Discussion:
James Allen - How Ferrari’s battle plan fell apart
Add Reply
a425couple
2018-09-05 14:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
from
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/

(This seems to me to be a particularly accurate analysis.
It is best viewed on-line to see the charts.)

Strategy Report: How Ferrari’s battle plan fell apart
James Allen

James Allen analyses the Italian Grand Prix, one of the best races for
years, with the right mix of super high speeds, close racing, emotion
and strategy intrigue which kept the outcome in doubt until the final laps.

That Mercedes won the race, against the odds, on Ferrari’s home soil is
a major blow for the Scuderia that had the best car at Monza and locked
out the front row.

To turn that position into a second and a fourth is a major
disappointment. Pundits have pointed to their lack of soft tyres in the
Pirelli selection for Monza and homework on them, as well as the timing
of pit stops as the main reasons, but neither were particularly an issue.

So how did it happen and what part did Ferrari’s strategy play in the
defeat?

Ferrari: team orders or not?

There is a very human dimension to the drama at Monza, with Kimi
Raikkonen towards the end of his career and potentially to be replaced
by Charles Leclerc next season, understandably wanting one last race
victory.

Under normal circumstances that would not be a consideration in a tight
championship battle between Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton.

All season long – in fact for several seasons – Raikkonen has been put
to work on sub-optimal strategies, pulling Mercedes cars into the pits
early or challenging them to compromise their race strategies, to help
Vettel’s chances.

The last time he was on pole position, in Monaco last year, Ferrari
managed to elegantly move Vettel ahead in the race and Raikkonen had his
contract renewed. Here the circumstances were different; he knew that
the wishes of the late chairman Sergio Marchionne were for Leclerc to
replace him and that it is only a matter of time before that is
communicated.

Raikkonen took an unexpected pole on Saturday as Vettel was fed out late
on to the track for the decisive run in Q3 and effectively lost the
chance to pick up a slipstream from Hamilton, but gave one to Raikkonen.
So the Finn saw his chance for a final win in front of the tifosi and
his young family.

If you are serious about trying to win a championship against an
adversary like Hamilton, who is in the form of his career, then this
shouldn’t be a consideration. There are always ways and means to achieve
desired outcomes, but only when controlling the race from a position of
strength.

Vettel, however, didn’t feel that support and was in a difficult spot;
he didn’t just have Hamilton behind him to consider at the start, but
Raikkonen too and the lead he should have had after qualifying.

The danger from Hamilton was clear; he would be very aggressive at the
start as it was his best shot given that the Mercedes had been a couple
of tenths slower all weekend.

The mistake Vettel made – or felt forced to make by the circumstances –
was in trying to get the lead on the opening lap from Raikkonen, rather
than focussing on keeping Hamilton behind and crossing the line 1-2 at
the end of the lap to control the race.

Vettel tried to pass his teammate on a sub-optimal line into the second
chicane and Hamilton saw his chance, forcing his car into the gap on the
outside and the pair touched, sending Vettel spinning down to 18th place.

This is big-picture strategy, the canvas on which the detailed race
strategy decisions about tyre degradation and timing of pit stops is
later painted. If Raikkonen has a clause in his contract saying that
there will be no team orders in the event of a pole position, as
suggested, then that is something that could be dealt with later once
control of the race had been established. Many a tough negotiation has
gone on via team radio down the years.

By risking everything at the start, the whole battle plan fell apart.

Switching focus to Raikkonen
So now Ferrari had to focus on making sure Raikkonen won the race. In
Vettel’s hands the Ferrari would have eased away from the Mercedes, as
in Spa and Silverstone and taken the win.

Raikkonen couldn’t shake Hamilton off and this led to the strategy
mistake that cost him the race.

It was not the fact that Ferrari had brought only one additional set of
soft tyres – apart from the set each driver had for the race. There was
no issue there; they did the right thing working on the supersoft, the
more tricky tyre to understand and master in limited Friday practice
running due to rain. It was more important to optimise performance on
that tyre for qualifying and the optimum first stint of the race.

