planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:51 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You don't believe that Vettel is the #1 driver?

You don't believe Hamilton is #1 at Mercedes?

Hamilton who was instructed to concede the WDC title at the last race last season?

No, he wasnt. Not in the slightest.

If you believe that then your evident paranoia will make debate on this impossible I'm afraid

If he was the #1 driver why would they be instructing him how he should drive relative to his teammate?

Because he was risking a Mercedes 1-2 finish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
lamo wrote:
Mercedes had an odd scenario of one strategy guy trying to obtain the best result for the team. It threw up some odd scenarios such as Austria 2016 where the same man battled against himself and managed to basically lose Hamilton what would have been his easiest win of the entire season. Although Hamilton wrestled it back somehow.

No way was Hamilton number 1 at Mercedes, that is about the most equal treatment two team mates can ever get. Both were asked to move over for the other and both were screwed at some point by the equal treatment rules. Hamilton in Austria 2016 and Rosberg Malaysia 2013. Plus some other smaller incidences. Thankfully Mercedes didn't have one as it would have been the worst 3 seasons in F1 history.

Regarding Bottas being a couple of tenths behind, supposedly that is over one lap. Lewis is apparently a long way ahead in race pace which for me has always been the main Hamilton strength, especially when not tyre saving. I read a quote recently that Williams (from Mercedes head of Engines) had the best chassis at 3-4 races in 2014 and should have won a couple of races. Maybe time will show that a bit more clearly. I.e. Williams just didn't have the drivers that season.

I'm not writing Bottas off, he will have to be at the top of his game though (i.e. 3 tenths quicker than Massa pace - which he often was, but other times slower or a similar pace) to have a chance with Lewis.

Yes it's all still early days but if it does play out like that then perhaps it throws Rosberg into a better light and shows him not to be a weak world champion, he after all beat Schumacher albeit past his best but how much past his best, that's something that can't be measured.

Fangio was still the best driver in the world well into his 40's.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?

When a team has a #1 driver the objective is for that driver to win the race, if Hamilton truly was the #1 driver then Mercedes failed him miserably on several occasions.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Quote:
But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


After spain lewis was publicly lambasted by lauda though. And internally you know things werent pretty either since we now know that lewis almost quit the team after what unfolded that weekend.

He didn't, though, did he? And if you call that a lambasting, what would you call after Spa 2014? Evisceration?

Rosberg admitted that he elected not to avoid a collision however he didn't count on Hamilton making that public knowledge otherwise we all would be in the dark and what you said might have some substance.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


Seriously? Can't quite believe i'm reading that.

I think the higher ups publicly criticised him once in all the years he was at the team?

Mercedes rarely publicly criticised either driver. Spa 214 and Spain 2016 only times I can remember. Quite restrained really considering they were dealing with the most destructive team mate relationship ever. TBH both drivers could have done with a public telling off at times.

So yeah. Throwing Nico under the bus more often than not? Really?

Yes, on reflection I agree throwing under the bus was a bit harsh, so I take that back. They certainly did that after Spa and IMO treated Nico disgracefully then, but after that it was more subtle. Lauda blamed Nico for Austria, for example, where Toto was more restrained

This being were the stewards blamed Rosberg as well but then I guess we would get back into the old debate of who was really to blame?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


Seriously? Can't quite believe i'm reading that.

I think the higher ups publicly criticised him once in all the years he was at the team?

Mercedes rarely publicly criticised either driver. Spa 214 and Spain 2016 only times I can remember. Quite restrained really considering they were dealing with the most destructive team mate relationship ever. TBH both drivers could have done with a public telling off at times.

So yeah. Throwing Nico under the bus more often than not? Really?

Yes, on reflection I agree throwing under the bus was a bit harsh, so I take that back. They certainly did that after Spa and IMO treated Nico disgracefully then, but after that it was more subtle. Lauda blamed Nico for Austria, for example, where Toto was more restrained


TBF so did the stewards.

