planetf1.com

Unless I've got this horribly wrong (which is entirely possible), it's simply not possible for Lewis to have dropped more than 0.035s from his absolute best times listed above on any one sector in his Q3 run, as he wouldn't have been able to make up the deficit in the other sectors without going faster than the times posted above, which is clearly impossible. Now it is possible that he could have gone faster still, of course, but since he was the fastest in S2 anyway there's no way of telling how much and therefore I can't see where the 3 tenths figure comes from? Am I making sense?

Oh god I dislike Crofty SOOOOO much! He is annoying. Makes lame jokes. Talks waffle. Has random conversations with Ted that has nothing to do with F1. He comes across so comfortable in the role that he feels as though he can just chat whatever he likes but it just annoys me. I want someone commenting on the F1 and making insightful comments or observations.

I also don't respect his knowledge for the sport as well.

*and breathe*

_________________
F1 Fan: 25 years and counting...
Grand Prixs Attended:
British x3 * Hungary * Italy * USA * Spain * Belgium

Grand Prixs on bucket list...
Canada * Mexico * Japan * Germany * France (going to this year!)

Yes but I think you're assuming that his time that earned him P2 was from his final run. It wasn't. His first run got him that time.

Ah, fair point. I hadn't considered that

I was so pleased to be able to watch it on c4 today. Not perfect, but so much better.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion

Yeah, Zoue, Hamilton set his best time on his first run, as Bottas crossed the line Hamilton's sector two split came up saying he was 2 and a bit tenths down, as I realised Bottas had got pole then

On that note, who has got the Indy 500 this year? I presume F1 fans will all be wanting to see how Fred goes?

Wrong.

I've clarified it above already, with people who actually took the trouble to confirm a misunderstanding, rather than post a stupid comment

Sky were pretty embarrassing again today, claiming Hamilton was going to catch Vettel when the maths was pretty clear that it wouldn't, with Crofty cheerleading and calling for blue flags to be banned so that the backmarkers could hold up Vettel some more.

I like Croft and Brundle but I thought the last 3rd of the race was really bad today.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===

Yes I agree they were very optimistic. I think there was a lot of wishful thinking in there

It's continued in their reporting:

Bahrain GP: Sebastian Vettel beats penalised Lewis Hamilton to victory

...is the headline, followed by:

Sebastian Vettel has taken the lead of the world championship with victory of the Bahrain GP after title rival Lewis Hamilton was hit with a costly race penalty.

That's appalling. Penalty or not, Hamilton wasn't catching Vettel. Probably needed another 10 laps.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion

To be fair to Sky - which may be more than they deserve, from what I've seen - NBC was doing the same thing, talking about how 'Hamilton's catching Vettel by 1.8 seconds a lap! It's still on!' when it was obvious to any fool that he wasn't going to be able to keep up that pace.

I think all the commentators want to create the perception that the race is still undecided for as long as possible - it's not just about Hamilton.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)

I had Sky F1 for a couple of months a couple of years back but stopped it and I am OK with Ch4 these days. I am probably unusual in that I'm quite happy to know the result of qually or the race before I watch it later, usually in the evening with a glass of wine. I have a feeling that the new regime will make F1 more accessible - cheaper or free to air in 2019. If they don't they are on a loser...

I have a feeling they were receiving prompts from the producer to big up that last stint and way over play Hamilton's chance of winning. At the beginning of the stint they were saying Vettel couldn't be caught. Then all of a sudden they started ignoring the blatant obvious fact that Hamilton would run out of laps and started going nuts. Didn't seem very organic to me.

I wouldn't go too hard on them about the last stint hype.

While I didn't see it because I'm in the US, the NBCSports crew were being quite optimistic about Lewis chances too and they're very rarely pro or anti any drivers.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

The maths wasn't clear on that.

Hamilton would have caught Vettel if the pace difference when Hamilton pitted had been maintained.

Agreed, its in their interest to maintain an interest. I had the split screen open with the timing screens up, and based on the clock Hamilton did have a chance of catching Vettel in the last lap - and it wasn't a tiny, fractional chance either.

Unfortunately, i have no choice but to watch the sky sports coverage. The hamilton love in towards the end was just unbearable, it was ridiculous.

Agree totally.

As an F1 fan who isn't in Britain, I've almost had enough of Sky and their blatant Hamilton favouritism, but aside from 10 races a year which a local channel shows, they are all we get.