Nor was the mistake in bringing Raikkonen in first, on Lap 21. This was
exactly the right move as to do the reverse would have led to an
undercut from his opponent, given how close Hamilton was.

The mistake was the degree and length of time to which Raikkonen was
asked to push on the new set of soft tyres after his pit stop. By going
hard for five or six laps, he damaged the tyres and that opened up the
chance for Hamilton to exploit that weakness later in the race to
overtake for the win.

Mercedes told Hamilton to stay out when Raikkonen stopped and to push
hard. His lap time was strong, but rather than pit him, they extended
his stint a lap at a time as the tyres were holding up. He kept this up
to the end of Lap 28.

And all the time Hamilton was pushing to the limit on tyres that would
soon be obsolete, Raikkonen was being told to push on new tyres he would
need to the end of the race.

This was the strategic mistake; Raikkonen build a larger net lead than
he would need – especially as Mercedes had Bottas in play up ahead who
would inevitably stay out and hold Raikkonen up – and in doing so he
caused a rear blister that would ultimately cost performance and the
race win.

Bottas comes into play

In the Belgian GP strategy report we alluded to the fact that from this
point onwards the second drivers would have a decisive role to play in
the outcome of the championship – and hinted that Bottas would now be
used to help Hamilton. His contract had just been renewed, so he knew
exactly where he stood.

This is what happened in Monza, as Bottas was left out on track a long
time on the supersoft tyres. He was fighting with Verstappen for a
podium, but he also could play a part in holding Raikkonen as the older
Finn caught the younger one after the stop.

Bottas wasn’t exaggerating and driving slower than he could have;
indeed, he set a personal best lap time during this phase, with a
1m23.8s on Lap 31, but Raikkonen could have gone muchfaster. Hamilton
was doing 1m22.1s and Raikkonen could have been on that pace too.

On Lap 33, Bottas began to make some moves in corners that compromised
Raikkonen and the lap time dropped to 1m24.7s as Mercedes caught the
Ferrari in a pincer.

With Raikkonen now struggling with his tyres, Hamilton duly wrested the
lead with just nine laps to go and Ferrari who started the day first and
second, ended it second and fourth all as result of strategy, both big
picture and detailed.

This is how championships are won.

The UBS Race Strategy Report is written by James Allen with input and
data from several F1 team strategists and from Pirelli.

Race History Chart

Kindly provided by Williams Martini Racing, click to enlarge

The number of laps is on the horizontal axis; the gap behind the leader
is on the vertical axis.

A positive sign is an upward curve as the fuel load burns off. A
negative sign is the slope declining as the tyre degradation kicks in.

Look at Raikkonen’s push laps around Lap 21-27, this is when the damage
was done. Also compare his pace behind Bottas around laps 31-34 to
Hamilton’s pace as he catches them.

Tyre Usage Chart
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 17:35:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 7:44 AM, a425couple wrote:

Thanks, sir!

This is exactly what I was saying:

Vettel's mistake was strategic.

As nice as it would have been to have been in the lead with Raikkonen as
a blocker, it would have been nearly as good to wait for a couple of the
slipstream opportunities to see if you could make the pass more easily,
and failing that, having Raikkonen ahead of Hamilton while you wait for
Lewis's tires to go off (yourself able to hang back a little to preserve
your own) would be very nearly as good.

There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there, but
using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just stupid. It was
a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a superior drive.