Toto made up some rubbish about Rosberg's brakes failing. One of my favourite moments of the season was when the usually clueless Herbert asked him why Rosberg didn't turn either.

To be honest the driving standards of both in 2016 when it came to each other was very poor. Mercedes should have nipped it in the bud when Rosberg pushed Hamilton off at the first corner in Australia. I don't really think a team publicly criticising a driver is a bad thing if they have persistently negatively effected the teams results for selfish reasons. Both Merc drivers were guilty of that numerous times in 2016.

You noticed the incident in Australia as well?

I flagged this and other incidents up early in the season but of course being seen as biased loses you credibility.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?

When a team has a #1 driver the objective is for that driver to win the race, if Hamilton truly was the #1 driver then Mercedes failed him miserably on several occasions.

Many people think Vettel was the number one driver at Red Bull, but if your definition above is accurate then he couldn't possibly have been, given what happened at Malaysia 2013. Or is it maybe possible that things aren't quite that rigid?

Teams normally favour one driver when they are exposed to risk of failure by not doing so. But Mercedes were never in that scenario over the last three years. The WCC was never in doubt and they could afford to let their drivers loose without fear of consequence. But it's practicality, not altruism, that dictated that. In 2013, though, Mercedes did famously issue team orders to keep Nico behind Lewis.

This year Mercedes brought on Bottas, someone who is probably not strong enough to threaten Lewis but is good enough to gain solid points for the team. A bit like when Ferrari brought on Kimi alongside Alonso. If they weren't worried about upsetting their number one driver, I'm betting they would have made a much stronger play for Alonso's services.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mercedes should have nipped it in the bud when Rosberg pushed Hamilton off at the first corner in Australia.


Nothing of note happened in that corner between both Mercedes, bit weird that that would have required intervention by the team.
Rosberg locked up before turning in, went a bit wide, that's about it.

Standard T1 stuff.


He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.

Well it was part of a well thought out campaigned season by Rosberg that paid off for him which included the Barcelona shunt.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
F1_Ernie wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mercedes should have nipped it in the bud when Rosberg pushed Hamilton off at the first corner in Australia.


Nothing of note happened in that corner between both Mercedes, bit weird that that would have required intervention by the team.
Rosberg locked up before turning in, went a bit wide, that's about it.

Standard T1 stuff.


He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.


Didn't Hamilton lose a bit of his front wing?

There was contact so probably?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


Seriously? Can't quite believe i'm reading that.

I think the higher ups publicly criticised him once in all the years he was at the team?

Mercedes rarely publicly criticised either driver. Spa 214 and Spain 2016 only times I can remember. Quite restrained really considering they were dealing with the most destructive team mate relationship ever. TBH both drivers could have done with a public telling off at times.

So yeah. Throwing Nico under the bus more often than not? Really?

Yes, on reflection I agree throwing under the bus was a bit harsh, so I take that back. They certainly did that after Spa and IMO treated Nico disgracefully then, but after that it was more subtle. Lauda blamed Nico for Austria, for example, where Toto was more restrained

This being were the stewards blamed Rosberg as well but then I guess we would get back into the old debate of who was really to blame?

no, but we can go back to the debate about not lynching your driver in public, though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mercedes should have nipped it in the bud when Rosberg pushed Hamilton off at the first corner in Australia.


Nothing of note happened in that corner between both Mercedes, bit weird that that would have required intervention by the team.
Rosberg locked up before turning in, went a bit wide, that's about it.

Standard T1 stuff.


He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.

Well it was part of a well thought out campaigned season by Rosberg that paid off for him which included the Barcelona shunt.

I could be reading this wrong, of course, but are you inferring that Nico planned the Barcelona shunt, among other things?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mercedes should have nipped it in the bud when Rosberg pushed Hamilton off at the first corner in Australia.


Nothing of note happened in that corner between both Mercedes, bit weird that that would have required intervention by the team.
Rosberg locked up before turning in, went a bit wide, that's about it.

Standard T1 stuff.


He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.