You expect a British broadcast to have some bias towards their local hero, but Sky go above and beyond with Hamilton. They became quite hysterical towards the end of the race in Bahrain, and we were completely embarrassed for them, and annoyed by it.

They cop a huge amount of feedback on Twitter for their favouritism, but never take any notice or even attempt to address it. I was hoping the arrival of Liberty Media may bring and end to their coverage, and provide other options, but it seems not.

Yes it does lack quite a lot of content. Not enough to fill a dedicated channel. Endless repeats of legend interviews, sky team drives this old F1 car, or classic F1 races. (Which I don't mind tbh)

But that is SKY overall they have been hemorrhaging sporting shows to BT and other 3rd party channels for years. Their football content is thread bare now relying on Super Sunday and La Liga. But again having endless repeats of legendary footballers.

Would have been great if they could have got coverage of a US motor racing series. Or even BTCC which is on ITV4 not even a main ITV channel

Prefer the commentary on Channel 4, with the exception of Steve Jones, he just gets on my t*** with he presenting style.

But that's just me.

_________________
Everyday you know more.

Does anyone know why sky doesnt air the post race press conference... for me its the best part of post race. The pundits can analyse whatever they want nothing beats hearing it form the drivers themselves.

It's bad but it was even worse with ITV, not just with one British driver, but anything British in F1.

Most British actually hate it too, the bias gets annoying. But it was far too unbearable on iTV.

crofty does shout a lot , not just as the winning driver crosses the line , but even before the race has started, and over the weekend they showed an old clip of a race finish when brundle was lead comantator and while he raised his voice level and excitement level , it was more controlled and much better from a listening point of view , and pat is so clever and imformative and makes it more interesting , no doubt about that and I love his calm way of explaining the technical side

One of my problems with Sky, and and in particular their race presenters, is that, Crofty and Martin are too similar in their delivery.

This can be quite tiresome especially when a race is dull. The same tone all race long, with moments of excitement now and then from Crofty.

The best commentating duos are polar opposites; and that works.

_________________
Everyday you know more.

I miss the post race press conferences. The drivers body language told a lot about their races.

But they do? Or do you mean on the main sky channel?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/15749/10843525/lewis-hamilton-offers-support-to-british-driver-involved-in-horrific-crash

Never mind the fact that both Button and Verstappen have each donated £15K to the fund, the headline is that Hamilton offers support by tweeting a link...

To be fair to them - which is sometimes more than they deserve - they did post about the fund smashing the target and mentioned everyones support (though they couldn't resist showing LH's tweet again )

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... n-24-hours

That appears to be a different article. The one i quoted didn't even mention Button or Verstappen, just Lewis' tweet!

Sorry I should've made that clearer, you're right that it's a different article - I just meant that they had mentioned the overall support from the greater motorsport community, just not in the article you shared. Though I'm sure if they had the value LH had donated (if he has, no shame if he hasn't) they would've led with that..

I hope those internet relayed thoughts and prayers heal the legs.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

It seems a shame to me that some would prefer to try and make mileage from an article supporting the fund for Billy Monger as being biased towards a certain British driver even when that same article mentions a tweet from Perez as well although strangely that was ommitted from being mentioned... Surely whoever was helping to publicise the fund to try and help him recover from his aweful injuries should be praised instead of criticising one article where they committed the horrendous offence of only mentioning 2 drivers who tweeted their support.
Sometimes its better to just say nothing if you can't manage something supportive in the circumstances.

Sanctimonious bull. This is a thread on the Sky Sports F1 channel and the bias they show. It's perfectly legitimate to highlight any topic where that may be the case, regardless of the subject matter. They could have said "F1 drivers support fund," but they made it about Hamilton first and fund second. There's nothing inappropriate about highlighting that.

Say what you like ... It was poor form

I somehow doubt you would be up in arms if the headline would have said Perez supports the Fund and included Hamilton's tweet and it appears the thread was about the amount of content not any perceived Bias. Even when it was pointed out to you that they had posted another article which included other people being supportive of the fund you were not complimentary about that but merely reiterated your incorrect comments that the earlier statement only mentioned Hamilton where it had in fact it also included Perez's tweet but i guess that didn't suit your narrative!

If the headline had been about Perez then it wouldn't have been something that confirmed Sky bias towards Hamilton now, would it? So it wouldn't have appeared in a thread about Sky bias towards Hamilton. Do you understand what this thread is about?

I don't think you thought the above rant through

Actually i thought this thread was about content rather than bias but then again it's not the first time you have been mistaken in this thread when it comes to a comment about Hamilton