> from
> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>
>
> (This seems to me to be a particularly accurate analysis.
> It is best viewed on-line to see the charts.)
>
> Strategy Report: How Ferrari’s battle plan fell apart
> James Allen
>
> James Allen analyses the Italian Grand Prix, one of the best races for
> years, with the right mix of super high speeds, close racing, emotion
> and strategy intrigue which kept the outcome in doubt until the final laps.
>
> That Mercedes won the race, against the odds, on Ferrari’s home soil is
> a major blow for the Scuderia that had the best car at Monza and locked
> out the front row.
>
> To turn that position into a second and a fourth is a major
> disappointment. Pundits have pointed to their lack of soft tyres in the
> Pirelli selection for Monza and homework on them, as well as the timing
> of pit stops as the main reasons, but neither were particularly an issue.
>
> So how did it happen and what part did Ferrari’s strategy play in the
> defeat?
>
> Ferrari: team orders or not?
>
> There is a very human dimension to the drama at Monza, with Kimi
> Raikkonen towards the end of his career and potentially to be replaced
> by Charles Leclerc next season, understandably wanting one last race
> victory.
>
> Under normal circumstances that would not be a consideration in a tight
> championship battle between Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton.
>
> All season long – in fact for several seasons – Raikkonen has been put
> to work on sub-optimal strategies, pulling Mercedes cars into the pits
> early or challenging them to compromise their race strategies, to help
> Vettel’s chances.
>
> The last time he was on pole position, in Monaco last year, Ferrari
> managed to elegantly move Vettel ahead in the race and Raikkonen had his
> contract renewed. Here the circumstances were different; he knew that
> the wishes of the late chairman Sergio Marchionne were for Leclerc to
> replace him and that it is only a matter of time before that is
> communicated.
>
> Raikkonen took an unexpected pole on Saturday as Vettel was fed out late
> on to the track for the decisive run in Q3 and effectively lost the
> chance to pick up a slipstream from Hamilton, but gave one to Raikkonen.
> So the Finn saw his chance for a final win in front of the tifosi and
> his young family.
>
> If you are serious about trying to win a championship against an
> adversary like Hamilton, who is in the form of his career, then this
> shouldn’t be a consideration. There are always ways and means to achieve
> desired outcomes, but only when controlling the race from a position of
> strength.
>
> Vettel, however, didn’t feel that support and was in a difficult spot;
> he didn’t just have Hamilton behind him to consider at the start, but
> Raikkonen too and the lead he should have had after qualifying.
>
> The danger from Hamilton was clear; he would be very aggressive at the
> start as it was his best shot given that the Mercedes had been a couple
> of tenths slower all weekend.
>
> The mistake Vettel made – or felt forced to make by the circumstances –
> was in trying to get the lead on the opening lap from Raikkonen, rather
> than focussing on keeping Hamilton behind and crossing the line 1-2 at
> the end of the lap to control the race.
>
> Vettel tried to pass his teammate on a sub-optimal line into the second
> chicane and Hamilton saw his chance, forcing his car into the gap on the
> outside and the pair touched, sending Vettel spinning down to 18th place.
>
> This is big-picture strategy, the canvas on which the detailed race
> strategy decisions about tyre degradation and timing of pit stops is
> later painted. If Raikkonen has a clause in his contract saying that
> there will be no team orders in the event of a pole position, as
> suggested, then that is something that could be dealt with later once
> control of the race had been established. Many a tough negotiation has
> gone on via team radio down the years.
>
> By risking everything at the start, the whole battle plan fell apart.
>
