F1 2013 Driver Rumours

SchueyFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well that's a very negative view of those races.

Not at all. I am comparing his performance to the accomplishment of the two major goals that Ferrari have - the Drivers World Championship and the Constructors Championship. Compared to hindering the main rivals, in those three races he did nothing for the former goal, and only marginally contributed to the later goal. That is not negative. That is objectively measurable beyond any bias (numbers do not lie!) and hence downright realistic.

Don't forget, that without McLaren experiencing a wealth of retirements and mechanical failures in the last couple of races, Ferrari would not have passed them in Constructors Championship. It is not Massa's effort, it is the failings of their closest competitor - success through the misfortune of others!

> Particularly that you omit Massa's puncture in
> Singapore (not to mention his pace if you look at
> the lap times)

Already included. It was handled for him by the safety car. Without that, he would not have scored points.

> and having to let Alonso by in
> Monza, as well as the loss of telemetry.

He still lost out to Perez, qualifying way way lower than Massa (10 positions!!), who Ferrari for some inexplicable reason, deem to be inferior to Massa.

> Perhaps
> in Spa he could've beaten Hulkenberg, but apart
> from that, I'm not sure what else Ferrari could've
> expected from him at those races. Also,
> considering Massa's pace is regularly better in
> the race than in qualifying, I don't think you can
> conclusively say that he wouldn't have made up
> ground in Spa otherwise.

I did allow for him to make up ground on his own - a full 4 positions no less!! Still allowing that, my critique stands. And how is shoddy qualifying counted as a bonus for Massa?!? Even if it contrasts with his race performances, he qualifying is still sub standard this season, and should be counted as a negative.

> If you look at the past 6 races, even Alonso
> hasn't beaten Vettel apart from Monza when Massa
> did too, so clearly the Ferrari wasn't at a level
> to allow Massa to disrupt him.

He is not only to disrupt Vettel. There are other championship contenders, and at that time, they could not be discounted. So he should be stealing points regularly from Button, Hamilton, Vettel, Webber and Raikönnen. If he fails to steal points from the major contenders, he should still steal points from Grosjean for the Constructors Championship. Massa has failed to do so in the vast majority of the season! And even when he fails to steal points from the contenders, he should be close to Alonso, so he can defend his position.

That was what Barichello did on a regular basis for Ferrari and Schumacher. This is what Massa has failed to do for Alonso and Ferrari bar these last two races. It is not good enough for a contract extension. That is why I believe that Ferrari know, that the car they gave to Massa was much further from the car he needed to perform, than the public hitherto has been allowed to understand. Otherwise the contract extension does not make sense.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2012 01:12PM by Morbid.

massa is good enough. here a couple of reasons for that:

1) beat kimi fair and square

2) won kimi the title in brazil 2007

3) was better than kimi in 2009 as well

4) was pretty close in terms of points to alonso in 2010, and had ferrari not told him to let alonso by at hockenheim, the gap between the two after this race would have been about 15 points, which is 6 points in the old points system.

5) ferrari are not stupid. they know when a driver is worth signing for another year, and when he isnt. and button's performances this season have been far of lewis' pace, so have webber's to vettel's last season so massa is doing a decent job. its just that we got used to team mates being closer in terms of pace than alonso and mssa are, but then again... alonso is the fastest one currently so massa kinda has an excuse for that.

You can't live on your 2007-2010 results for a 2013 seat.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Smack that!

true that, ma frend.... but take 5) into account than.

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't forget, that without McLaren experiencing a
> wealth of retirements and mechanical failures in
> the last couple of races, Ferrari would not have
> passed them in Constructors Championship. It is
> not Massa's effort, it is the failings of their
> closest competitor - success through the
> misfortune of others!

You can't have it both ways by saying the numbers don't lie, and then bringing up excuses for cars being out of order? Also, the McLaren has been a considerably better car than the Ferrari in the most part in 2012.


> Already included. It was handled for him by the
> safety car. Without that, he would not have scored
> points.

No, because he wouldn't have needed the SC to catch the pack without the puncture? Unless you think he would've dropped to last somehow on his own accord?


> He still lost out to Perez, qualifying way way
> lower than Massa (10 positions!!), who Ferrari for
> some inexplicable reason, deem to be inferior to
> Massa.

That's harsh to critique Massa for that, Perez had an excellent strategy that beat out many others, including Alonso and even Vettel if he didn't have issues.


> I did allow for him to make up ground on his own -
> a full 4 positions no less!! Still allowing that,
> my critique stands. And how is shoddy qualifying
> counted as a bonus for Massa?!? Even if it
> contrasts with his race performances, he
> qualifying is still sub standard this season, and
> should be counted as a negative.

