planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:36 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

who is faster? Merc or Ferrari?
Poll ended at Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:35 am
Ferrari 37%  37%  [ 44 ]
Mercedes 63%  63%  [ 74 ]
Total votes : 118
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4279
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.

No he won the championship by outperforming Vettel in the second half of the season. That's the part you seem so eager to avoid acknowledging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Zoue wrote:
Only he didn't take much of a risk. It wasn't exactly foreseen that Kimi would have made one of the best starts of the season and without that Vettel would have been home and dry. The risk was comparatively small; it's just the consequences that were major.

I doubt we'll convince each other either way but the point I was making was that it's at least highly debatable, so can't be counted as a definite mistake in the way that e.g. Baku was


Even if Kimi wasn't there, he still had to negotiate turn 1 with Verstappen overlapping his car and probably going to try a pass. I would expect a collision to occur in that scenario maybe 30-50% of the time, unless Vettel yielded. It has happened every time this year when they have been that close to one another after all.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.

No he won the championship by outperforming Vettel in the second half of the season. That's the part you seem so eager to avoid acknowledging.


Hamilton has started ahead of Vettel 12-7 this year. It's hardly a landslide, without Vettels Malaysia issue that would be pretty close at 11-8.

Ahead after the first lap is; 8-9 or 10-9 in Hamiltons favour if you include Vettel's 2 DNF's from the start. If Vettel didn't cause the wreck in Singapore he would be ahead in the ahead after first lap stat.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Only he didn't take much of a risk. It wasn't exactly foreseen that Kimi would have made one of the best starts of the season and without that Vettel would have been home and dry. The risk was comparatively small; it's just the consequences that were major.

I doubt we'll convince each other either way but the point I was making was that it's at least highly debatable, so can't be counted as a definite mistake in the way that e.g. Baku was


Even if Kimi wasn't there, he still had to negotiate turn 1 with Verstappen overlapping his car and probably going to try a pass. I would expect a collision to occur in that scenario maybe 30-50% of the time, unless Vettel yielded. It has happened every time this year when they have been that close to one another after all.

That’s a big assumption. Max was already backing out when Kimi joined the party, so there’s no reason to believe that corner would have ended in pain if the crash hadn’t happened


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
AnRs wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.


And because he has made less mistakes.


You tend to do that when you have a much faster car.


Agreed but completely irrelevant in this case.


Why, he claims that reliability and a better car is a part of what happened this year, which part is in your opinion irrelevant?


None of what KingVoid says is irrelevant.

Your statement that you tend to make less mistakes in a much faster car is irrelevant because -

A - Neither Vettel or Hamilton have had a "Much faster car" than the other.

B - Even if Hamilton did have a much faster car Vettel's mistakes have come when he started on pole or under the safety car.

And you're also twisting what King Void said. He is not claiming "reliability and a better car is a part of what happened this year".

He is claiming that a more reliable car is the reason (not a reason) that Hamilton is 2017 world champion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there

Verstappen didn't back off because of Vettel, he backed off when Kimi came into play.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.


And because he has made less mistakes.


If both of the drivers had been perfect, then Hamilton still wins the title. Vettel didn't make that many actual mistakes. Baku being the most obvious one. But then... Singapore was really an unfortunate racing incident than that it was a mistake, the manoeuvre was not unusual.

Mexico was a mistake, but actually benefitted him in the title race or was, at worst, neutral.


And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
mikeyg123 wrote:

And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Thus far... still one to go and its amazing how that can swing the entire picture even though we have had 19/20 races.

The season will likely end 10-5 (big gap) or a much closer 9-6 in wins (close when you consider races SV lost).

Likewise a Vettel pole will put him 12-8 down (reasonably close) in qualifying to Hamilton or 13-7 if Lewis ahead (moving more toward a landslide).

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Thus far... still one to go and its amazing how that can swing the entire picture even though we have had 19/20 races.

The season will likely end 10-5 (big gap) or a much closer 9-6 in wins (close when you consider races SV lost).