> Switching focus to Raikkonen
> So now Ferrari had to focus on making sure Raikkonen won the race. In
> Vettel’s hands the Ferrari would have eased away from the Mercedes, as
> in Spa and Silverstone and taken the win.
>
> Raikkonen couldn’t shake Hamilton off and this led to the strategy
> mistake that cost him the race.
>
> It was not the fact that Ferrari had brought only one additional set of
> soft tyres – apart from the set each driver had for the race. There was
> no issue there; they did the right thing working on the supersoft, the
> more tricky tyre to understand and master in limited Friday practice
> running due to rain. It was more important to optimise performance on
> that tyre for qualifying and the optimum first stint of the race.
>
> Nor was the mistake in bringing Raikkonen in first, on Lap 21. This was
> exactly the right move as to do the reverse would have led to an
> undercut from his opponent, given how close Hamilton was.
>
> The mistake was the degree and length of time to which Raikkonen was
> asked to push on the new set of soft tyres after his pit stop. By going
> hard for five or six laps, he damaged the tyres and that opened up the
> chance for Hamilton to exploit that weakness later in the race to
> overtake for the win.
>
> Mercedes told Hamilton to stay out when Raikkonen stopped and to push
> hard. His lap time was strong, but rather than pit him, they extended
> his stint a lap at a time as the tyres were holding up. He kept this up
> to the end of Lap 28.
>
> And all the time Hamilton was pushing to the limit on tyres that would
> soon be obsolete, Raikkonen was being told to push on new tyres he would
> need to the end of the race.
>
> This was the strategic mistake; Raikkonen build a larger net lead than
> he would need – especially as Mercedes had Bottas in play up ahead who
> would inevitably stay out and hold Raikkonen up – and in doing so he
> caused a rear blister that would ultimately cost performance and the
> race win.
>
> Bottas comes into play
>
> In the Belgian GP strategy report we alluded to the fact that from this
> point onwards the second drivers would have a decisive role to play in
> the outcome of the championship – and hinted that Bottas would now be
> used to help Hamilton. His contract had just been renewed, so he knew
> exactly where he stood.
>
> This is what happened in Monza, as Bottas was left out on track a long
> time on the supersoft tyres. He was fighting with Verstappen for a
> podium, but he also could play a part in holding Raikkonen as the older
> Finn caught the younger one after the stop.
>
> Bottas wasn’t exaggerating and driving slower than he could have;
> indeed, he set a personal best lap time during this phase, with a
> 1m23.8s on Lap 31, but Raikkonen could have gone muchfaster. Hamilton
> was doing 1m22.1s and Raikkonen could have been on that pace too.
>
> On Lap 33, Bottas began to make some moves in corners that compromised
> Raikkonen and the lap time dropped to 1m24.7s as Mercedes caught the
> Ferrari in a pincer.
>
> With Raikkonen now struggling with his tyres, Hamilton duly wrested the
> lead with just nine laps to go and Ferrari who started the day first and
> second, ended it second and fourth all as result of strategy, both big
> picture and detailed.
>
> This is how championships are won.
>
> The UBS Race Strategy Report is written by James Allen with input and
> data from several F1 team strategists and from Pirelli.
>
> Race History Chart
>
> Kindly provided by Williams Martini Racing, click to enlarge
>
> The number of laps is on the horizontal axis; the gap behind the leader
> is on the vertical axis.
>
> A positive sign is an upward curve as the fuel load burns off. A
> negative sign is the slope declining as the tyre degradation kicks in.
>
> Look at Raikkonen’s push laps around Lap 21-27, this is when the damage
> was done. Also compare his pace behind Bottas around laps 31-34 to
> Hamilton’s pace as he catches them.
>
> Tyre Usage Chart
>
geoff
2018-09-05 20:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:

