planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:40 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:11 am 
mcdo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
pokerman wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I actually still don't understand then.


No worries, was just in response to you suggesting I should respond to the posts that Kimi and Massa were fastest cos of a car in 200x

I was proposing that one year of fast does not make a legend - whereas Alonso has been fast for so many years now, regardless of the car.

Well I was saying that in respect to Kimi and Massa that it was the car that was fast.


Can't dispute that, although for Kimi I want to, his speed that McLaren was rather special I feel, but then he went a bit wayward in the Ferrari. All subjective of course:)

One major change that could help explain the difference is that maybe Kimi was just lightning fast on Michelins


Oooh, I forgot about the Michelin tyre switch - you could well be right - that has to be included as a factor too !!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm
Posts: 39
moby wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
I'd say there isn't a top 5, but a top 3: Hamilton, Vettel, Ricciardo.


By the same token, I would say Ricciardo does not belong in the same group as the other two :twisted:


You may have a point. A top 2 it is then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23683
mcdo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
pokerman wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I actually still don't understand then.


No worries, was just in response to you suggesting I should respond to the posts that Kimi and Massa were fastest cos of a car in 200x

I was proposing that one year of fast does not make a legend - whereas Alonso has been fast for so many years now, regardless of the car.

Well I was saying that in respect to Kimi and Massa that it was the car that was fast.


Can't dispute that, although for Kimi I want to, his speed that McLaren was rather special I feel, but then he went a bit wayward in the Ferrari. All subjective of course:)

One major change that could help explain the difference is that maybe Kimi was just lightning fast on Michelins

Yes this has been mooted before, it would explain what appeared to be a drop off of performance for Kimi after 2006, another theory was that McLaren were able to cater for what Kimi needed from a car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: Currently 15th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
pokerman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
pokerman wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
No worries, was just in response to you suggesting I should respond to the posts that Kimi and Massa were fastest cos of a car in 200x

I was proposing that one year of fast does not make a legend - whereas Alonso has been fast for so many years now, regardless of the car.

Well I was saying that in respect to Kimi and Massa that it was the car that was fast.


Can't dispute that, although for Kimi I want to, his speed that McLaren was rather special I feel, but then he went a bit wayward in the Ferrari. All subjective of course:)

One major change that could help explain the difference is that maybe Kimi was just lightning fast on Michelins

Yes this has been mooted before, it would explain what appeared to be a drop off of performance for Kimi after 2006, another theory was that McLaren were able to cater for what Kimi needed from a car.

Also very possible

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4265
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.

This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 712
sandman1347 wrote:
This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


Only an opinion again presented as a fact, simply not true, you have no chance to prove that Kimi wasn't faster than Alonso and Lewis at the later part of 2007, but still you try to present your assumptions as facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:33 pm 
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.

This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4265
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.

This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.

Except that's totally not the way it has ever gone. The perception that drivers operate at a higher level in terms of pace for entire seasons is based 100% on the fact that they change teams/cars/teammates and thus look different with respect to their competition based on that. Drivers have years where they are mistake prone relative to others but in terms of pace, most F1 drivers only experience a slight improvement during their first 2 years and then remain level until they get old. Several people (including a couple in this forum) have done statistical comparisons to isolate relative pace and have found that pace remains constant among drivers (ie Felipe and Kimi both looked about the same against Alonso in the same car and they were evenly matched at Ferrari).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:26 pm 
sandman1347 wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.

This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.

Except that's totally not the way it has ever gone. The perception that drivers operate at a higher level in terms of pace for entire seasons is based 100% on the fact that they change teams/cars/teammates and thus look different with respect to their competition based on that. Drivers have years where they are mistake prone relative to others but in terms of pace, most F1 drivers only experience a slight improvement during their first 2 years and then remain level until they get old. Several people (including a couple in this forum) have done statistical comparisons to isolate relative pace and have found that pace remains constant among drivers (ie Felipe and Kimi both looked about the same against Alonso in the same car and they were evenly matched at Ferrari).


Interesting because I was basing my comment on what actual F1 drivers have said...as opposed to data :)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4265
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.

Except that's totally not the way it has ever gone. The perception that drivers operate at a higher level in terms of pace for entire seasons is based 100% on the fact that they change teams/cars/teammates and thus look different with respect to their competition based on that. Drivers have years where they are mistake prone relative to others but in terms of pace, most F1 drivers only experience a slight improvement during their first 2 years and then remain level until they get old. Several people (including a couple in this forum) have done statistical comparisons to isolate relative pace and have found that pace remains constant among drivers (ie Felipe and Kimi both looked about the same against Alonso in the same car and they were evenly matched at Ferrari).


Interesting because I was basing my comment on what actual F1 drivers have said...as opposed to data :)

Actually no you were not. You took an anecdote from Damon Hill and provided your own interpretation of it. He never specified that he was talking about a driver's outright pace. In fact he seems to be referring to their overall performance (such as how sharp they are, how many mistakes they make, etc.). The facts are clear that it is highly unusual for drivers outright pace to vary much at allonce they have at least 2 seasons under their belt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23683
sandman1347 wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.

This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.

Except that's totally not the way it has ever gone. The perception that drivers operate at a higher level in terms of pace for entire seasons is based 100% on the fact that they change teams/cars/teammates and thus look different with respect to their competition based on that. Drivers have years where they are mistake prone relative to others but in terms of pace, most F1 drivers only experience a slight improvement during their first 2 years and then remain level until they get old. Several people (including a couple in this forum) have done statistical comparisons to isolate relative pace and have found that pace remains constant among drivers (ie Felipe and Kimi both looked about the same against Alonso in the same car and they were evenly matched at Ferrari).

I would be one of them and I got some flack for it. :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: Currently 15th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:32 pm 
sandman1347 wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This post is actually totally irrelevant to the conversation and illustrates the lack of understanding on your part. Kimi and Massa appeared to be about as fast as Hamilton and Alonso that year. Considering the fact that it has been well established that both of them are NOT as fast as Alonso (seeing as how they were both teamed with him and were both nowhere near him during their time as his teammate) we must now use common sense to grasp the fact that they must have had a car advantage during that time. Not a huge car advantage but a car advantage none the less. With a slower car, neither of them would have been in the title battle during those years.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? There is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car. Flat out impossible.


not quite, although your reasoning is sound. You cannot dismiss other variables such as they just hooked up with their driving those years and were able to perform at an exceptional level - following years, they couldn't quite make it.

Hill said it in his autobio, that some drivers can operate at that higher level for longer, he himself admitted that he couldn't do it for longer tha a few seasons and it got harder to go into that zone. Whereas others were able to do it on demand and those guys were special.

So with that in mind, you cannot state that there is no way that Kimi and Felipe could have achieved the results that they did in both qualifying and the races with an inferior car.

Of course, if you just consider car and that their performance is consistent regardless of other factors, then yes, you are right.

Except that's totally not the way it has ever gone. The perception that drivers operate at a higher level in terms of pace for entire seasons is based 100% on the fact that they change teams/cars/teammates and thus look different with respect to their competition based on that. Drivers have years where they are mistake prone relative to others but in terms of pace, most F1 drivers only experience a slight improvement during their first 2 years and then remain level until they get old. Several people (including a couple in this forum) have done statistical comparisons to isolate relative pace and have found that pace remains constant among drivers (ie Felipe and Kimi both looked about the same against Alonso in the same car and they were evenly matched at Ferrari).


Interesting because I was basing my comment on what actual F1 drivers have said...as opposed to data :)

Actually no you were not. You took an anecdote from Damon Hill and provided your own interpretation of it. He never specified that he was talking about a driver's outright pace. In fact he seems to be referring to their overall performance (such as how sharp they are, how many mistakes they make, etc.). The facts are clear that it is highly unusual for drivers outright pace to vary much at allonce they have at least 2 seasons under their belt.


Actually I was, I didnt say you were wrong about the data, or that the drivers comments could be interpretted differntly, I was merely saying where I had based my comments on.

Funny thing about comments, they can be just that, comments, not fact :)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3545
moby wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
I'd say there isn't a top 5, but a top 3: Hamilton, Vettel, Ricciardo.


By the same token, I would say Ricciardo does not belong in the same group as the other two :twisted:


And I'd say he's better. :twisted:

We've done it, we've found the best!. :nod:

_________________
"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: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1774
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3545
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

_________________
"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: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 811
Funky - I'm wondering why you reserve judgement for Dan?

He had to come up against a multiple world champion in 2014 in a team that Vettel been very successful - and comprehensively beat him (when at the start most on this forum suggested he'd be blown away - the seat should have gone to Vergne and some even said Dan would be replaced during the season)

Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't (and then later - Kyvat was apparently never much good). When the car went further backwards - he kept working. Then he gets Verstappen - and while there was not the same negativity, losing that first race due to RBR strategy failures, then Monaco due to the pitstop failure - apparently he was washed up. He kept working - it soon became clear that Marko was favouring Max - and it was also clear that Max is the real deal and would push Dan (see my comments earlier this thread) - but whereas many drivers may have started over-driving or there would be tension in the team - Dan has continued to work with Max, continued to share information - and apart from a reasonable annoyance at Austria from Dan - he has continued to be fast, great (clean) overtaking and getting the maximum out of a car that is fighting for 5th-8th place on merit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
Lotus49 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

you could arguably make a case for Webber in 2010 and Hamilton in 2007, although neither are cut and dried


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7764
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


And its been so long since we have seen a ballsout Alonso we can not be sure of hem even.
A driver can slip a lot in 4 years. The odds probably are that he has not, but Kimi 'degraded' in a shorter time than that.
I do not mean from top to mid, but just a small drop could slide him way down the table with the drivers knocking at the door now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12272
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

you could arguably make a case for Webber in 2010 and Hamilton in 2007, although neither are cut and dried


Both essentially made 1 mistake. I wouldn't describe that as crumbling under pressure. Their are drivers who didn't thrive on pressure. Schumacher for example certainly didn't tend to have his best races in down to the wire championship deciders.

I think drivers further back in the grid like Palmer who race for their entire career week in week out and no a bad result can mean the end of their entire career are under far more pressure than those at the front fighting for the championship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

you could arguably make a case for Webber in 2010 and Hamilton in 2007, although neither are cut and dried


Both essentially made 1 mistake. I wouldn't describe that as crumbling under pressure. Their are drivers who didn't thrive on pressure. Schumacher for example certainly didn't tend to have his best races in down to the wire championship deciders.

I think drivers further back in the grid like Palmer who race for their entire career week in week out and no a bad result can mean the end of their entire career are under far more pressure than those at the front fighting for the championship.

well I'd agree that neither exactly fell apart completely, but it could be argued that their mistakes at the crucial point in the title hunt may well have been brought on by the pressure, could it not?

Agreed that being with a back marker probably gives one of the highest amounts of pressure to a driver. People tend to equate back markers with 2nd rate drivers anyway, so mistakes simply endorse that view, while a good drive goes largely unnoticed. Can be very hard to show you have the right stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

you could arguably make a case for Webber in 2010 and Hamilton in 2007, although neither are cut and dried

... and a case could be made for Vettel in 2010 (I think). Although of course he won the title he had a few hairy moments along the way which could be put down to nerves


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
F1Oz wrote:
Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't

Who in the name of god was expecting that to happen?

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
I will only say we have Top 3 and rest are still untested. A top driver tag can only be given when we see how drivers perform when fighting for championships. At least in my book.

Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel are top 3 drivers.
Rosberg would have been had he not retired.

I will judge Max after he stops making stupid mistakes and stops crashing with other cars on track. Daniel, I will reserve my judgement. These 2 drivers havent been put under championship pressure yet. The 4 above have and they have come out on top beating at least one if not 2 world class drivers while doing so in competitive car.



Kimi fits into "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away" category for now :-P


Would you really have put Rosberg top tier?. I wouldn't have put him in with Max and Dan tbh never mind the big 3. Far too often let himself down on a Sunday and last year he was fortunate to say the least that in a 2 horse race 1 horse had the lions share of reliability problems.

Probably more suited to the unpopular opinions thread but I also think "championship pressure" isn't that much different to pressures they've already faced and come out on top in during their careers.

I'm also struggling to think of an example of someone crumbling under that pressure and that categorically being the reason for blowing a championship.

you could arguably make a case for Webber in 2010 and Hamilton in 2007, although neither are cut and dried


Both essentially made 1 mistake. I wouldn't describe that as crumbling under pressure. Their are drivers who didn't thrive on pressure. Schumacher for example certainly didn't tend to have his best races in down to the wire championship deciders.

I think drivers further back in the grid like Palmer who race for their entire career week in week out and no a bad result can mean the end of their entire career are under far more pressure than those at the front fighting for the championship.

Yeah Schumacher was a bottler. And I think the pressure got to Button in 2009. Once the weight was off the early season JB returned with a strong podium in Abu Dhabi

Here's one who completely went missing in a showdown - Carlos Reutemann

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
justbeingmiko wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.


Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.


Frentzen springs to mind :) Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.


Frentzen is hard to judge in 1999 due to how awful Damon Hill was. Hill actually retired mid season but Jordan begged him to stay to the end as a lot of the sponsors were tied to Hill being in the car. His season also wasn't all that great more just cashing in on very high DNF rates from the main players.

Also, he stayed on the fringes of that title fight largely due to luck. Mika Hakkinen beat him 8-1 when both finished in races for example. Hakkinen just made quite a few errors and had poor reliability and had 5 DNFs. Both of Frentzens wins also involved a large slice of luck, although he drove great in France it was a lottery race.

Michael Schumacher broke his leg for half the season too. Frentzen only scored 54 points in 1999 - a large portion of which were due to Hakkinen,Schumacher, Coulthard DNFs. Even Irvine beat Frentzen 9-3 ahead when both finished which was 8-1 in the dry races. Frentzen did do well in the wet races. Basically if everbody finished the race in 1999, Frentzen was coming home 5-7th. He had the 3rd best car and generally brought it home accordingly. But he was exceptional in the wet that season.

Which single seasons were Montoya, Ralf and Trulli higher in one season? Those three all performed at a very consistent level.

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


Last edited by lamo on Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:29 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
AnRs wrote:
lamo wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Now I must ask you, is that you Lewis? It must be...


No comment on what I wrote?

The comparison is about Alonso and Massa, there isn't a need to bring Hamilton into it.


But honestly you are basing you're opinions on assumptions I don't agree with, so let's leave it at that, you're not presenting any facts, just opinions.

It's a fact that McLaren would have won both titles if they wasn't dsq. Their drivers didn't really made things easier..


Head to head performance statistics for Massa and Alonso are not opinions.

Mclaren did not lose the drivers title to being disqualified, so they wouldn't have won both titles if they weren't DSQ. They also lost the WCC to Ferrari even if they weren't thrown out of the WCC due to the penalty in Hungary.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
McLaren had vastly superior drivers with a mildly inferior car. The drivers were good enough to make up for the car. That's really all there is to it. It's not that Massa and Raikkonen were significantly better than they are now relative to Hamilton and Alonso and it's not that Alonso and Hamilton were worse. It's that the cars were not actually equal. Hindsight makes that crystal clear.


It's simply not true, Lewis threw away the biggest lead in points ever in 2007 in the best car, and Kimi was fast enough to take advantage of it.


Kimi was in a car though wasn't he? Kimi and the F2007 were fast enough (once Massa let him through) to take advantage of it in Brazil.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.


Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.


Frentzen springs to mind :) Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.


Frentzen is hard to judge in 1999 due to how awful Damon Hill was. Hill actually retired mid season but Jordan begged him to stay to the end as a lot of the sponsors were tied to Hill being in the car. His season also wasn't all that great more just cashing in on very high DNF rates from the main players.

Also, he stayed on the fringes of that title fight largely due to luck. Mika Hakkinen beat him 8-1 when both finished in races for example. Hakkinen just made quite a few errors and had poor reliability and had 5 DNFs. Both of Frentzens wins also involved a large slice of luck, although he drove great in France it was a lottery race.

He won that on strategy. Only Rubens drove better than him on the day

And on the days that Hakkinen lost to Frentzen due to driver error it means Frentzen drove better than Hakkinen

lamo wrote:
Michael Schumacher broke his leg for half the season too. Frentzen only scored 54 points in 1999 - a large portion of which were due to Hakkinen,Schumacher, Coulthard DNFs. Even Irvine beat Frentzen 9-3 ahead when both finished which was 8-1 in the dry races. Frentzen did do well in the wet races. Basically if everbody finished the race in 1999, Frentzen was coming home 5-7th. He had the 3rd best car and generally brought it home accordingly. But he was exceptional in the wet that season.

Which single seasons were Montoya, Ralf and Trulli higher in one season? Those three all performed at a very consistent level.

