Not really. Who looks at the points of two races if you have a comparable track record going back years?
More points means more points, pretty simple really. Last year doesn't mean squat in 2013. (And obviously you know I am one of the biggest Alonso supporters on here so I don't think Massa should be getting the better position)
If that were true then how come an Alonso gets paid way more than a Sutil? In fact, why even bother having an Alonso or a Vettel in the car. Just put Bianchi or Pic in there. Would be way cheaper.
Logic fail. No matter how hard you try to change the subject (WTF does Alonso's salary have to do with anything? Massa got preferential treatment in '08 when he was beating Kimi and Kimi was making way more $$$), you agreed with the argument that the driver with more points should get preferential treatment. tifosi12: The driver with more points should get preferential treatment Wolfgang5150: Massa currently has more points than Alonso tifosi12: Err...uh...well...Alonso makes more money...err...ok the Red Bull driver that has more points should get preferential treatment but its needs to be different at Ferrari! I think I get it now.
Apparently not: Drivers are judged and valued (hence the salary argument) based on their past performance. And that doesn't just go back to the current season but the previous as well, particularly if the current season is only two races old. If you are in a situation where you have F1 rookies together for the first time in a team, there you would be forced to go by the little data point you have. But if you have actually comparable data (same drivers in the same car for several years) like in the case with RB and Ferrari, then it'd be silly to only go by the two races run so far. Nobody does that, which is why top drivers are being valued the most and are getting the most bucks on average.
Actually, the more points thing sort of makes sense of you're talking cumulative points. I'll let Andreas say that's what he meant all along but if you add up all of Alonso's points vs. all of Massas, it holds up well (to Vettel/Webber too, and Hamilton/Rosberg).
It really shouldn't be that hard a concept to grasp (not saying you have difficulties with but obviously some others): a) If you have two drivers of equal speed you let them duke it out till about the midseason point, then you look who is ahead in points and give him the nod. b) If you have two drivers of very different strength then you give the #1 guy the nod right from the beginning of the season. You would only change direction if your #1 guy was injured enough not to compete for the title this year anymore. Situation a) was for instance Senna/Prost or Berger/Alesi. b) is the current RB, Ferrari and MB team. The exception I mentioned would have been Ferrari in 1999.
Problem with your argument is, Ferrari doesn't operate like that. Case in point, 2008. Massa became the new #1 after he began to smoke Kimi...and Kimi had won a WDC the year prior, no less. Anyway, like I said earlier, Alonso needs to get any preferential treatment Ferrari can offer, so we're on the same page. I was just pointing out that your "simple concept" of the driver that has the most points getting preferential treatment isn't so simple when you apply it to something other than what was fitting your argument at the time (i.e. Ferrari). If you're talking cumulative points you should say that, because when someone hears "points" they think of the current standings.
My apologies. Going forward I will consult with my lawyer first to make sure my true sentiments get across as intended.
I'm gone for a few days and it's madness here isn't it. Kidding. Working a lot lately, haven't been able to keep up as much as I'd like. I acquired some information of interest while away which is quite interesting to the topic of Nico/Lewis and Lauda's position of them not being allowed to have their little battle royal. The obvious -which I'm sure everyone is aware by now- is that both cars were fueled in anticipation of rain thus slightly under-fueled. According to Toto Wolf, Lewis and Nico both were first advised to be mindful of fuel consumption on lap 25. Lewis' driving style is inherently more fuel hungry than that of Nico's which was why Lewis was sent into 'extreme fuel saving' mode towards the end of the race. Nico, per Toto and Lewis now more openly stating this, remained to have quicker pace throughout the various stints even whilst both were under orders to be mindful of fuel useage. . I look forward to see where this is by Spa. Toto has done an excellent job remaining neutral over this situation, but the consensus at MB seems to be they are glad they're not in Red Bull's mess of a position with their drivers. Then again, there is no such thing as bad publicity now is there, so perhaps RB are just eating this situation up? Lauda piping up and saying something is just his political move to keep the spotlight not completely on Red Bull and nothing more IMO. I'm sure Lauda saying something was discussed and whitewashed otherwise he would have come out and said something quite a bit sooner. I've had an epiphany regarding drivers and their roles in modern F1. There's no so much of a 'dirty driver' these days as Vettel is being so branded, only stupid and greedy drivers which Vettel certainly is. F1 is a technical exercise above all else and the driver is a pawn in a game the engineers are playing with one another. The driver's job is to bring the car back in one piece, follow orders, and if that means winning or coming in second so be it, but nothing more is a driver's job these days. I fully agree with Briatore in his comments of late that Horner has no control over his team if he allows Vettel's little stunt to fly and this is the beginning of the end which I have no problem with. This is the largest team sport on the planet and they have a selfish malfunctioning component, repair or replace. Now the Italian media is reporting MB, Lotus, and Red Bull were forced to make changes to their cars prior to China or they will be declared illegal. I will expand on this once I know more.
If you have "two drivers of very different strength" then you don't need b). Common sense theories feel good but you'll have scalability issues inside non-linear dynamic systems.