Well it was part of a well thought out campaigned season by Rosberg that paid off for him which included the Barcelona shunt.

I could be reading this wrong, of course, but are you inferring that Nico planned the Barcelona shunt, among other things?

He set his stall out for how he was going to deal with any passing attempt by Hamilton, Austria would be another example, he could do this in particular whilst he had a nice points lead.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Quote:
But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


After spain lewis was publicly lambasted by lauda though. And internally you know things werent pretty either since we now know that lewis almost quit the team after what unfolded that weekend.

He didn't, though, did he? And if you call that a lambasting, what would you call after Spa 2014? Evisceration?

Rosberg admitted that he elected not to avoid a collision however he didn't count on Hamilton making that public knowledge otherwise we all would be in the dark and what you said might have some substance.

Because of course the team's public attacks on Rosberg only happened after their meeting?

What Hamilton made public was disingenuous, claiming that Nico hit him on purpose. A bit like Monaco, where his sly digs about "I wish you guys could see the telemetry I do" made it abundantly clear that he was accusing Nico of cheating. Please don't pretend that Lewis was doing any kind of public service, as that's stretching credulity to breaking point


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:

Nothing of note happened in that corner between both Mercedes, bit weird that that would have required intervention by the team.
Rosberg locked up before turning in, went a bit wide, that's about it.

Standard T1 stuff.


He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.

Well it was part of a well thought out campaigned season by Rosberg that paid off for him which included the Barcelona shunt.

I could be reading this wrong, of course, but are you inferring that Nico planned the Barcelona shunt, among other things?

He set his stall out for how he was going to deal with any passing attempt by Hamilton, Austria would be another example, he could do this in particular whilst he had a nice points lead.

Again, not completely clear: are you saying Nico engineered the accident deliberately?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
https://youtu.be/9aVAQXiRvWE

Nothing Rosberg did here qualifies even remotely for getting a telling of.


It could have easily cost his team points. I'm not saying it was awful just that Mercedes should have taken the opportunity to show there drivers that they demand high standards of driving when racing one another. Throughout 2016 it was obvious that both Merc drivers would rather crash than let the other past. That's just not good enough from either of them. Australia was just the first example of this behaviour in 2016. Hamilton then ran Rosberg off in Canada, They crashed into each other in Spain when both of them were taking big risks and again in Austria where Rosberg got a penalty for poor driving. By flexing their muscles a bit Merc management could have possibly avoided these further incidents.

While I agree that they both behaved badly, this started before 2016. The reason Nico was so tremendously peed at Austin in 2015 was because Lewis ran him completely off the track at the start. That's probably when Mercedes should have had words, but to be fair it was probably overshadowed by Lewis' title triumph

I think a big difference in all of this is that Hamilton never caused damage to either car, he played just on the right side of being hard but not reckless unlike Rosberg who to me just seemed to have no limit at times, Barcelona is probably hard for people to see that but Austria shows the clear intent of not letting Hamilton pass no matter what.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You don't believe Hamilton is #1 at Mercedes?

Hamilton who was instructed to concede the WDC title at the last race last season?

No, he wasnt. Not in the slightest.

If you believe that then your evident paranoia will make debate on this impossible I'm afraid

If he was the #1 driver why would they be instructing him how he should drive relative to his teammate?

Because he was risking a Mercedes 1-2 finish

What does that matter when all the titles have been won and the objective is for the #1 driver to be champion, that is the definition of being the #1 driver, even Mercedes told Rosberg that finishing third was alright so an I sorry but the 1-2 arguement is a bit of a hogwash, in fact all that Mercedes were actually worried about was winning the race and do you think that Hamilton was ever in danger of losing that race?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
https://youtu.be/9aVAQXiRvWE

Nothing Rosberg did here qualifies even remotely for getting a telling of.