Might be wrong but if both had perfect reliability I think Hamilton is already over 25 points ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
{double post}

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
mikeyg123 wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Thus far... still one to go and its amazing how that can swing the entire picture even though we have had 19/20 races.

The season will likely end 10-5 (big gap) or a much closer 9-6 in wins (close when you consider races SV lost).


Might be wrong but if both had perfect reliability I think Hamilton is already over 25 points ahead.


Vettel is a 37 points down for Malaysia + Japan. 1st and 2nd. Arguably he lost the win in Japan as his start was that good on just 5 cyclinders. The win in Japan would give him a net positive of 57 points with Lewis dropping to 2nd.

Hamilton is 15 down for Baku head rest and arguably 3-10 down for Austria.

If Vettel managed to take the lead and win in Japan and we also give Lewis the win in Austria - I think we would still have the title race going (just).

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Thus far... still one to go and its amazing how that can swing the entire picture even though we have had 19/20 races.

The season will likely end 10-5 (big gap) or a much closer 9-6 in wins (close when you consider races SV lost).


Might be wrong but if both had perfect reliability I think Hamilton is already over 25 points ahead.


Vettel is a 37 points down for Malaysia + Japan. 1st and 2nd. Arguably he lost the win in Japan as his start was that good on just 5 cyclinders. The win in Japan would give him a net positive of 57 points with Lewis dropping to 2nd.

Hamilton is 15 down for Baku head rest and arguably 3-10 down for Austria.

If Vettel managed to take the lead and win in Japan and we also give Lewis the win in Austria - I think we would still have the title race going (just).


Wouldn't Hamilton be more down for Baku because he also lost points to Vettel. That would have been another few points.

But yeah it's obviously close.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there

Verstappen didn't back off because of Vettel, he backed off when Kimi came into play.

No, he backed off because of Vettel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23897
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there

Verstappen didn't back off because of Vettel, he backed off when Kimi came into play.

No, he backed off because of Vettel

He moved to the left because of Vettel, he backed off because he was getting pincered by the two Ferraris.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
lamo wrote:
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

You seem to be taking it as the default position, but I couldn't disagree more. There is no evidence they would have collided. Max was already backing off


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there

Verstappen didn't back off because of Vettel, he backed off when Kimi came into play.

No, he backed off because of Vettel

He moved to the left because of Vettel, he backed off because he was getting pincered by the two Ferraris.

He was already backing off by the time Kimi got there. Seb had him covered. And I repeat yet again that there is zero evidence that they would have collided. Seems to be wishful thinking on here more than anything


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
I don’t believe Seb had Max covered, Max only lifted because of Kimi and it would have been a fight at the first corner if Kimi wasn’t there.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

You seem to be taking it as the default position, but I couldn't disagree more. There is no evidence they would have collided. Max was already backing off


"It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%" That was literally in my post before.

There was no evidence they would have collided in Mexico or Canada. Its not something you can have evidence for. You can speculate either way, but its is something with numerous variables that a conclusion is impossible. Hence why I attributed a probability range.

The same as I did before Mexico and was correct and of course in Mexico there was no evidence they would collide too.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
F1_Ernie wrote:
I don’t believe Seb had Max covered, Max only lifted because of Kimi and it would have been a fight at the first corner if Kimi wasn’t there.


Why would a driver back off if he still had 2 car widths to his left to go into (what Max would have had if Kimi was there). It makes no sense especially a driver who has nothing to lose(and a $1 million bonus per race win) and knows his rival has everything to lose.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

You seem to be taking it as the default position, but I couldn't disagree more. There is no evidence they would have collided. Max was already backing off


"It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%" That was literally in my post before.

There was no evidence they would have collided in Mexico or Canada. Its not something you can have evidence for. You can speculate either way, but its is something with numerous variables that a conclusion is impossible. Hence why I attributed a probability range.

The same as I did before Mexico and was correct and of course in Mexico there was no evidence they would collide too.

That doesn't mean anything. You're always going to have a 50% chance of getting it right, but that doesn't make you prescient.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.


And because he has made less mistakes.


If both of the drivers had been perfect, then Hamilton still wins the title. Vettel didn't make that many actual mistakes. Baku being the most obvious one. But then... Singapore was really an unfortunate racing incident than that it was a mistake, the manoeuvre was not unusual.

Mexico was a mistake, but actually benefitted him in the title race or was, at worst, neutral.


And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Sure, but then it just reverts to car performance. I mean, everything always plays a part, I guess, but if one claims that Vettel lost it because he wasn't as good as Hamilton (which ultimately, if you see Singapore as a racing incident, is even highly debatable given Monaco, Russia and Brazil, and if you see it an error by Vettel, isn't that far off anyway) then one forgets the point that in case Vettel had won it by being perfect, Hamilton would have had to screw up bigtime to actually lose it.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12374
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Just like Hamilton can hardly blame the team for Bahrain/Russia/Monaco/Brazil, but he's won the WDC regardless because of better reliability and a better car in qualifying.


And because he has made less mistakes.


If both of the drivers had been perfect, then Hamilton still wins the title. Vettel didn't make that many actual mistakes. Baku being the most obvious one. But then... Singapore was really an unfortunate racing incident than that it was a mistake, the manoeuvre was not unusual.

Mexico was a mistake, but actually benefitted him in the title race or was, at worst, neutral.


And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Sure, but then it just reverts to car performance. I mean, everything always plays a part, I guess, but if one claims that Vettel lost it because he wasn't as good as Hamilton (which ultimately, if you see Singapore as a racing incident, is even highly debatable given Monaco, Russia and Brazil, and if you see it an error by Vettel, isn't that far off anyway) then one forgets the point that in case Vettel had won it by being perfect, Hamilton would have had to screw up bigtime to actually lose it.


I think the BIB is the point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:41 am
Posts: 167
mikeyg123 wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
lamo wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

And if they both had perfect reliability Hamilton would also still be champion.

Both reliability and driver performance played a part.


Thus far... still one to go and its amazing how that can swing the entire picture even though we have had 19/20 races.

The season will likely end 10-5 (big gap) or a much closer 9-6 in wins (close when you consider races SV lost).


Might be wrong but if both had perfect reliability I think Hamilton is already over 25 points ahead.


Vettel is a 37 points down for Malaysia + Japan. 1st and 2nd. Arguably he lost the win in Japan as his start was that good on just 5 cyclinders. The win in Japan would give him a net positive of 57 points with Lewis dropping to 2nd.

Hamilton is 15 down for Baku head rest and arguably 3-10 down for Austria.

If Vettel managed to take the lead and win in Japan and we also give Lewis the win in Austria - I think we would still have the title race going (just).


Wouldn't Hamilton be more down for Baku because he also lost points to Vettel. That would have been another few points.

But yeah it's obviously close.


Yeah, i have him down by 17 points

Quick rough estimate:

Azerbaijan - with no headrest issue, Hamilton finishes P1 instead of P5. That's an extra 15 points. This would then demote Vettel from P4 to P5-Vettel losing 2 points. Therefore, net loss 17 points.
Austria - without gearbox issue, Hamilton finishes a minimum P3, instead of P4. 3 points lost.

Hamilton - net total 20 points lost.

Malaysia - with no engine issue, Vettel would've finished P1 instead of P4. That's an extra 13 points. This would then demote Hamilton from P2 to P3-Hamilton losing 3 points. Therefore, net loss 16 points.
Japan-with no issues, Vettel finishes P2 . 18 points

Vettel - net total 34 points lost.


Unless i've got this completely & utterly wrong, i make that a difference of 14 points?


Last edited by SR1 on Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9718
Location: Ireland
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%...

These were the same odds I put in the race thread before Mexico too.

Max backed out because of Kimi too, if no Kimi is there Max doesn't back out at that point at least.

I don't agree with those odds, I'm afraid. How are they calculated? And Max backed out initially because of Vettel, but was forced to stop when Kimi blocked his path. There is no evidence that Max and Seb would have collided had Kimi not been there

Verstappen didn't back off because of Vettel, he backed off when Kimi came into play.

No, he backed off because of Vettel

He moved to the left because of Vettel, he backed off because he was getting pincered by the two Ferraris.

This is exactly how I read it too

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

You seem to be taking it as the default position, but I couldn't disagree more. There is no evidence they would have collided. Max was already backing off


"It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%" That was literally in my post before.

There was no evidence they would have collided in Mexico or Canada. Its not something you can have evidence for. You can speculate either way, but its is something with numerous variables that a conclusion is impossible. Hence why I attributed a probability range.

The same as I did before Mexico and was correct and of course in Mexico there was no evidence they would collide too.

That doesn't mean anything. You're always going to have a 50% chance of getting it right, but that doesn't make you prescient.


?

Do you not understand probability and statistics... without being condescending. Your last few posts seem to show you do not grasp probability at all.

If a weather man says that there is a 30-50% chance of rain. His "default" position is not that it is going to rain. That means there is up to a 70% chance it will not rain. His default position is it won't rain.

I really don't understand how you arrived at being right 50% of the time? Can you explain the logic behind that.

In terms of Vettel and collisions - he has collided at the first corner 3 or 4 times this year. 4 if you include the tiny contact at Silverstone. So his chances of collision this year are around 16-21%. Which is slightly lower than his strike rate last year.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20999
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Picking a number out of the sky, it has to be something between 1 and 99...

Of all 20 drivers on the grid, they are ranked 1st and 2nd for most collisions at the start over the last 2 years. Put them next to each over on the front row, in the wet, at a time in the season when Max is racing solely for wins (reliability ruining his WDC standing chances) then its about as perfect as a recipe you could get for a first corner incident, especially once there is overlap between the cars.

I think they have made contact 100% of the time they have been anywhere near each other at turn 1 this year, 4/4. Although Silverstones was the slightest of brushes.

There is no evidence they wouldn't have collided. Form puts it much higher than 30%

You seem to be taking it as the default position, but I couldn't disagree more. There is no evidence they would have collided. Max was already backing off


"It's not really as assumption, its the opposite - I put the odds at 30-50%, which means I have the odds for no collision at 50-70%" That was literally in my post before.

There was no evidence they would have collided in Mexico or Canada. Its not something you can have evidence for. You can speculate either way, but its is something with numerous variables that a conclusion is impossible. Hence why I attributed a probability range.

The same as I did before Mexico and was correct and of course in Mexico there was no evidence they would collide too.

That doesn't mean anything. You're always going to have a 50% chance of getting it right, but that doesn't make you prescient.


?

Do you not understand probability and statistics... without being condescending. Your last few posts seem to show you do not grasp probability at all.

If a weather man says that there is a 30-50% chance of rain. His "default" position is not that it is going to rain. That means there is up to a 70% chance it will not rain. His default position is it won't rain.

I really don't understand how you arrived at being right 50% of the time? Can you explain the logic behind that.

In terms of Vettel and collisions - he has collided at the first corner 3 or 4 times this year. 4 if you include the tiny contact at Silverstone. So his chances of collision this year are around 16-21%. Which is slightly lower than his strike rate last year.

You predicted they would collide in Mexico and were correct because they did. But you have a 50% chance of being right there, so I don't think you can use that as evidence of any science behind your calculations.

I don't believe you can use past contact as evidence of future conduct, since every race (and corner) is different. There are too many variables, from car positions relative to each other, other players in the mix, distance to 1st corner, angle of corner etc. I don't agree that two drivers making contact in e.g. Canada increases the probability that they will do so again in e.g. Brazil.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


If there was no collision in Singapore and predicting Vettel would have won you need to also take into consideration Kimi and Max would have been ahead of Hamilton after turn 1 but what would have happened after that is up for debate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Zoue wrote:
You predicted they would collide in Mexico and were correct because they did. But you have a 50% chance of being right there, so I don't think you can use that as evidence of any science behind your calculations.

I don't believe you can use past contact as evidence of future conduct, since every race (and corner) is different. There are too many variables, from car positions relative to each other, other players in the mix, distance to 1st corner, angle of corner etc. I don't agree that two drivers making contact in e.g. Canada increases the probability that they will do so again in e.g. Brazil.


This is not how statistics work.

The available outcomes are;
1) collision
2) no collision

There is not a 50% chance of each outcome (being right)

The available outcomes of winning the lottery are;
1) win jackpot
2) don't win jackpot

There is not a 50% chance of each outcome

Furthermore, I did not predict the collision in Mexico. I attributed a probability to an outcome. I stated there was a 30-40% chance of a colliision in Mexico. So I was saying it was more likely they wouldn't collide.

If a weatherman says there is a 10% chance it will rain and it does rain. He did not predict rain, he was actually saying there was a 90% chance it wouldn't rain and it did. He got it completely wrong.

The second part of your comment I agree with, you can not predict. That is why you use probability ranges. A prediction would be "they will crash", a probability range is completely different. We know for certain that percentage lies somewhere between 1 and 99%. Then you can start to examine the factors to attribute a probability.

This is how all probability works and whilst you can always say "you never know what would happen in each individual case" that doesn't render probability meaningless. Probabilities are used to decide nearly all major government and individual decisions.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
F1_Ernie wrote:
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


If there was no collision in Singapore and predicting Vettel would have won you need to also take into consideration Kimi and Max would have been ahead of Hamilton after turn 1 but what would have happened after that is up for debate.


Indeed, not all races are as easy as others to predict. Rain + SC's turns races on there heads and it would have been probably the most unpredictable race of the year, but he was certainly the favourite and removed himself from a potential 25 points.

The other end of that spectrum is the Mercedes battle 2015-2016, the one ahead after the opening corners finished ahead 85-90% of the time and it was only anomalies like Monaco 2015 that threw that out.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


I don't see how it's biased. Most of it is pretty straightforward.
For Hamilton, I give him Bottas' finishing position in Russia and Monaco, but not better. Assuming a Hamilton that doesn't underperform should definitely be able to accomplish what Bottas does, that is not a stretch. And I give him the win in Brazil, because frankly I can't see him do anything other than pole and win if he doesn't crash.
Same for Seb, I give him the win in Baku and Singapore.


I'm not saying Mexico wasn't Seb's fault. I'm saying that his mistake wasn't detrimental for his championship bid. With collision: gained 10 points. Without collision: would have probably gained 7 or 10 points. His mistake gave a positive effect on the standings, or neutral at worst.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


I don't see how it's biased. Most of it is pretty straightforward.
For Hamilton, I give him Bottas' finishing position in Russia and Monaco, but not better. Assuming a Hamilton that doesn't underperform should definitely be able to accomplish what Bottas does, that is not a stretch. And I give him the win in Brazil, because frankly I can't see him do anything other than pole and win if he doesn't crash.
Same for Seb, I give him the win in Baku and Singapore.


I'm not saying Mexico wasn't Seb's fault. I'm saying that his mistake wasn't detrimental for his championship bid. With collision: gained 10 points. Without collision: would have probably gained 7 or 10 points. His mistake gave a positive effect on the standings, or neutral at worst.


I understand Brazil because Bottas got pole. In Russia Hamilton would have needed the same good start as Bottas to win the race, plus Russia is one of Bottas's strongest tracks. I can't see it as a guaranteed win.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think the BIB is the point.


Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


I don't see how it's biased. Most of it is pretty straightforward.
For Hamilton, I give him Bottas' finishing position in Russia and Monaco, but not better. Assuming a Hamilton that doesn't underperform should definitely be able to accomplish what Bottas does, that is not a stretch. And I give him the win in Brazil, because frankly I can't see him do anything other than pole and win if he doesn't crash.
Same for Seb, I give him the win in Baku and Singapore.


I'm not saying Mexico wasn't Seb's fault. I'm saying that his mistake wasn't detrimental for his championship bid. With collision: gained 10 points. Without collision: would have probably gained 7 or 10 points. His mistake gave a positive effect on the standings, or neutral at worst.


I understand Brazil because Bottas got pole. In Russia Hamilton would have needed the same good start as Bottas to win the race, plus Russia is one of Bottas's strongest tracks. I can't see it as a guaranteed win.


Bottas and Vettel had pretty comparable starts, it was really the long straight allowing for the slipstream effect, coupled to the Mercedes grunt, that did it, more than the start in itself.

As for driver strenghts, Lewis had won 2 of the 3 previous races there so it's not like it's a bad track for him :)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
mds wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:
mds wrote:

Just looked at it somewhat closer. Counting the obvious events or lesser performances of both drivers:
- Russia: LH+13 SV-3
- Monaco: LH+6
- Baku: SV+13
- Singapore: SV+25 LH-7 (assuming Seb would have won)
- Brazil: LH+13 SV-7

Mexico not figuring because I see it as neutral at best.

Grand total if both drivers would have made no errors or would have had no bad weekends: SV+28, LH+32.
So you could make a very good case for both drivers having left a very comparable amount of points on the table even including Singapore as error instead of racing incident.


I would call that quite SV biased.

Mexico was his fault (he understeered his car directly into Hamilton causing a puncture) and he came out of it +10 over Hamilton. If he doesn't puncture Hamiltons tyre. Lewis finishes at least 2nd (18) and Vettel 5th. That is an 18 point swing and it becomes SV +30 LH +48

Sometimes errors can gain you a large amount of points, Spa 2014 gained Rosberg +18 points when if he hadn't have hit Lewis he would have left -7. 25 point swing by causing a collision.


I don't see how it's biased. Most of it is pretty straightforward.
For Hamilton, I give him Bottas' finishing position in Russia and Monaco, but not better. Assuming a Hamilton that doesn't underperform should definitely be able to accomplish what Bottas does, that is not a stretch. And I give him the win in Brazil, because frankly I can't see him do anything other than pole and win if he doesn't crash.
Same for Seb, I give him the win in Baku and Singapore.


I'm not saying Mexico wasn't Seb's fault. I'm saying that his mistake wasn't detrimental for his championship bid. With collision: gained 10 points. Without collision: would have probably gained 7 or 10 points. His mistake gave a positive effect on the standings, or neutral at worst.


I understand Brazil because Bottas got pole. In Russia Hamilton would have needed the same good start as Bottas to win the race, plus Russia is one of Bottas's strongest tracks. I can't see it as a guaranteed win.


Bottas and Vettel had pretty comparable starts, it was really the long straight allowing for the slipstream effect, coupled to the Mercedes grunt, that did it, more than the start in itself.

As for driver strenghts, Lewis had won 2 of the 3 previous races there so it's not like it's a bad track for him :)


Bottas got a better start, seen it so many times now. Hamilton inherited a win from Rosberg which wouldnt have been a win. Still no guarantee Hamilton would have won. I just don't understand how people just presume one driver would win because the other did, sometimes they can be beaten fair and square.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10780
F1_Ernie wrote:
Bottas got a better start, seen it so many times now.


Maybe once more then. Vettel gets away just as fast, Merc power then kicks in.

Quote:
I just don't understand how people just presume one driver would win because the other did, sometimes they can be beaten fair and square.


Uh, yes, of course they can. Isn't that the whole point? The car won so Hamilton left a bunch of points on the table.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2267
mds wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Bottas got a better start, seen it so many times now.


Maybe once more then. Vettel gets away just as fast, Merc power then kicks in.

Quote:
I just don't understand how people just presume one driver would win because the other did, sometimes they can be beaten fair and square.


Uh, yes, of course they can. Isn't that the whole point? The car won so Hamilton left a bunch of points on the table.


Better start and slipstream done more than power. Had this discussion a while back. Doesn't mean Hamilton would do the same start.

The car won because of turn 1 not because it was the fastest car. If Hamilton doesn't make turn 1 winning he doesn't win.
If Bottas or Kimi made a certain amount of races 1st the chances are they would win the majority of them races if it's a normal 1 stopper. Nothing to do with having the faster car.

Also Bottas can be better at certain tracks, same happened with Rosberg.

Anyway all I was saying there was no guarantee.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


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: Alexa [Bot], Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], mmi16 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