Again not true for all events, particularly Monza

HHF was a points machine in 1999, most certainly driver of the year. His car was nowhere near the level of the front 2 teams yet he was in it until the penultimate round. It was a special season's performance. Kubica 2008 reminded me so much of Frentzen 1999

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12272
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.


Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.


Frentzen springs to mind :) Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.


Frentzen is hard to judge in 1999 due to how awful Damon Hill was. Hill actually retired mid season but Jordan begged him to stay to the end as a lot of the sponsors were tied to Hill being in the car. His season also wasn't all that great more just cashing in on very high DNF rates from the main players.

Also, he stayed on the fringes of that title fight largely due to luck. Mika Hakkinen beat him 8-1 when both finished in races for example. Hakkinen just made quite a few errors and had poor reliability and had 5 DNFs. Both of Frentzens wins also involved a large slice of luck, although he drove great in France it was a lottery race.

He won that on strategy. Only Rubens drove better than him on the day

And on the days that Hakkinen lost to Frentzen due to driver error it means Frentzen drove better than Hakkinen

lamo wrote:
Michael Schumacher broke his leg for half the season too. Frentzen only scored 54 points in 1999 - a large portion of which were due to Hakkinen,Schumacher, Coulthard DNFs. Even Irvine beat Frentzen 9-3 ahead when both finished which was 8-1 in the dry races. Frentzen did do well in the wet races. Basically if everbody finished the race in 1999, Frentzen was coming home 5-7th. He had the 3rd best car and generally brought it home accordingly. But he was exceptional in the wet that season.

Which single seasons were Montoya, Ralf and Trulli higher in one season? Those three all performed at a very consistent level.

Again not true for all events, particularly Monza

HHF was a points machine in 1999, most certainly driver of the year. His car was nowhere near the level of the front 2 teams yet he was in it until the penultimate round. It was a special season's performance. Kubica 2008 reminded me so much of Frentzen 1999


Difficult to know. There were times when it could compete for pace. Nurbergring for example. How much of that was the car, how much the driver is unknown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12272
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
Think you might have misunderstood what I meant - I was just trying to illustrate that on occasion the results go against the norm, and that does not mean that the result is the norm.


Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.


Frentzen springs to mind :) Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.


Frentzen is hard to judge in 1999 due to how awful Damon Hill was. Hill actually retired mid season but Jordan begged him to stay to the end as a lot of the sponsors were tied to Hill being in the car. His season also wasn't all that great more just cashing in on very high DNF rates from the main players.

Also, he stayed on the fringes of that title fight largely due to luck. Mika Hakkinen beat him 8-1 when both finished in races for example. Hakkinen just made quite a few errors and had poor reliability and had 5 DNFs. Both of Frentzens wins also involved a large slice of luck, although he drove great in France it was a lottery race.

Michael Schumacher broke his leg for half the season too. Frentzen only scored 54 points in 1999 - a large portion of which were due to Hakkinen,Schumacher, Coulthard DNFs. Even Irvine beat Frentzen 9-3 ahead when both finished which was 8-1 in the dry races. Frentzen did do well in the wet races. Basically if everbody finished the race in 1999, Frentzen was coming home 5-7th. He had the 3rd best car and generally brought it home accordingly. But he was exceptional in the wet that season.

Which single seasons were Montoya, Ralf and Trulli higher in one season? Those three all performed at a very consistent level.


He beat a Mclaren or Ferrari in 5 of his 12 point scoring races. Hakkinen had 11 point scoring races so it's hardly a huge gulf.

He also out qualified at least 1 Mclaren/Ferrari in half the races. He was a legitimate competitor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
Zoue wrote:
well I'd agree that neither exactly fell apart completely, but it could be argued that their mistakes at the crucial point in the title hunt may well have been brought on by the pressure, could it not?

Agreed that being with a back marker probably gives one of the highest amounts of pressure to a driver. People tend to equate back markers with 2nd rate drivers anyway, so mistakes simply endorse that view, while a good drive goes largely unnoticed. Can be very hard to show you have the right stuff


Indeed, both made 1 mistake. Hamiltons error was racing cars he simply had no reason to. Fighting Kimi for the win in China and fighting Alonso for P3 in Brazil when he only needed P5 for the title. But Hamilton had a gearbox issue otherwise he would have won the title despite the China error.

Webber did spin out in Korea but his worst performance was AD qualifying. If he turned up then he might have won the title. He finished the session +0.530 behind Vettel - I believe his worst qualifying session of the entire year. He blew the title on Saturday.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
mikeyg123 wrote:

He beat a Mclaren or Ferrari in 5 of his 12 point scoring races. Hakkinen had 11 point scoring races so it's hardly a huge gulf.

He also out qualified at least 1 Mclaren/Ferrari in half the races. He was a legitimate competitor.


Saying he beat at least 1 of 4 cars 5 in 12 is quite misleading. Because all it takes is for him to have a trouble free race and 1 of those 4 to have an issue... For example Ricciardo has beaten a Ferrari or Mercedes 8 times in his 10 finsihes. He isn't a challenger this year but he will beat those cars if something happens to one of them and occasionally on outright pace too. Furthermore he has finished ahead of Vettel or Hamilton in 5 of his 10 finishes. But its all pretty circumstantial when he does...

Baku - penalty and head rest
Silverstone - Vettel puncture
Monaco - Hamilton yellow flags on Q2 lap
Canada - Vettel first lap collision
Austria - Hamilton grid penalty

Also, Mika Salo was in the Ferrari for 6 races bulking those statistics up as well as Ferrari's main driver being the number 2 for the same period.

The only time Frentzen was in title contention was when he won in Monza and Hakkinen DNF'd. He was 10 points behind then and at that point Hakkinen had had 5 DNFs to his 3. Hakkinen had 5 DNFs in 13 races. The Jordan was a strong car in Monza and Germany on the high power circuits and Frentzen did well in the wet. Add to that the best driver was taken out of contention. It was a perfect storm for him to put together a decent season in the 3rd best car. But he scored no better than other drivers have in the 3rd best car and whilst it was a very good year, we will never know how good the car truly was because Hill did not want to race. Hill matched him at the British GP - the one race Hill actually tried at.

If you made 2017 like 1999 then Hamilton and Bottas would DNF 30-40% of the races and Vettel would break his leg. Leaving Kimi to fight Hamilton for the title and Ricciardo probably leading it due to everybody else slipping up.

Frentzen drove a very good year, I just don't think he drove way above himself that year. That was his level, it just appears very good because his 1997 was so bad.

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


Last edited by lamo on Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
mcdo>

I'm not disputing Frentzen drove better on those days if Hakkinen or anybody else DNF'd due to error but it doesn't change the fact he was slower those days and inheritted places. On those days the others under performed, not Frentzen over performing.

He drove a good year, collected points in the 3rd best car and stayed on the out skirts of the title fight because
1) Hakkinen had 5 DNFs in the first 13 races
2) Ferrari lost there number 1 driver
3) Coulthard had 7 DNFs in a 16 race season

Now if you are in the 3rd best car and just finish races you are going to get a lot of podiums. He drove a great year but I don't think he drove any better than other years, circumstances played a huge part of it. It was the least amount of points to win a WDC under that points system, that is why he was close. He only scored 10 more points than Schumacher who missed 7 races and had to give up 4 points in Malaysia once he came back too.

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


Last edited by lamo on Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23683
mcdo wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't

Who in the name of god was expecting that to happen?

I would say next to nobody.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: Currently 15th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
pokerman wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't

Who in the name of god was expecting that to happen?

I would say next to nobody.


Kyvat himself? :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 811
mcdo wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't

Who in the name of god was expecting that to happen?


Quite a few at the time - even if they would deny it now lol - it was a bit of a surprise as I like many thought it might be a bit of a fight even if Dan hopefully would come out ahead

But that's how things often are


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1774
F1Oz wrote:
Funky - I'm wondering why you reserve judgement for Dan?

He had to come up against a multiple world champion in 2014 in a team that Vettel been very successful - and comprehensively beat him (when at the start most on this forum suggested he'd be blown away - the seat should have gone to Vergne and some even said Dan would be replaced during the season)

Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't (and then later - Kyvat was apparently never much good). When the car went further backwards - he kept working. Then he gets Verstappen - and while there was not the same negativity, losing that first race due to RBR strategy failures, then Monaco due to the pitstop failure - apparently he was washed up. He kept working - it soon became clear that Marko was favouring Max - and it was also clear that Max is the real deal and would push Dan (see my comments earlier this thread) - but whereas many drivers may have started over-driving or there would be tension in the team - Dan has continued to work with Max, continued to share information - and apart from a reasonable annoyance at Austria from Dan - he has continued to be fast, great (clean) overtaking and getting the maximum out of a car that is fighting for 5th-8th place on merit.



In 2014 it was very clear that RedBull is never going to challenge for championship. There was no real pressure to perform. Everything was a bonus to team. And Horner made it very clear with his comments as well during that season.
Its the same reason why I wont quickly rate Max above Dan just yet. There is no championship pressure. And like it or not, it is different pressure.

Even great drivers like Hamilton and Alonso have lost championship due to 1 silly mistake they made.

This is why I wont make up my mind on top championship material driver until we actually see them fighting for championships. I rated drivers like Dan, Hulkenberg, Rosberg very highly but only Rosberg has managed to win extremely tense championship.

Its not his fault that he hasnt had car to make that happen, but until he does, I will reserve my judgement on all 3 drivers I rated highly at the moment other than big 3. And those are Hulk, Dan and Max. And Max really need to get his $#!t together quickly and mold his aggression in a way to maximise the returns.
Right now he goes in blindly at times and end up ruining his own or someone else's race, things like this will cause him a championship if it is one of the closely fought championships.
Hulk needs to make sensible decisions about his future as well and not turn into next Heidfeld.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
lamo wrote:
mcdo>

I'm not disputing Frentzen drove better on those days if Hakkinen or anybody else DNF'd due to error but it doesn't change the fact he was slower those days and inheritted places. On those days the others under performed, not Frentzen over performing.

He drove a good year, collected points in the 3rd best car and stayed on the out skirts of the title fight because
1) Hakkinen had 5 DNFs in the first 13 races
2) Ferrari lost there number 1 driver
3) Coulthard had 7 DNFs in a 16 race season

Now if you are in the 3rd best car and just finish races you are going to get a lot of podiums. He drove a great year but I don't think he drove any better than other years, circumstances played a huge part of it. It was the least amount of points to win a WDC under that points system, that is why he was close. He only scored 10 more points than Schumacher who missed 7 races and had to give up 4 points in Malaysia once he came back too.

That's all well known information. Even people without a basic knowledge of F1 understand that car performance mostly decides results

Consistency was the name of the game in 1999 and Frentzen was the best at it. In a wacky season it's consistency that shines (yet superior car performance always wins out in the end) - 1999, 2003, 2008, 2012

He underperformed in the Williams, no doubt about it. In his other Jordan years he made some major errors that he wasn't guilty of in 1999.
Maybe he performed at a similar level while at Sauber? It was before my time/when I started watching. I doubt it though

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9671
Location: Ireland
mikeyg123 wrote:
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
lamo wrote:
Maybe in one race but never a season, can you name a season in which a driver clearly performed without doubt higher than he did at any other time? I can not think of one.


Frentzen springs to mind :) Villeneuve (although could be argued he got 2 good seasons), Ralf S, Montoya, Trulli - there are a few that have an epic season and then seem to disappear into average - could be the car but that is the poiint, the true great drivers do not disappear when the car is avergae, they go beyond the car - all of those examples did not.


Frentzen is hard to judge in 1999 due to how awful Damon Hill was. Hill actually retired mid season but Jordan begged him to stay to the end as a lot of the sponsors were tied to Hill being in the car. His season also wasn't all that great more just cashing in on very high DNF rates from the main players.

Also, he stayed on the fringes of that title fight largely due to luck. Mika Hakkinen beat him 8-1 when both finished in races for example. Hakkinen just made quite a few errors and had poor reliability and had 5 DNFs. Both of Frentzens wins also involved a large slice of luck, although he drove great in France it was a lottery race.

He won that on strategy. Only Rubens drove better than him on the day

And on the days that Hakkinen lost to Frentzen due to driver error it means Frentzen drove better than Hakkinen

lamo wrote:
Michael Schumacher broke his leg for half the season too. Frentzen only scored 54 points in 1999 - a large portion of which were due to Hakkinen,Schumacher, Coulthard DNFs. Even Irvine beat Frentzen 9-3 ahead when both finished which was 8-1 in the dry races. Frentzen did do well in the wet races. Basically if everbody finished the race in 1999, Frentzen was coming home 5-7th. He had the 3rd best car and generally brought it home accordingly. But he was exceptional in the wet that season.

Which single seasons were Montoya, Ralf and Trulli higher in one season? Those three all performed at a very consistent level.

Again not true for all events, particularly Monza

HHF was a points machine in 1999, most certainly driver of the year. His car was nowhere near the level of the front 2 teams yet he was in it until the penultimate round. It was a special season's performance. Kubica 2008 reminded me so much of Frentzen 1999


Difficult to know. There were times when it could compete for pace. Nurbergring for example. How much of that was the car, how much the driver is unknown.

The one weekend where Jordan were absolutely on it. They did the race-like splash and dash in qualy and HHF went out and blitzed it. And a rare mechanical problem decides to pop up :(

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



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8708
mcdo wrote:
lamo wrote:
mcdo>

I'm not disputing Frentzen drove better on those days if Hakkinen or anybody else DNF'd due to error but it doesn't change the fact he was slower those days and inheritted places. On those days the others under performed, not Frentzen over performing.

He drove a good year, collected points in the 3rd best car and stayed on the out skirts of the title fight because
1) Hakkinen had 5 DNFs in the first 13 races
2) Ferrari lost there number 1 driver
3) Coulthard had 7 DNFs in a 16 race season

Now if you are in the 3rd best car and just finish races you are going to get a lot of podiums. He drove a great year but I don't think he drove any better than other years, circumstances played a huge part of it. It was the least amount of points to win a WDC under that points system, that is why he was close. He only scored 10 more points than Schumacher who missed 7 races and had to give up 4 points in Malaysia once he came back too.

That's all well known information. Even people without a basic knowledge of F1 understand that car performance mostly decides results

Consistency was the name of the game in 1999 and Frentzen was the best at it. In a wacky season it's consistency that shines (yet superior car performance always wins out in the end) - 1999, 2003, 2008, 2012

He underperformed in the Williams, no doubt about it. In his other Jordan years he made some major errors that he wasn't guilty of in 1999.
Maybe he performed at a similar level while at Sauber? It was before my time/when I started watching. I doubt it though


His performance level 1994-1996 got him signed to the best seat in F1, a seat at the time even Schumacher was trying to get into. Around 1994/1995 some believed him to be better or at least on the same level as Schumacher (obviously wrong) due to there performances in Sports cars as team mates. He had a good record before and after 1997. In 1998 he was pretty even with JV after being badly beaten in 1997.

Irvine was the most consistent driver in 1999 but he just wasn't very quick. He finished 14/16 races in the points. Hakkinen still only made 2 DNFs from driver error compared to HHF 1. Schumacher had 1 too but did less races. David Coulthard just 1. Eddie Irvine had 0.

Mechanical DNF or DNS
MS: 7 (out injured)
DC: 6
Mika: 3
HHF: 2
Irvine: 1

Its the reason Irvine himself had a title challenge, Hakkinen had worse reliability and made 2 errors compared to Eddies 0. But Irvine was embarrassingly slow. Schumacher came back and out qualified him by 1 and 1.5 seconds in the last 2 races. So that is the kind of level Eddie Irvine was operating at. It was a perfect storm season which allowed Irvine to challenge and Frentzen to get quite high in the standings. It's also worth pointing out that Frentzen eventually finished 22 points off Hakkinen, a sizeable gap.

In most F1 seasons if you give the best driver-car package 5 DNFs in the first 13 races (the point at which HHF had a title shot), remove the 2nd best car driver package due to injury and give the 3rd best car-driver package 6 mechanical DNFs in a 16 race season. Then you will get the 4th (Irvine) and 5th (Frentzen) car-driver packages high up the WDC rankings and probably challenging for the title.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
F1Oz wrote:
mcdo wrote:
F1Oz wrote:
Then - Kyvat was going to blow him away - but didn't

Who in the name of god was expecting that to happen?

Quite a few at the time - even if they would deny it now lol - it was a bit of a surprise as I like many thought it might be a bit of a fight even if Dan hopefully would come out ahead

But that's how things often are

I honestly cannot remember a single person saying that Kvyat was going to blow Ricciardo away, or even beat him. Kvyat was considered to have performed no better against Vergne than Ricciardo did, and many people (myself included) thought he did worse relatively. Ricciardo's reputation was also sky-high at the time, having just beaten Vettel quite badly: I think most people expected Kvyat to go down hard, and were actually surprised by how close he was.

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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] 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