I don't believe I said poor qualifying performances were a bonus. However, I do think Ferrari must have some sort of compromise on his qualifying setup for race pace, if you look at what he's done at Singapore onwards in particular.


> He is not only to disrupt Vettel. There are other
> championship contenders, and at that time, they
> could not be discounted. So he should be stealing
> points regularly from Button, Hamilton, Vettel,
> Webber and Raikönnen. If he fails to steal points
> from the major contenders, he should still steal
> points from Grosjean for the Constructors
> Championship. Massa has failed to do so in the
> vast majority of the season! And even when he
> fails to steal points from the contenders, he
> should be close to Alonso, so he can defend his
> position.

Massa's finished within 15 seconds at the end of the race 8/13 times in 2012 when both have finished. Of those other 5, he had a drive through, a front wing loss, a puncture and was hit by Kobayashi - it was only Malaysia he was just slow. I think that shows that he's had a solid season, not just a recent flash in the pan. It's just that in 2012 of course those 15 seconds might mean 3/4 places or more whereas in 2011 he could be 30 seconds back and only one place down (e.g. Brazil)

---

X (@ed24f1)

Tsk, tsk, tsk... this is what you get when you discuss with fanboys and zealots. They hear something that they think might be negative, and they go into a defence frenzy, without eye on or care for what they are destroying.

I don't think you noticed, but let me explain to you, that my conclusions are deliberately crafted with supporting arguments. It's like a table. The conclusion is the flat piece of the table and the supporting arguments are the legs and glue that hold it together. If you start cutting down the legs, or dissolving the glue, the table itself will crash. "So..." you might think. Why should you care?

Well, the conclusion I presented is actually favouring Massa and placing blame on Ferrari. If you cut that down, then blame falls off Ferrari, and where do you think it will go from there...? There really is only one place left, and that is the driver you think you are defending.

See my line of reasoning, is that Ferrari failed to give Massa the proper equipment at the start of the season, and that is why he underperformed. When they gave him the proper equipment, his game grew proportionally. So in turn, he actually always performed, despite the results he failed to achieve. This is actually in line with several reports that Ferrari themselves have published during the season! That was my reasoning for the contract extension. Ferrari had to know, that they failed him, and it was not the other way around. Otherwise, the extension does not makes sense.

This you dispute. In your effort to show, that Massa is back and has been back in the last 5 races, you knock down this line of reasoning (which actually is backed by Ferrari themselves!!) over. This then means, that Massa failed Ferrari for the vast majority of the season, and that his new found skill is due to him pulling himself together. While you think you are defending Massa, this actually puts him in a worse light than I did.

Well done man! ...and let's take a look at how you do that.

You cut and slice all manners of fringe statistics, that present Massa in the best light possible. Had you decided to make your selection including a few more or less races than the five, it would had put Massa in a worse position. Had you put the cut at any other place than 15 seconds after the lead, it would again put Massa in a worse position. That is called a tendentious use of statistics. You are using the numbers in the most optimum way to get your bias confirmed.

Furthermore, the standards which you use to measure Massa are subjective. I will make it clear what I mean by that.

If I criticize you for liking Massa, that is subjective criticism spawned by a subjective standard, because it is totally debatable in a way which cannot be settled. It is a matter of preference or taste if you like Massa or not. It is your standard versus my standard, and both are for all purposes arbitrary. If we were other people, those standards or preferences would be different. An objective standard is not debatable. For instance, if you promise me, that you will meet me at a specific place at a specific time, and you don't do that, then you have failed to live up to an objective standard. Your promise is your promise and it is not debatable nor is it subject to taste or preference. It is not arbitrary in any fashion, no matter how you cut it.

All the standards you have used to measure and defend Massa are subjective. You could (and had they given you a better argument, you would) have chosen any other standard to measure him by. There is no one at Ferrari that started the season by saying, "right Massa, we expect you to finish 8 out of 13 races within 15 seconds of the lead by the Korean GP", or "We want you to be second best only to Vettel at gathering points for five consecutive races sometime during this season". Those are subjective standards. While he might have accomplished this, the rationale behind measuring him in such a way is totally debatable. The standard is arbitrary. It could just as well have been something else. Whether it is negative, positive or harsh is very relevant exactly because the standard of measurement is subjective.

If you have any sense of realism, you will know in your head and heart, that Ferrari's goals for this season was to take the Drivers and Constructors Championship. If Alonso was unable to take the drivers championship, and Massa was within reach of it, Ferrari would expect him to take the shot and back him up in doing so. But the main plan was for Alonso to take the WDC and for Massa to help him do that. Together they were tasked to take the Constructors Championship too. This is what was discussed at the team meetings before the start of the season and I challenge you, or anyone else, to deny that!

