Discussion:
James Allen - How Ferrari’s battle plan fell apart
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2018-09-05 14:44:49 UTC
Permalink
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
Permalink
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.
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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.
Post by geoff
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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
Permalink
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by M2T
Post by a425couple
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'
Post by M2T
 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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by M2T
Post by a425couple
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.
'By: James Allen'
Post by M2T
 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
Permalink
Post by DumbedDownUSA
Post by Alan Baker
Post by M2T
Post by a425couple
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.
'By: James Allen'
Post by M2T
 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?
Post by DumbedDownUSA
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
Permalink
Post by DumbedDownUSA
You are posting like crazy and
making a complete dick of yourself every time.
lol
M2T
2018-09-05 22:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by M2T
Post by a425couple
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.
'By: James Allen'
Post by M2T
  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
Permalink
Post by M2T
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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.
Post by ~misfit~
(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.
Post by ~misfit~
Interesting article but (to me at least) only in the way it underlines how
even 'respected' journalists (also) have biases.
But not you!
Post by ~misfit~
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
so what do I know.
Fuck all, it seems.
Alan Baker
2018-09-10 00:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ~misfit~
Post by keithr0
Post by ~misfit~
Post by M2T
Post by ~misfit~
Post by a425couple
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
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Justify yourself.
Show SOMETHING beyond "he said something I disagree with so he must be
biased".
x2

Loading...