Set up implies development as well. A driver must be able to tell you immediatly if a change or a new part is going to work or not. They go hand in hand. I don't really see how a driver could be good at one but not the other. I don't think Alonso gets respect for being able to develop and set a car up. He always seems to hit the set up right and teams improve with him driving. Renault didn't improve all on it's own and neither did McLaren.
I don't deny that, Panis had an excellent reputation for development as did Wurz. However Montagny has been fired by a few F1 teams and had he in fact been as critical to Renault's development, I doubt they would have let him go especially when they knew they would be switching to Bridgestones. What I do know is that the Mclaren engineers themselves all praised Alonso's input and rated him as being a much better development driver than either Kimi or JPM. So they must know at least a little something about his skills in that regard, don't you think?
IMO set up is getting the car to perform as well as possible at a given circuit on a given weekend with the aero package that is at the circuit, primarily wing settings, gear ratios, tire pressures and suspension settings. Development, and the primary responsibility of the development driver is making alterations to the aero package, suspension geometry, power delivery, electronics (especially E-diff now that TC is gone), and weight balance over many miles of testing to improve to overall package. While both require good car feel, they are different tasks. I believe that Alonso may be skilled at both of these tasks, but he generally does not do the miles necessary for development. His experience this year would be critical for Renault to make that "tidal wave" of improvement that is needed. It is for this reason that I feel more responsibility is placed on Alonso to do the hard work that is necessary to advance Renault. While Montagny may not have been the best race driver, he was consistant and experienced. I do not believe that Piquet or Grosjean will allow the development to advance as quickly as Alonso could. Effective feedback from a driver to his engineers is a skill that does not require ultimate race pace, but does require extreme consistancy allowing measurable improvements or setback more akin to an endurance driver than a sprint driver.
I agree. Michael won and is one of the 3 greatest drivers of all time, if not the best IMO, but one cannot argue that he was not a "Sportsman", unless it somehow would benefit him. Think about Monaco in 06', not a great sportsman, but definately can win races.
I agree with you overall but I'm not sure how many miles Alonso has done in testing this year, he very well could be pounding out miles in preparation. The reality is Renault has slipped so far back, it will take a lot of time to get the car even somewhat competitive. It's only the third race of the season and Alonso may not even be planning on staying with the team. I think he knows this year is going to be shot either way. If he really is already going somewhere else, why bother helping a team to get more competitive that you're not going to be on next year?
You keep harping back to yesteryear.......nonsense. Speaking of loyalty....Ill bet that when Kimi leaves and Alonso does not come to Ferrari that you will be history on these boards.
Ferrari didnt fnch up anything in 2005...The FIA did. How can a team win that many races the year before and after.....looks a little strange does it not? Sometimes I wonder why us Ferrari fans even have to defend the team so often on this site even when it is blatantly obvious.
Not every Ferrari, including racecars, is perfect. The F2005 or F2006 was not a good design. Yes the FIA changed the rules, but everybody else had the same rules, and others did a better job. To naively sit there and assume that every Ferrari produced is perfect is well naive. Pete
IMO, the 2005 season was Ferrari's worst in modern times, due to the FIA changes in rule. i'm not blaming the FIA here, but when FIA changed the rules, the tire ruling, and the rear diffuser, Ferrari suffered the most. the team was used to winning, they weren't used to losing. so when they started losing, they just didn;t know how to react to it. largely due to the fact that they were unbeatable since 2000. also, how many times have FIA tweaked the rules, i.e. qualifying rules, just to make sure that a Ferrari didn;t get pole? Ferrari were punished by their own success. 2006, was largely due to the team, not with the FIA. probably, the only thing FIA screwed up that time was the 2 race engine rule. The 2006 car wasn't bullet proof like how it was in previous years. the change in management, the designers of the car i mean, really counted here. even, was the 2007 car a perfect one? no. Ferrari won both titles thanks to the in fighting of Mclaren and the spy scandal. if we're about to see another era of perfection, i think it'll start this season.
We must also realise that the FIA did a lot to help Ferrari get back to success ... so the FIA are definitely NOT anti-Ferrari. And yes ofcourse the rules were changed to make the racing more competitive because everybody had STOPPED watching, after Ferrari won every race for 4 years on the trot! BUT Ferrari still did not make the best of the new rules ... other people did, that is life. Pete
The simple fact was that the Bridgstones were crap when they had to stay the whole race and thats why Ferrari lost. Most people in the F1 world saw that.
Agree. Ferrari like the other teams did the preseason testing and designed their car around the tyres ... and got the @rse kicked. In other years the Bridgestones gave Ferrari a massive advantage. Michelin and the other teams had the same rules and they did a better job. You can taint this anyway you like but in the end Ferrari and Bridgestone got it wrong. Thus Ferrari can design a not so perfect package . Pete
Well, I wouldn´t say that a car wich can´t reach the finish line half the times is competitive. I´d call it fast, but not competitive.