It could have easily cost his team points. I'm not saying it was awful just that Mercedes should have taken the opportunity to show there drivers that they demand high standards of driving when racing one another. Throughout 2016 it was obvious that both Merc drivers would rather crash than let the other past. That's just not good enough from either of them. Australia was just the first example of this behaviour in 2016. Hamilton then ran Rosberg off in Canada, They crashed into each other in Spain when both of them were taking big risks and again in Austria where Rosberg got a penalty for poor driving. By flexing their muscles a bit Merc management could have possibly avoided these further incidents.

While I agree that they both behaved badly, this started before 2016. The reason Nico was so tremendously peed at Austin in 2015 was because Lewis ran him completely off the track at the start. That's probably when Mercedes should have had words, but to be fair it was probably overshadowed by Lewis' title triumph

I think a big difference in all of this is that Hamilton never caused damage to either car, he played just on the right side of being hard but not reckless unlike Rosberg who to me just seemed to have no limit at times, Barcelona is probably hard for people to see that but Austria shows the clear intent of not letting Hamilton pass no matter what.

You could argue the same about Austin, it's not as though Hamilton left Rosberg any kind of wriggle room. It was hit me or go off


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Semantics but he was given an instruction that had he complied would have resulted in him ending any realistic title chances. Obviously that was not the reason for the order but a known outcome of it nonetheless and therefore providing evidence toward the notion that Hamilton was not the number one driver.

No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?

When a team has a #1 driver the objective is for that driver to win the race, if Hamilton truly was the #1 driver then Mercedes failed him miserably on several occasions.

Many people think Vettel was the number one driver at Red Bull, but if your definition above is accurate then he couldn't possibly have been, given what happened at Malaysia 2013. Or is it maybe possible that things aren't quite that rigid?

Teams normally favour one driver when they are exposed to risk of failure by not doing so. But Mercedes were never in that scenario over the last three years. The WCC was never in doubt and they could afford to let their drivers loose without fear of consequence. But it's practicality, not altruism, that dictated that. In 2013, though, Mercedes did famously issue team orders to keep Nico behind Lewis.

This year Mercedes brought on Bottas, someone who is probably not strong enough to threaten Lewis but is good enough to gain solid points for the team. A bit like when Ferrari brought on Kimi alongside Alonso. If they weren't worried about upsetting their number one driver, I'm betting they would have made a much stronger play for Alonso's services.

Ross Brawn issued team order against Rosberg in Malaysia and at what cost to Brawn of issuing team orders against a German driver in a German owned team?

He was instantly marginalised within the team which lead to him resigning at the end of the year.

I believe it was Brawn's wish to make Hamilton the #1 driver but the German board would have none of it.

These last 3 years you say there was no need for Mercedes to have a #1 driver but then insist that Hamilton was the #1 driver, your argument seems somewhat confused?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, it doesn't. The only evidence it provides is that Mercedes didn't want to lose the possibility of a 1-2 finish. Trying to portray it as an order for Hamilton to concede the title is absurd, not to mention utterly misleading.

Many seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that having a favoured driver means that any and every decision will always be taken in his best interests. When did that become the definition? As I've stated before, Mercedes have had the luxury position in the last three years of not needing team orders. Whatever happened, they were going to win. You can't possibly compare it to e.g. Ferrari where deciding whether or not to back one driver may be the difference between a title chance or not.

But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


Seriously? Can't quite believe i'm reading that.

I think the higher ups publicly criticised him once in all the years he was at the team?

Mercedes rarely publicly criticised either driver. Spa 214 and Spain 2016 only times I can remember. Quite restrained really considering they were dealing with the most destructive team mate relationship ever. TBH both drivers could have done with a public telling off at times.

So yeah. Throwing Nico under the bus more often than not? Really?

Yes, on reflection I agree throwing under the bus was a bit harsh, so I take that back. They certainly did that after Spa and IMO treated Nico disgracefully then, but after that it was more subtle. Lauda blamed Nico for Austria, for example, where Toto was more restrained

This being were the stewards blamed Rosberg as well but then I guess we would get back into the old debate of who was really to blame?

no, but we can go back to the debate about not lynching your driver in public, though?

Well Hamilton let the cat out of the bag that Rosberg intentionally hit him causing damage to both cars, would that not have been weak by Mercedes not to act against Rosberg?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Quote:
But off track more often than not Mercedes threw Nico under the bus. I don't recall Lewis ever being publicly lambasted in the way Nico was and it's clear from the way management spoke that they bent over backwards to try and appease Lewis. And if Mercedes has to actually fight to win a title this year, does anyone really doubt that Mercedes would do anything differently to Ferrari and not back a driver?


After spain lewis was publicly lambasted by lauda though. And internally you know things werent pretty either since we now know that lewis almost quit the team after what unfolded that weekend.

He didn't, though, did he? And if you call that a lambasting, what would you call after Spa 2014? Evisceration?

Rosberg admitted that he elected not to avoid a collision however he didn't count on Hamilton making that public knowledge otherwise we all would be in the dark and what you said might have some substance.

Because of course the team's public attacks on Rosberg only happened after their meeting?

What Hamilton made public was disingenuous, claiming that Nico hit him on purpose. A bit like Monaco, where his sly digs about "I wish you guys could see the telemetry I do" made it abundantly clear that he was accusing Nico of cheating. Please don't pretend that Lewis was doing any kind of public service, as that's stretching credulity to breaking point

Yes I guess it's best not to know what lengths Rosberg would go to and then when we find out we will still make the case for Rosberg?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 21785
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

He pushed his team mate off and it set the tone for season. Merc should have nipped it in the bud then.

Well it was part of a well thought out campaigned season by Rosberg that paid off for him which included the Barcelona shunt.

I could be reading this wrong, of course, but are you inferring that Nico planned the Barcelona shunt, among other things?

He set his stall out for how he was going to deal with any passing attempt by Hamilton, Austria would be another example, he could do this in particular whilst he had a nice points lead.

Again, not completely clear: are you saying Nico engineered the accident deliberately?

I think he just doing whatever it took to stop Hamilton from passing him without really knowing what was going to happen, hence the shock when they actually crashed, he was driving beyond himself and just hoping for the best, just doing whatever it might take to be champion and under enormous pressure which we see in hindsight after he walked away from the sport.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 17th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8665
Didn't realize Rosberg played such a vital part in this year's testing.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7DEPBMWwAADeHF.jpg

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Last edited by Lotus49 on Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1438
Interesting that there's 0.001 between Mercedes and McLaren in sector 3.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4008
Location: Michigan, USA
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)


I've added the link in case others have the same issue. :thumbup:

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 4820
Location: Mumbai, India
Lotus49 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)


I've added the link in case others have the same issue. :thumbup:


Thanks so much for posting this.

These fastest times must've been achieved during qualifying runs, isn't it?

1 reason for Force India being back down is that they didn't do a qualifying simulation at all as they were suffering from weight issues. I'm hoping they've rectified that.

As for McLaren being a 1000's of a second slower than Mercedes, I wonder if the McLaren cut the chicane altogether. :-P

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hamilton who was instructed to concede the WDC title at the last race last season?

No, he wasnt. Not in the slightest.

If you believe that then your evident paranoia will make debate on this impossible I'm afraid

If he was the #1 driver why would they be instructing him how he should drive relative to his teammate?

Because he was risking a Mercedes 1-2 finish

What does that matter when all the titles have been won and the objective is for the #1 driver to be champion, that is the definition of being the #1 driver, even Mercedes told Rosberg that finishing third was alright so an I sorry but the 1-2 arguement is a bit of a hogwash, in fact all that Mercedes were actually worried about was winning the race and do you think that Hamilton was ever in danger of losing that race?
I'm loving how you twist everything to fit your Hamilton coloured perspective. Mercedes told Rosberg not to worry as 3rd was OK for him. As a team, they wanted a 1-2 finish. They even stated as much after the race (Lowe, I think), which I remember was discussed on here at the time. It's a bit surreal sometimes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
UnlikeUday wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)


I've added the link in case others have the same issue. :thumbup:


Thanks so much for posting this.

These fastest times must've been achieved during qualifying runs, isn't it?

1 reason for Force India being back down is that they didn't do a qualifying simulation at all as they were suffering from weight issues. I'm hoping they've rectified that.

As for McLaren being a 1000's of a second slower than Mercedes, I wonder if the McLaren cut the chicane altogether. :-P

Not that I'm jumping on the "McLaren must be crap" bandwagon, but to be fair there are six cars better than the McLaren here, five ahead of the Merc. I doubt the Merc chassis has declined so much this year, which leads me to doubt how representative these figures are


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He didn't, though, did he? And if you call that a lambasting, what would you call after Spa 2014? Evisceration?

Rosberg admitted that he elected not to avoid a collision however he didn't count on Hamilton making that public knowledge otherwise we all would be in the dark and what you said might have some substance.

Because of course the team's public attacks on Rosberg only happened after their meeting?

What Hamilton made public was disingenuous, claiming that Nico hit him on purpose. A bit like Monaco, where his sly digs about "I wish you guys could see the telemetry I do" made it abundantly clear that he was accusing Nico of cheating. Please don't pretend that Lewis was doing any kind of public service, as that's stretching credulity to breaking point

Yes I guess it's best not to know what lengths Rosberg would go to and then when we find out we will still make the case for Rosberg?

What lengths? Even Wolff came out and exposed Lewis for talking crap about the Spa incident. You said yourself above that Nico didn't purposely hit Lewis, just decided not to back down this time. But Lewis proclaims to the world that Nico hit him on purpose and his adoring fans lap it up and paint Nico out to be some kind of super villain. This to you is a public service? Self service, more like


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Seriously? Can't quite believe i'm reading that.

I think the higher ups publicly criticised him once in all the years he was at the team?

Mercedes rarely publicly criticised either driver. Spa 214 and Spain 2016 only times I can remember. Quite restrained really considering they were dealing with the most destructive team mate relationship ever. TBH both drivers could have done with a public telling off at times.

So yeah. Throwing Nico under the bus more often than not? Really?

Yes, on reflection I agree throwing under the bus was a bit harsh, so I take that back. They certainly did that after Spa and IMO treated Nico disgracefully then, but after that it was more subtle. Lauda blamed Nico for Austria, for example, where Toto was more restrained

This being were the stewards blamed Rosberg as well but then I guess we would get back into the old debate of who was really to blame?

no, but we can go back to the debate about not lynching your driver in public, though?

Well Hamilton let the cat out of the bag that Rosberg intentionally hit him causing damage to both cars, would that not have been weak by Mercedes not to act against Rosberg?

No, he lied and said Rosberg intentionally hit him, which paints a very different perspective


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11468
I think you're both looking at things way to black and white TBH. The whole situation around Spa, pecking order in the team and general driving standards at Mercedes is so much more nuanced that either of you seem prepared to concede. Zoue, Rosberg was not always the victim of big bad lier Hamilton and Mercedes. I think you've been arguing against Hamilton fans too long and allowed your self to get entrenched in a position against Hamilton. I haven't seen you back Hamilton on anything for a while now? Over the course of the last 3 years Rosberg has been probably at least as dirty. And Pokerman we all expect you to defend Hamilton to the hilt but you have to accept that too often Hamilton has let emotion get the better of him which has negatively affected his team. His inability to put Monaco 2014 behind him allowed this destructive relationship to develop and it ended up doing no good to anybody.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're both looking at things way to black and white TBH. The whole situation around Spa, pecking order in the team and general driving standards at Mercedes is so much more nuanced that either of you seem prepared to concede. Zoue, Rosberg was not always the victim of big bad lier Hamilton and Mercedes. I think you've been arguing against Hamilton fans too long and allowed your self to get entrenched in a position against Hamilton. I haven't seen you back Hamilton on anything for a while now? Over the course of the last 3 years Rosberg has been probably at least as dirty. And Pokerman we all expect you to defend Hamilton to the hilt but you have to accept that too often Hamilton has let emotion get the better of him which has negatively affected his team. His inability to put Monaco 2014 behind him allowed this destructive relationship to develop and it ended up doing no good to anybody.


Hey.. all stepping stones on the way to that NICO ROSBERG World Championship!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19863
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're both looking at things way to black and white TBH. The whole situation around Spa, pecking order in the team and general driving standards at Mercedes is so much more nuanced that either of you seem prepared to concede. Zoue, Rosberg was not always the victim of big bad lier Hamilton and Mercedes. I think you've been arguing against Hamilton fans too long and allowed your self to get entrenched in a position against Hamilton. I haven't seen you back Hamilton on anything for a while now? Over the course of the last 3 years Rosberg has been probably at least as dirty. And Pokerman we all expect you to defend Hamilton to the hilt but you have to accept that too often Hamilton has let emotion get the better of him which has negatively affected his team. His inability to put Monaco 2014 behind him allowed this destructive relationship to develop and it ended up doing no good to anybody.

Good post.

I agree Rosberg wasn't always the victim of big bad liar Hamilton, but I do believe that Hamilton did intentionally deceive everybody about the Spa incident with his claim that Rosberg intentionally hit him, to try to gain sympathy from the public. I also found it distasteful that he would try and influence the court of public opinion against Rosberg with his statement after the Monaco qualifying. Pokerman's comments, which pretty much take Hamilton's utterances as gospel, effectively validate that.

As regards saying something positive about Hamilton, I've always said I find him one of the best drivers on the grid. But I also think he's one of the most political and disruptive influences on the grid. It's his character I have an issue with. I tend to post as a counterpoint to all those who echo his "I'm a victim" mentality and make out that Rosberg is a fully paid up Sith Lord, which I think is rubbish. By way of example, when Rosberg tries to force Lewis off the road - and I fully agree he's just as guilty as Lewis in doing that - he's vilified. Yet when Lewis does it there's very little, if any, sympathy for Nico, even when it's as blatant as in Austin 2014. And all manner of justifications come out.

I do think F1 is richer for having Hamilton in it, if that helps. He's one of the greatest drivers of his generation. But I think it'd be richer still without his constant "I'm at war" mentality, which causes so much grief and disruption


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
Zoue wrote:
I do think F1 is richer for having Hamilton in it, if that helps. He's one of the greatest drivers of his generation. But I think it'd be richer still without his constant "I'm at war" mentality, which causes so much grief and disruption


Possibly, possibly not. Sports tend to benefit from having a variety of characters and some of them might be disruptive and certainly divisive, as John McEnroe was and Lewis Hamilton is. Would have the respective sports been richer if McEnroe didn't throw temper tantrums and Lewis wasn't a "little ballerina"?

Good talking point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11468
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think you're both looking at things way to black and white TBH. The whole situation around Spa, pecking order in the team and general driving standards at Mercedes is so much more nuanced that either of you seem prepared to concede. Zoue, Rosberg was not always the victim of big bad lier Hamilton and Mercedes. I think you've been arguing against Hamilton fans too long and allowed your self to get entrenched in a position against Hamilton. I haven't seen you back Hamilton on anything for a while now? Over the course of the last 3 years Rosberg has been probably at least as dirty. And Pokerman we all expect you to defend Hamilton to the hilt but you have to accept that too often Hamilton has let emotion get the better of him which has negatively affected his team. His inability to put Monaco 2014 behind him allowed this destructive relationship to develop and it ended up doing no good to anybody.

Good post.

I agree Rosberg wasn't always the victim of big bad liar Hamilton, but I do believe that Hamilton did intentionally deceive everybody about the Spa incident with his claim that Rosberg intentionally hit him, to try to gain sympathy from the public. I also found it distasteful that he would try and influence the court of public opinion against Rosberg with his statement after the Monaco qualifying. Pokerman's comments, which pretty much take Hamilton's utterances as gospel, effectively validate that.

As regards saying something positive about Hamilton, I've always said I find him one of the best drivers on the grid. But I also think he's one of the most political and disruptive influences on the grid. It's his character I have an issue with. I tend to post as a counterpoint to all those who echo his "I'm a victim" mentality and make out that Rosberg is a fully paid up Sith Lord, which I think is rubbish. By way of example, when Rosberg tries to force Lewis off the road - and I fully agree he's just as guilty as Lewis in doing that - he's vilified. Yet when Lewis does it there's very little, if any, sympathy for Nico, even when it's as blatant as in Austin 2014. And all manner of justifications come out.

I do think F1 is richer for having Hamilton in it, if that helps. He's one of the greatest drivers of his generation. But I think it'd be richer still without his constant "I'm at war" mentality, which causes so much grief and disruption


:thumbup:

Hamilton reminds me of Mansell so much in his persecution complex and the amount of drama he seems to be able to get involved in. While I acknowledge what you say is true it is those things that make me like Hamilton. I think I am a bit more generous than you and view his emotive comments more sincerly rather than him making manoeuvres for political gain. I believe that Hamilton believe(s?)d Rosberg genuinely hit him on purpose in Spa, knackered his Monaco quali run and that someone in Mercedes was doing something funny to his engines. Or I guess what I mean is he genuinely believed those things at the time I couldn't control himself enough not to blurt them out. I find that weakness quite endearing in a sport where it is so unusual from a top performer.

I actually think we have the age of the grey driver has long passed and we are very lucky.... Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Ricciardo, Verstappen, Hulk, Palmer, Magnussen, Grosjean, Alonso and Ericcson I find all have interesting, funny and individual personalities. The drivers themselves generally seem more friendly with eachother than we have seen for a long time as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
mikeyg123 wrote:
:thumbup:

Hamilton reminds me of Mansell so much in his persecution complex and the amount of drama he seems to be able to get involved in. While I acknowledge what you say is true it is those things that make me like Hamilton. I think I am a bit more generous than you and view his emotive comments more sincerly rather than him making manoeuvres for political gain. I believe that Hamilton believe(s?)d Rosberg genuinely hit him on purpose in Spa, knackered his Monaco quali run and that someone in Mercedes was doing something funny to his engines. Or I guess what I mean is he genuinely believed those things at the time I couldn't control himself enough not to blurt them out. I find that weakness quite endearing in a sport where it is so unusual from a top performer.

I actually think we have the age of the grey driver has long passed and we are very lucky.... Hamilton, Vettel, Kimi, Ricciardo, Verstappen, Hulk, Palmer, Magnussen, Grosjean, Alonso and Ericcson I find all have interesting, funny and individual personalities. The drivers themselves generally seem more friendly with eachother than we have seen for a long time as well.


I mean, I'm not sure how much I "like" Hamilton -- though I'm a big fan of his racing -- but I do know that his personality makes the sport more compelling for me. It's definitely a matter of taste, though evidence points to Hamilton being a legitimate sports superstar, and his personality is certainly a part of that; still, on an individual level it's a matter of taste.

I think F1 is one of the better sports around for seeing the real and transparent characters of the combatants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2599
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)


Really? To me those sector times are just another indication the merc chassis is no longer a world beater whereas the ferrari is clearly the class of the field.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6358
Exediron wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
From AMuS.

Best Sector Times.

Image

I can't see the image. Is it just me?

If McLaren and Mercedes are close in the final sector - which is very definitely not a power sector - that would tend to imply the Macca chassis actually isn't a dog and it really is the engine holding it back... ;)

I also doubt that the Ferrari is only 1.5 tenths faster through the final sector than Williams, as you say it's not a power dependent sector.

Nobody is pushing to the limit on those laptimes and it's pure guesswork to say who is holding back more. Race sims are the better measure of performance in pre season testing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2017/03 ... -analysis/

Sorry if that's already been posted but it's very sexy analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mcdo, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group