Alonso and Massa

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

26th July 2007, 01:29
jas123f1

Quote:

Originally Posted by andreag

I'm sorry, but this is not a fact.

From 2002-2006 Kimi's cars and teammate's cars retirements due to reliability issues (not collisions, accidents, black flags or massive USA '05 retirements), have been:

2002 17 races.
Kimi: 10. (59%).
Coulthard: 3. (18%).

2003 16 races.
Kimi: 1. (6%).
Coulthard: 4. (25%).

2004 18 races.
Kimi: 7. (39%).
Coulthard: 2. (11%).

2005 19 races.
Kimi: 3. (16%).
Montoya: 3. (16%). (Neither Wurz or de la Rosa retired that season).

2006 18 races.
Kimi: 2. (11%).
Montoya/de la Rosa: 4. (22%). (2 each).

TOTAL 2002-2006 88 races.
Kimi: 23. (26%).
Teammates: 16. (18%).

In 2007 Kimi has retired already twice, and to keep his average, he should do it again in another two races. If Felipe suffers 3 retirements in the next 7 races, he'll keep the average of teammates retirements; if not, the difference between kimi and his mates will increase.

This are facts.

When speaking about facts - Here is a guy who has more to say :) to you who are intereted.

http://87.117.195.32/kimi/forum/viewtopic.php?t=604
26th July 2007, 01:52
andreag

He's counting all retirements (including accidents, collisions, black flags, and so on). I just counted electrical, mechanical or hidrulical failures.

His numbers and mine are almost the same (I had to count them all, race by race, and substract the retirements due to other than malfuncioning), except for three diferences:

1.- I said season 2005 had 19 races (and it was like this), one of which was USA, I didn't count as retirement (but I pointed this in my message).

2.- I count as retirement Europe GP 2005, even as officially he gets classified, due to the broken suspension everyone remember.

3.- In the same year he had another two retirements due to failures: San Marino and Germany; what gives a total of 3 retirements this year.

Count the retirements due to failures in that page, and you'll see its exactly what I posted, bearing in mind the above points 1 and 2 from 2005 (as I did).
27th July 2007, 06:52
jas123f1

Quote:

Originally Posted by andreag

He's counting all retirements (including accidents, collisions, black flags, and so on). I just counted electrical, mechanical or hidrulical failures.

However, I prefer his much more detailed and founded facts before yours at random made attempt to argumentation to something you only like to proof. It’s so easy to take something and make statistical argumentations of "what ever you like". I don't like to copy it because it's in an other forum and very long (and detailed) description of things around Kimis retirements. But it's still there to every one who like know more of it... :)
27th July 2007, 07:24
raphael123

Quote:

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

As I said, is it a coincidence :?: You decide for yourself. I am real and so is the evidence. Cars Kimi drives always seem to malfunction. That is a FACT. You get real now.

Ok....you go ahead and believe that a driver can miraculously cause a hydraulics failure, or an electronic failure. You're the one who will look stupid, unless you know something the Ferrari team don't. Please, as I said, get real!
27th July 2007, 10:19
Donney

Quote:

Originally Posted by jas123f1

However, I prefer his much more detailed and founded facts before yours at random made attempt to argumentation to something you only like to proof. It’s so easy to take something and make statistical argumentations of "what ever you like". I don't like to copy it because it's in an other forum and very long (and detailed) description of things around Kimis retirements. But it's still there to every one who like know more of it... :)

I don't think Kimi is car breaker but I don't think you have the right to say her facts are random and unfouded especially if they have been explained and reasoned, but each one to its own I guess.
27th July 2007, 10:43
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by jas123f1

However, I prefer his much more detailed and founded facts before yours at random made attempt to argumentation to something you only like to proof. It’s so easy to take something and make statistical argumentations of "what ever you like". I don't like to copy it because it's in an other forum and very long (and detailed) description of things around Kimis retirements. But it's still there to every one who like know more of it... :)

Did you make an attempt to do your own research on the matter?
I suppose not!
So than why do you consider someone's well done work as "random made attempt to argumentation"? Denigrating her work without having anything to support your actions only shows that you are biased and can't accept reality when faced with it. :rolleyes:
27th July 2007, 10:51
janneppi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Did you make an attempt to do your own research on the matter?
I suppose not!
So than why do you consider someone's well done work as "random made attempt to argumentation"? Denigrating her work without having anything to support your actions only shows that you are biased and can't accept reality when faced with it. :rolleyes:

Because that's what andreag's work essentially was, while well researched, lacking in proper analysis. Having only done a average calculation of five years it didn't explain the differences between the two years when Kimi had lot of failures and the three years when he had less failures than his team mates.
No bias needed to see that.
27th July 2007, 11:17
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by janneppi

Because that's what andreag's work essentially was, while well researched, lacking in proper analysis. Having only done a average calculation of five years it didn't explain the differences between the two years when Kimi had lot of failures and the three years when he had less failures than his team mates.
No bias needed to see that.

If it lacks proper analysis, which wasn't exactly the case, than one might point it out and do it him/herself. But sure it's easier to say it's crap than to do the work. :\
27th July 2007, 11:22
janneppi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

If it lacks proper analysis, which wasn't exactly the case, than one might point it out and do it him/herself. But sure it's easier to say it's crap than to do the work. :\

Didn't jas123f1 link to a more in depth analysis?
Besides, why shouldn't we critisize others work if it isn't as good as it could be?

BTW, since you don't seem find nothing wrong with it how do you think it explained those differences between the mentioned years?
27th July 2007, 11:31
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by janneppi

Didn't jas123f1 link to a more in depth analysis?

More in depth?
First you say that andreag's analysis was not complete and than you call the post to which jas123f1's linked as an in depth analysis?
Did you read it? Since when do absolute values provide a deeper picture than percentages? The guy even goes to say that using 2 way telemetry the engineers broke Kimi's engines!

Quote:

Originally Posted by janneppi

Besides, why shouldn't we critisize others work if it isn't as good as it could be?

You may criticize it, but than do come up and show that your work is better done, else your criticism has no base to it. That's as simple as that.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page