That makes the standard I use to measure Massa an objective standard. That makes my criticism objective. Any other person, whether they like Massa or not, would be able to do the same, and see the rationale in doing so, since the standard is Ferrari's and not mine! It is not up for discussion, it is not a matter of taste, and it is not a matter of preference. Whether it is negative, positive or harsh is irrelevant because the standard of measurement is objective. Objective standards beat subjective standards any day of the week. They are concrete and tangible. They can be the object of verification or falsification. This is what I measure Massa up against. He has failed to perform in accordance with this standard for the majority of the season. He has succeeded to perform in accordance with this standard for the last 2 races.

A contract is based on whether or not the driver contributes to the main goals of the team - the objective standard presented earlier. Those goals are clear. And they are not "finish 8 out of 13 races within 15 seconds of the lead" or other silly bullsh!t like that. Ferrari opted to extend Massa's contract despite the fact, that he has not contributed in any significant way to the accomplishment of the goals of the team. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that Ferrari are of the opinion, that Massa is not wholly to blame.

If you want to dispute this, feel free. But present a proper argument. Use some objective standards to measure Massa, Alonso and Ferrari. Don't slice the cake, so it presents the optimal focus for the picture you want to paint. Anyone can do that, but it doesn't accurately present any form of believable truth or reality. It just presents your unwavering, but misunderstood, loyalty.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2012 12:27AM by Morbid.

Phew! Bloomin' heck! Quit moaning and get the topic BACK ON THE RAILS!!!

---

GPGSL -
GPGSL-3 - Pizza Party Racing manager and driver
Nations Cup - Team Scotland manager

Morbid Wrote:

> If you have any sense of realism, you will know in
> your head and heart, that Ferrari's goals for this
> season was to take the Drivers and Constructors
> Championship. If Alonso was unable to take the
> drivers championship, and Massa was within reach
> of it, Ferrari would expect him to take the shot
> and back him up in doing so. But the main plan was
> for Alonso to take the WDC and for Massa to help
> him do that. Together they were tasked to take the
> Constructors Championship too. This is what was
> discussed at the team meetings before the start of
> the season and I challenge you, or anyone else, to
> deny that!


so, according to this judgement, everyone but the team and driver who wins the championship, should be fired ?

Or it could just be that Ferrari do not really have any better options than Massa. Massa wins on just about every attribute that Ferrari would want in a driver. He is quick, but not too quick, he is experienced and seems to be well liked by everyone at the team, including Alonso. The only attribute that Massa falls short on is inconstancy, especially in a poor car, which pretty much validates what Morbid was saying. Now the car is half decent Massa does well, If they stick someone else in the car, lets saying Hulkenburg as an example, then they may get a quicker driver, but that cannot be proven until he actually drives a Ferrari. But they definitely loose all the other stuff Massa brings to the team, therefore he would have to be a lot quicker to make up for it, which then means he would be too close to beating Alonso and that creates other problems.

As an example of that, Button was expected by most to play a Massa at Mclaren, instead he has shone and outperformed Hamilton a number of times, now while this is great for the constructors championship, it doesn´t help Hamilton win the drivers, because Button is taking points off him. It is similar at RedBull too. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is just Ferrari have a different way of doing things.

So basically what I´m trying to say is that Morbid is right and Massa is Ferrari´s best option currently, irrespective of how well he does, within reason.

airefresco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or it could just be that Ferrari do not really
> have any better options than Massa. Massa wins on
> just about every attribute that Ferrari would want
> in a driver. He is quick, but not too quick, he
> is experienced and seems to be well liked by
> everyone at the team, including Alonso. The only
> attribute that Massa falls short on is
> inconstancy, especially in a poor car, which
> pretty much validates what Morbid was saying. Now
> the car is half decent Massa does well, If they
> stick someone else in the car, lets saying
> Hulkenburg as an example, then they may get a
> quicker driver, but that cannot be proven until he
> actually drives a Ferrari. But they definitely
> loose all the other stuff Massa brings to the
> team, therefore he would have to be a lot quicker
> to make up for it, which then means he would be
> too close to beating Alonso and that creates other
> problems.
>
> As an example of that, Button was expected by most
> to play a Massa at Mclaren, instead he has shone
> and outperformed Hamilton a number of times, now
> while this is great for the constructors
> championship, it doesn´t help Hamilton win the
> drivers, because Button is taking points off him.
> It is similar at RedBull too. Not that there is
> anything wrong with that, it is just Ferrari have
> a different way of doing things.
>
> So basically what I´m trying to say is that
> Morbid is right and Massa is Ferrari´s best
> option currently, irrespective of how well he
> does, within reason.

