent. Sorry but that's one more wrong assumption. Toyota did of course. Looking at them and Honda, what do you see as the one bring difference? To me a certain Adrian Newey stands out before anyone else. I think it would be safe to say that Red Bull hired him because of his track record, his reputation, his past success? Past success, which you say has nothing to do with anything. In my world, you only become part of either a) a successful operation and b) one that wants to be successful; if you have had success in the past. Only then you get to join something and with other people try to achieve more.
I can't tell what you are trying to imply by giving Brawn's example.
And in 2010 it was a 3 horse race and not 4 Hamilton's chance of winning the title depends on Alonso's retirement and Vettel's finishing 3rd or below after Webber botched his own race at the start. McLaren don't have the pace against RedBull that weekend.
And you think that could not happen?
Mclaren was easily the second fastest car for most of that season. At Abu Dhabi, Vettel's pole lap was a 1m 39.394s. Hamilton was second with 1m 39.425s. That looks pretty close:S Even Button, who isn't that good a qualifier was fourth on the grid. Sounds like a team which had pretty good pace I'd say with Hamilton taking the fastest lap of the race and Mr Button second fastest lap.