>
> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there, but
> using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just stupid. It was
> a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a superior drive.
>

HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all there is
BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so must be 'up there'.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 20:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 1:24 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>
>> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there, but
>> using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just stupid. It
>> was a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a superior drive.
>>
>
> HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all there is
> BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so must be 'up
> there'.

Never claimed anything of the kind, Geoff...

...but what actual racing have you done?

:-)
geoff
2018-09-05 20:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 8:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 1:24 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there,
>>> but using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just stupid.
>>> It was a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a superior
>>> drive.
>>>
>>
>> HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all there
>> is BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so must be
>> 'up there'.
>
> Never claimed anything of the kind, Geoff...
>
> ...but what actual racing have you done?
>
> :-)

None (apart from recreational karting), so I can have no informed opinion.

Just as well I'm not on a jury for a murder trial, because I've never
murdered anybody either.


geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 20:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 1:38 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 8:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 1:24 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there,
>>>> but using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just stupid.
>>>> It was a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a superior
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all there
>>> is BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so must be
>>> 'up there'.
>>
>> Never claimed anything of the kind, Geoff...
>>
>> ...but what actual racing have you done?
>>
>> :-)
>
> None (apart from recreational karting), so I can have no informed opinion.

Yeah... ...I could tell.

>
> Just as well I'm not on a jury for a murder trial, because I've never
> murdered anybody either.

False equivalence.
~misfit~
2018-09-06 03:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> On 6/09/2018 8:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-05 1:24 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there,
>>>> but using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just
>>>> stupid. It was a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a
>>>> superior drive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all
>>> there is BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so
>>> must be 'up there'.
>>
>> Never claimed anything of the kind, Geoff...
>>
>> ...but what actual racing have you done?
>>
>> :-)
>
> None (apart from recreational karting), so I can have no informed
> opinion.
> Just as well I'm not on a jury for a murder trial, because I've never
> murdered anybody either.

Ohh nice burn!
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Alan Baker
2018-09-06 03:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 8:05 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
>> On 6/09/2018 8:28 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-05 1:24 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 6/09/2018 5:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no doubt that Lewis is one of the best drivers out there,
>>>>> but using this victory as "proof" of his preeminence is just
>>>>> stupid. It was a team strategy that resulted in the victory, not a
>>>>> superior drive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HAM certainly a great driver, but preeminent no way - after all
>>>> there is BAK to be taken into account, who knows more than ROS so
>>>> must be 'up there'.
>>>
>>> Never claimed anything of the kind, Geoff...
>>>
>>> ...but what actual racing have you done?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> None (apart from recreational karting), so I can have no informed
>> opinion.
>> Just as well I'm not on a jury for a murder trial, because I've never
>> murdered anybody either.
>
> Ohh nice burn!
>

You're easily impressed...
M2T
2018-09-05 19:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
> from
> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>
>

< A link will do>


James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was sold.
The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many are
rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 19:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 12:36 PM, M2T wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
>> from
>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>
>>
>
> < A link will do>
>
>
> James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was sold.

And yet this one is clearly bylined:

'By: James Allen'

>  The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many are
> rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.

Ad hominem rather than any actual factually based argument.
DumbedDownUSA
2018-09-05 21:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Alan Baker wrote:

> On 2018-09-05 12:36 PM, M2T wrote:
> > On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
> > > from
> > > https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fe
> > > ll-apart/3171078/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > < A link will do>
> >
> >
> > James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was
> > sold.
>
> And yet this one is clearly bylined:
>
> 'By: James Allen'
>
> >  The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many
> > are rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.
>
> Ad hominem rather than any actual factually based argument.

Ad hominen? Like some hobbyist claiming superior knowledge without
being able to demonstrate any such knowledge and just calling others
idiots.

Get yourself a dose of self awareness. You are posting like crazy and
making a complete dick of yourself every time.

--
Trump averages eight falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Alan Baker
2018-09-05 21:35:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 2:02 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-05 12:36 PM, M2T wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
>>>> from
>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fe
>>>> ll-apart/3171078/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> < A link will do>
>>>
>>>
>>> James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was
>>> sold.
>>
>> And yet this one is clearly bylined:
>>
>> 'By: James Allen'
>>
>>>  The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many
>>> are rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.
>>
>> Ad hominem rather than any actual factually based argument.
>
> Ad hominen? Like some hobbyist claiming superior knowledge without
> being able to demonstrate any such knowledge and just calling others
> idiots.

Sorry, but are you claiming that someone who regularly races open wheel
cars and is a race driving instructor wouldn't have superior knowledge
compared to someone who has admitted that his only experience is
recreational go-karts?

Seriously?

>
> Get yourself a dose of self awareness. You are posting like crazy and
> making a complete dick of yourself every time.
>

Opinions vary. :-)

Turned out I was right about what precisely caused Vettel to spin and
not Hamilton, wasn't I?

And James Allen's comments about this being a strategic error, they
support the comment I made yesterday about that very thing.