Yeah, I would agree with this too. If the rumoured Vettel move happens, then there's not much point in getting someone else in for just 1 season.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so, according to this judgement, everyone but the
> team and driver who wins the championship, should
> be fired ?

Why can't you just read what I write? Why do you have to distort it like that? That's just weak man. Don't be malicious. Have some class.


airefresco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or it could just be that Ferrari do not really
> have any better options than Massa. Massa wins on
> just about every attribute that Ferrari would want
> in a driver. He is quick, but not too quick, he
> is experienced and seems to be well liked by
> everyone at the team, including Alonso. The only
> attribute that Massa falls short on is
> inconstancy, especially in a poor car, which
> pretty much validates what Morbid was saying. Now
> the car is half decent Massa does well, If they
> stick someone else in the car, lets saying
> Hulkenburg as an example, then they may get a
> quicker driver, but that cannot be proven until he
> actually drives a Ferrari. But they definitely
> loose all the other stuff Massa brings to the
> team, therefore he would have to be a lot quicker
> to make up for it, which then means he would be
> too close to beating Alonso and that creates other
> problems.
>
> As an example of that, Button was expected by most
> to play a Massa at Mclaren, instead he has shone
> and outperformed Hamilton a number of times, now
> while this is great for the constructors
> championship, it doesn´t help Hamilton win the
> drivers, because Button is taking points off him.
> It is similar at RedBull too. Not that there is
> anything wrong with that, it is just Ferrari have
> a different way of doing things.
>
> So basically what I´m trying to say is that
> Morbid is right and Massa is Ferrari´s best
> option currently, irrespective of how well he
> does, within reason.

Our points differ, but this is well put together. This could be a very possible line of thought at Ferrari.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Morbid Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------
> See my line of reasoning, is that Ferrari failed
> to give Massa the proper equipment at the start of
> the season, and that is why he underperformed.
> When they gave him the proper equipment, his game
> grew proportionally. So in turn, he actually
> always performed, despite the results he failed to
> achieve. This is actually in line with several
> reports that Ferrari themselves have published
> during the season! That was my reasoning for the
> contract extension. Ferrari had to know, that they
> failed him, and it was not the other way around.
> Otherwise, the extension does not makes sense.

Well, that is basically the same argument as mine. Massa was never as bad throughout the year as perceived. That's the whole point of using the +15 seconds argument. I think this is relevant, as it shows that Massa has been closer to Alonso than 2011 or for much of 2010, and that it shows that his race pace is closely comparable to Alonso despite being much poorer at qualifying. Any argument using facts is objective, not subjective. However, my use of this particular fact could be considered subjective I guess. Anyway, I think it is a reasonable demonstration that Massa has been fairly close to Alonso on race pace in 2012. Apart from Australia and the 2nd half of Malaysia, Massa's race pace has been solid this year. If you don't like the +15 argument, you can also look at lap times from various races this year to show that even when Massa was a few places down, his pace was close to Alonso's.

Considering that realistically Ferrari probably want Massa to be close to Alonso but, to paraphrase Smedley, not too close, Massa has therefore done a good job in 2012. However, with the extraordinary circumstances in 2012 of the field being extremely close, it has exaggerated the difference between them when in 2011, Massa would've been able to reap the rewards much more often.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Daniel Juncadella's being linked with an HRT drive. Supposedly he's got a sponsor lined up, but I can't help but feel that if it goes ahead there would be a whiff of nepotism. (Perez-Sala is his uncle).

I still think it'll be a De La Rosa - Clos partnership though.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

As long as Pedro is secure then it should all be good.

Clos has been fairly uninspiring, he seems to have been around forever.

Anyone taken any notice of de Costa and Frijns in Formula Renault, both could be real prospects for an F1 seat soon.

Have to say it looks like Bianchi's hopes of making it in F1 are over after this weekend.

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Antonio Felix da Costa has certainly been very impressive in GP3 and FR3.5. I imagine he'll be doing some Fridays for Toro Rosso next year, and perhaps Red Bull would even consider slotting him in at HRT like they did with Ricciardo.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Yeah I'd like to see that happen. What do you think about Bianchi, has he blown his chance?

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

It doesn't look great for him. If Ferrari were that keen on him they'd probably be pushing for him to be at Sauber not Hulkenberg.

I think if he doesn't get a drive next year at Force India or somewhere else it'll be difficult for him to break through after that I'd say.

---

X (@ed24f1)

I never really rated Bianchi anyway...I never looked at him and thought he'd be something special.

Frijns and Da Costa though - there's a pair we could be waxing lyrical about in a couple of years.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski