Adrian Sutil

[Ho3n3r]

yea....or it´s you who realized that you dug a hole so deep you can´t get out of it?

Also, i have no life, is that was you are implying? I have no life because i respond to these messages, and you have a life because you, well respond to these messages?
Although dodging the question but i´m sure that has nothing to do with how much a life a person has,.

I´ll try again, you said Ferrari are looking for a nr2 driver. Could you perhaps tell me what other years Ferrari wanted a nr2 driver.

You said they had no nr2 driver in 2008. I´m assuming you know the other years as well.

No, I could easily win this argument, my point is just for every point I raise, you will pull out a statement from left field with almost no relevance to my point in order to pick a fight, and I really am not the type to indulge you. I have not been on these forums since yesterday, I know how your many arguments go.

OK, how about you win, I keep my facts and opinions to myself, and everyone goes home happy? After all, this is much more important to you.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

No, I could easily win this argument, my point is just for every point I raise, you will pull out a statement from left field with almost no relevance to my point in order to pick a fight, and I really am not the type to indulge you. I have not been on these forums since yesterday, I know how your many arguments go.

OK, how about you win, I keep my facts and opinions to myself, and everyone goes home happy? After all, this is much more important to you.

Hmm.. interesting twist i have to say.

You somehow managed to dodge the questions and give the torch to me.
I´m impressed i have to say.

But.... i still doesn´t answer any of my questions, you do realize that?

I´m honestly not trying to "win" an argument on an internet forum against 9 letters of text.
I´m just trying to understand you logic in this.

I´m just asking questions, you are the one getting upset, you are the one thinking it´s a game for some reason.

Q1 - What years did Ferrari have a nr2 driver?

 

[Ho3n3r]

OK, I will give you the things as I see them, but I know you will not agree with me, but here goes:

Firstly, I have watched F1 since about 1994, so that's as far as I will comment.

1996-1999: Clearly Schumacher was number 1. Remember, for instance, Suzuka 1997 where Eddie Irvine's car was risked by running a much higher engine range, and he qualified way ahead of everyone else, and he slowed the Williams cars down all race long? I remember there were many instances where Irvine gave position to Schumacher during these 4 years.

1999 was also infamous for Irvine claiming that Ferrari didn't want him to win their first driver title in many years as they saw Schumacher as the one who deserved it.

2000-2005: Barrichello. Multiple times. Barrichello was forced to yield on the last few laps many times. Austria 2002 comes to mind, many others that do not come to mind at the moment. 2005 was so crap that nobody even knew whether they had a number 2, never mind number one - due to the car mostly.

2006: Massa was clearly number 2, not so much on-track, but clearly everything was geared toward Schumacher winning, as shown by the clear quali and race gaps in majority of races.

2007: was very open till very end, when Kimi was assigned number one. IIRC Massa led the almost whole Brazilian GP, only to yield to Kimi for him to take the title.

2008: Kimi-Massa were very even until about Spa where Kimi spun, and it was clear that - besides mathematically - Massa had a much better chance to succeed.

2009: Very close year again in standings between the 2 up til Hungary, with Kimi clearly number one after - did they have any other choice with Badoer there? Fisichella clearly wasn't up to it either.

2010: Up to Germany it was relatively even between the 2, until 'Felipe, Fernando is clearly faster than you'. The rest is history.

2011-2012: Clearly a continuation of 2010, with Massa every time being the Guinea pig in terms of tyre testing in variable conditions, having to sacrifice his races.

That's all I could think of off the top of my head, but there might be more proof to find

For the record, I've always been a Schumacher fan, but it would take a blind man not to have seen the obvious bias toward him at both Ferrari and Benetton.

That's my opinion, and you ain't changing it. Thanks for listening.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Hmm interesting...

1996... Eddie Irvine had 10 retirements out of 16 possible races.
In those 6 other races he finished, 3, 7, 5 and 4th.

Schumacher in the same year had only 5 retirements.
In those 11 other races he finished 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4.

So your argument fails so hard it´s not even funny. Unless of course you assume Ferrari destroyed their own engines?

1997.... Irvine had 6 retirements.
The rest of the races he finished 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16,

the same year Schumacher had only 4 retirements.
the rest of the races he finished 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6,

Argument fails again because Schumacher simply did a better job across the season.
Or are you implying they tampered with Irvine´s engine? To make sure they would not win a WCC title?

1998.... Schumi won 6 races. Irvine? he won ZERO races.
Is this also because he was a number 2 driver or was it simply because he wasn´t good enough?

1999... let´s count the first 8 races.
Schumi had 2 wins, Irvine only 1.

From Race 8 onwards, Schumacher was not even in the picture. So how do you explain Irvine not winning the championship? He basically had the whole team behind him.

Fun fact... Schumi came back and came 2nd in the two last races. Irvine won one of those.
So how does that work with your logics? How do you get that one wrapped around your brain?


I literally could go on forever disecting every single year. Fact is you have snippets of Ferrari as a team wanting to ensure they won the title.

Much like RBR at Silverstone.

The fact is that the driver´s simply wasn´t good enough that year.

This is exaclty the reason why Kimi played a support role to Felipe in 2008.
It wasn´t because he was a nr2 driver, it was because he wasn´t quick enough that year so they put everything on Massa.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Hmm interesting...

1996... Eddie Irvine had 10 retirements out of 16 possible races.
In those 6 other races he finished, 3, 7, 5 and 4th.

Schumacher in the same year had only 5 retirements.
In those 11 other races he finished 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4.

So your argument fails so hard it´s not even funny. Unless of course you assume Ferrari destroyed their own engines?

1997.... Irvine had 6 retirements.
The rest of the races he finished 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16,

the same year Schumacher had only 4 retirements.
the rest of the races he finished 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6,

Argument fails again because Schumacher simply did a better job across the season.
Or are you implying they tampered with Irvine´s engine? To make sure they would not win a WCC title?

1998.... Schumi won 6 races. Irvine? he won ZERO races.
Is this also because he was a number 2 driver or was it simply because he wasn´t good enough?

1999... let´s count the first 8 races.
Schumi had 2 wins, Irvine only 1.

From Race 8 onwards, Schumacher was not even in the picture. So how do you explain Irvine not winning the championship? He basically had the whole team behind him.

Fun fact... Schumi came back and came 2nd in the two last races. Irvine won one of those.
So how does that work with your logics? How do you get that one wrapped around your brain?


I literally could go on forever disecting every single year. Fact is you have snippets of Ferrari as a team wanting to ensure they won the title.

Much like RBR at Silverstone.

The fact is that the driver´s simply wasn´t good enough that year.

This is exaclty the reason why Kimi played a support role to Felipe in 2008.
It wasn´t because he was a nr2 driver, it was because he wasn´t quick enough that year so they put everything on Massa.

That's another interesting way to look at it. Obviously I disagree(see my previous post).

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Yea i look at the performance of the drivers the whole year.

That gives a more realistic view on what´s going on then simply choosing certain events.

Again, explain how Irvine won a race in 1999 and Schumi only second?
According to you it would be team orders and other stuff so Irvine could let him past.

..or they realized that Irvine needed these points more then Schumi.

Edit: ok now i see... here´s a quote just for you. It fits perfect for you.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

 

[Hampus Andersson]

And just to show that any team would do teamorders if the could,

Look at Jordan, keep an eye on him.

And watch him here,

Another example, this time RBR,

Heikki simply went wide here?

Fact is every team has team orders, long before it was even legal to do.

Funnily enough it´s to maximize the best driver in terms of points.

 

[Eric Parker]

Back on topic, I am sure Sutil would love even a short season in the Ferrari, but really him showing up in the paddock is just a case of "fishing" and wishful thinking.

 

[Victor Ivanov]

Hampus that Kovalainen - Hamilton situation was very different. Hamilton had made his stop and Kovalainen hadn't so it was obvious he has to release him, that wasn't a fight for the like it the previous two videos.

 

[Ho3n3r]

And just to show that any team would do teamorders if the could,

Look at Jordan, keep an eye on him.

And watch him here,

Another example, this time RBR,

Heikki simply went wide here?

Fact is every team has team orders, long before it was even legal to do.

Funnily enough it´s to maximize the best driver in terms of points.

What's your point? I never said anything about the validity of team orders.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

What's your point? I never said anything about the validity of team orders.

The point is you don´t have to have a number 1 or 2 driver for things to be decided by the team on track.

Like Austria with Rubens for example.

The point is it´s the driver that chooses if he´s nr2 or not. That is the point you missed.

 

[Ho3n3r]

The point is you don´t have to have a number 1 or 2 driver for things to be decided by the team on track.

Like Austria with Rubens for example.

The point is it´s the driver that chooses if he´s nr2 or not. That is the point you missed.

LOL you really believe that?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Hampus that Kovalainen - Hamilton situation was very different. Hamilton had made his stop and Kovalainen hadn't so it was obvious he has to release him, that wasn't a fight for the like it the previous two videos.

Yes i know Heikki gave him room, i think he figured out that one all by himself but the thing is he would have gotten the call had he kept Hamilton behind.

That was just one of many incidents where Mclaren used teamorders, they usually made them in the pits in a more discreet way then the open one from Ferrari at Hockenheim.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

LOL you really believe that?

Yes of course any sane person would.

It´s the driver who chooses if he´s a leader or a second fiddle guy.
That is decided by championship points and your speed compared to your teammate,

You can´t be a nr1 driver if you don´t beat your teammate, that´s simple logics.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I think you should also answer my question, you dodged it yesterday.

The one about Irvine and Schumi in 1999.

 

[Ho3n3r]

I think you should also answer my question, you dodged it yesterday.

The one about Irvine and Schumi in 1999.

Never mind. I'll just rather not ever post again in the Formula 1 section if everything we say needs to be justified by you even though it's just opinions. Enjoy your forum

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Never mind. I'll just rather not ever post again in the Formula 1 section if everything we say needs to be justified by you even though it's just opinions. Enjoy your forum

By doing this, ignoring the question of a subject we are discussing you basically show your cards.

I think that if you have an opinioin and someone asks you to clarify it then if you truly believe in your opinion then there would no reason to get irritated or ignore obvious questions.

Like now for example.

You said yourself Irvine was a number 2 driver. And Massa wasn´t. So obviously you seem to know who was a nr2 driver and who wasn´t.
Do you not hear how that sounds yourself? You have some snippets of Ferrari history where team orders occurred, i showed you other teams had that as well. Yet you don´t seem to want to understand why there was team orders sometimes and why there wasn´t any some other time.
You just want to have this false image of reality and you do everything to cling on to it.
I think that is the biggest issue, not that i´m actually wanting you to develop your theory.

 

[Ho3n3r]

By doing this, ignoring the question of a subject we are discussing you basically show your cards.

I think that if you have an opinioin and someone asks you to clarify it then if you truly believe in your opinion then there would no reason to get irritated or ignore obvious questions.

Like now for example.

Yes, you are right, as always.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Yes, you are right, as always.

It´s not about that. I could care less about who is right and who´s not.

It honestly seems to be a much more important thing for you.
Possibly that is why you are reacting so defensively all the time.

 

[Chris Jenkins]

Getting boring now guys!
When was the last time Sutil was mentioned in this 'Adrian Sutil' thread?