:-)
t***@gmail.com
2018-09-06 00:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:02:19 PM UTC-6, DumbedDownUSA wrote:

> You are posting like crazy and
> making a complete dick of yourself every time.

lol
M2T
2018-09-05 22:30:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/09/2018 20:50, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 12:36 PM, M2T wrote:
>> On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
>>> from
>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> < A link will do>
>>
>>
>> James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was sold.
>
> And yet this one is clearly bylined:
>
> 'By: James Allen'
>
>>   The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many are
>> rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.
>
> Ad hominem rather than any actual factually based argument.


YFI

Try reading what I wrote.
geoff
2018-09-05 20:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/09/2018 7:36 AM, M2T wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 15:44, a425couple wrote:
>> from
>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>
>>
>
> < A link will do>
>
>
> James Allen seldom writes the articles on 'his' site, since it was sold.
>  The majority of the articles are copies from the main site. Many are
> rubbish, viz comparing MotoGP braking to that of F1.
>
>
>

Viz has great motorsport articles.

geoff
~misfit~
2018-09-06 03:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
> from
> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/

I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy (and
apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view. He claims mistakes
(or sub-optimal driving in Kimi's case) from both Ferrari drivers - but not
the team who, going by that were perfect. In fact the only thing that could
be seen as contributary from Ferrari is attributed to the wishes of
Marchionne that if Kimi got pole he could race for the win (causing Vettel
to over-drive into Hamilton due to needing to pass Kimi on-track) - and
who's going to criticise wanting to honour a dead man? Gosh Ferrari are
WONDERFUL!!!111!

IMO it's just observation with a different slant (and data!!), nothing new
other than the PoV of the (biased) writer. He doesn't consider that Mercedes
have been beaten on outright speed lately for the first time in the hybrid
era. That they might have come into the race meeting being sure they'd have
less speed / worse track position and would hence need to follow closely so
they set up their car so that it could do just that rather than going for
outright speed (and in doing so might actually have found a sweet-spot they
didn't realise the car was capable of).

"In Vettel's hands the Ferrari would have eased away from the Mercedes ....
Raikkonen couldn't shake Hamilton off and this led to the strategy mistake
that cost him the race."

Not a mention of the fact that, for the first time in recent years the
Mercedes was, unusually, actually able to follow a Ferrari closely lap after
lap *and* be gentle on it's tyres. Ignoring that fact negates his claim that
if Vettel were in front he'd romp off into the sunset.

Interesting article but (to me at least) only in the way it underlines how
even 'respected' journalists (also) have biases.

I believe that what the most likely scenario and the biggest story of the
race is that it seems Ferrari and Mercedes swapped set-up philosophies. For
the first time in recent years Ferrari belived they had the fastest car so
set up more to lead rather than handle following and passing well.. Mercedes
vice-versa. *That's* the story of Monza 2018 for me but I only have this
here soapbox in rasf1 and nobdy else(where) seems to be making this point.
;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Alan Baker
2018-09-06 04:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-05 8:38 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>> from
>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>
> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy (and
> apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view. He claims mistakes

Of course you have...

...it couldn't just be that he might know a LITTLE more about F1 than you.

Anything but that.

> (or sub-optimal driving in Kimi's case) from both Ferrari drivers - but not
> the team who, going by that were perfect. In fact the only thing that could
> be seen as contributary from Ferrari is attributed to the wishes of
> Marchionne that if Kimi got pole he could race for the win (causing Vettel
> to over-drive into Hamilton due to needing to pass Kimi on-track) - and
> who's going to criticise wanting to honour a dead man? Gosh Ferrari are
> WONDERFUL!!!111!
>
> IMO it's just observation with a different slant (and data!!), nothing new
> other than the PoV of the (biased) writer. He doesn't consider that Mercedes
> have been beaten on outright speed lately for the first time in the hybrid
> era. That they might have come into the race meeting being sure they'd have
> less speed / worse track position and would hence need to follow closely so
> they set up their car so that it could do just that rather than going for
> outright speed (and in doing so might actually have found a sweet-spot they
> didn't realise the car was capable of).
>
> "In Vettel's hands the Ferrari would have eased away from the Mercedes ....
> Raikkonen couldn't shake Hamilton off and this led to the strategy mistake
> that cost him the race."
>
> Not a mention of the fact that, for the first time in recent years the
> Mercedes was, unusually, actually able to follow a Ferrari closely lap after
> lap *and* be gentle on it's tyres. Ignoring that fact negates his claim that
> if Vettel were in front he'd romp off into the sunset.

Well there is the little matter of just how quickly Raikkonen was able
to catch Hamilton after his pit stop. Admittedly, on newer tires, but
weren't you just going on about how well the Mercedes was preserving its
tires... ...and they were the supersofts to Kimi's softs.

>
> Interesting article but (to me at least) only in the way it underlines how
> even 'respected' journalists (also) have biases.

But not you!

>
> I believe that what the most likely scenario and the biggest story of the
> race is that it seems Ferrari and Mercedes swapped set-up philosophies. For
> the first time in recent years Ferrari belived they had the fastest car so
> set up more to lead rather than handle following and passing well.. Mercedes
> vice-versa. *That's* the story of Monza 2018 for me but I only have this
> here soapbox in rasf1 and nobdy else(where) seems to be making this point.
> ;)

Of course, you have no actual facts upon which to support your belief...

...but don't let that stop you!
M2T
2018-09-06 06:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>> from
>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>
> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy (and
> apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.


His son is called Enzo...
~misfit~
2018-09-07 03:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>> from
>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>
>
> His son is called Enzo...

LOL really? If so that's insane!

My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can anyone read
anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
geoff
2018-09-07 04:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/09/2018 3:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>> from
>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>
>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>
>>
>> His son is called Enzo...
>
> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>
> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can anyone read
> anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
> just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>


Wonder if Edmund has a son called Ferdinand ;- )

geoff
M2T
2018-09-07 07:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/2018 05:02, geoff wrote:
> On 7/09/2018 3:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>> from
>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>>>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>
>>>
>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>
>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>
>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>> anyone read
>> anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
>> just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>
>
>
> Wonder if Edmund has a son called Ferdinand  ;- )
>

Is he a fan of Abba ?
M2T
2018-09-07 07:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/2018 04:36, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>> from
>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>
>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>
>>
>> His son is called Enzo...
>
> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>
> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can anyone read
> anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
> just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>

It's been mentioned on here before. He must have been choking every
time Vettel and the red team have fucked up these last couple of seasons.
keithr0
2018-09-07 07:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>> from
>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>
>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>
>>
>> His son is called Enzo...
>
> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>
> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can anyone read
> anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
> just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>
As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their pet
hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
geoff
2018-09-07 11:59:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/09/2018 7:30 PM, keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>> from
>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan boy
>>>> (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>
>>>
>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>
>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>
>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>> anyone read
>> anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a Ferrari bias from
>> just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>
> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their pet
> hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.


Yeah , but it's the degree to which the bias can be rationalised that is
'the thing'.

geoff
~misfit~
2018-09-08 23:40:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>> from
>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>
>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>
>>>
>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>
>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>
>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>
> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.

I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the posters here
and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People unaware
of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate depiction
of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a Ferrari fan.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Alan Baker
2018-09-09 17:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>
>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>
>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>
>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>
>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>
> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the posters here
> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People unaware
> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate depiction
> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a Ferrari fan.
>

Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal preference
he might have from what he writes.
geoff
2018-09-09 21:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>
>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>
>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>>
>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>
>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the posters here
>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People
>> unaware
>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>> depiction
>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a Ferrari
>> fan.
>>
>
> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal preference
> he might have from what he writes.

Seemingly not ...

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-09 22:05:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-09 2:20 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>>
>>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>>>
>>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>>
>>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the posters
>>> here
>>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People
>>> unaware
>>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>>> depiction
>>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a
>>> Ferrari fan.
>>>
>>
>> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal
>> preference he might have from what he writes.
>
> Seemingly not ...
>
> geoff

And how do you know that?
geoff
2018-09-10 00:14:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/09/2018 10:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-09 2:20 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>>>>
>>>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>>>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the posters
>>>> here
>>>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People
>>>> unaware
>>>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>>>> depiction
>>>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a
>>>> Ferrari fan.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal
>>> preference he might have from what he writes.
>>
>> Seemingly not ...
>>
>> geoff
>
> And how do you know that?

Reading comprehension. But I'm not a speed-racer so what do I know.

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2018-09-10 00:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

> so what do I know.

Fuck all, it seems.
Alan Baker
2018-09-10 00:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-09 5:14 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 10:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-09 2:20 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>>>>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the
>>>>> posters here
>>>>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though. People
>>>>> unaware
>>>>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>>>>> depiction
>>>>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a
>>>>> Ferrari fan.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal
>>>> preference he might have from what he writes.
>>>
>>> Seemingly not ...
>>>
>>> geoff
>>
>> And how do you know that?
>
> Reading comprehension. But I'm not a speed-racer so what do I know.

Let's see what passes for your reasoning on this.

I'll bet you it's completely circular and starts with your thinking
"anything he says positive about Ferrari proves he's biased".

:-)
geoff
2018-09-10 00:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/09/2018 12:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2018-09-09 5:14 PM, geoff wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 10:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-09 2:20 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>>>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>>>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes head>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and their
>>>>>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the
>>>>>> posters here
>>>>>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though.
>>>>>> People unaware
>>>>>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>>>>>> depiction
>>>>>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a
>>>>>> Ferrari fan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal
>>>>> preference he might have from what he writes.
>>>>
>>>> Seemingly not ...
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> And how do you know that?
>>
>> Reading comprehension. But I'm not a speed-racer so what do I know.
>
> Let's see what passes for your reasoning on this.
>
> I'll bet you it's completely circular and starts with your thinking
> "anything he says positive about Ferrari proves he's biased".
>
> :-)


I give up, you win.

geoff
Alan Baker
2018-09-10 00:42:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-09 5:36 PM, geoff wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 12:32 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2018-09-09 5:14 PM, geoff wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 10:05 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> On 2018-09-09 2:20 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 5:47 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-09-08 4:40 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2018 1:36 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet M2T wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 04:38, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Once upon a time on usenet a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/strategy-ferrari-battle-plan-fell-apart/3171078/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've come to the conclusion that Allen is a bit of a Ferrari fan
>>>>>>>>>>> boy (and apologist). Reading that article hasn't changed my
>>>>>>>>>>> view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His son is called Enzo...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL really? If so that's insane!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My god. Yep, took a while but I just found confirmation. How can
>>>>>>>>> anyone read anything he wrtes and think it unbiased? I picked up a
>>>>>>>>> Ferrari bias from just reading a few of his articles. <shakes
>>>>>>>>> head>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As is obvious around here, everybody has their favourites, and
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> pet hates, so it follows that everybody is biased in some way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there's a difference between casual fans such as the
>>>>>>> posters here
>>>>>>> and a professional regularly-published F1 journalist though.
>>>>>>> People unaware
>>>>>>> of his bent might read his articles thinking they're an accurate
>>>>>>> depiction
>>>>>>> of the world of F1 rather than being written from the PoV of a
>>>>>>> Ferrari fan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps he's a professional who can separate any personal
>>>>>> preference he might have from what he writes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seemingly not ...
>>>>>
>>>>> geoff
>>>>
>>>> And how do you know that?
>>>
>>> Reading comprehension. But I'm not a speed-racer so what do I know.
>>
>> Let's see what passes for your reasoning on this.
>>
>> I'll bet you it's completely circular and starts with your thinking
>> "anything he says positive about Ferrari proves he's biased".
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> I give up, you win.

No, seriously:

Justify yourself.

Show SOMETHING beyond "he said something I disagree with so he must be
biased".
t***@gmail.com
2018-09-10 05:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 6:42:04 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> No, seriously:
>
> Justify yourself.
>
> Show SOMETHING beyond "he said something I disagree with so he must be
> biased".

x2
Loading...