planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:56 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 194
That's Gasly. Max and Seb are missing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Zoue wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
It's getting abit ridicolous now. People trying to compare Hamilton's 2016 reliability issues with Vettel this year by putting in racing incidents aswell. If we are getting like that we might aswell chuck in the Mercedes having clutch problems.
Vettels reliability problems are nothing compared to Hamilton's last year, I'm not even sure why it was brought up.

To discredit Hamilton if he wins the title.

No, in an attempt to restore credibility to Rosberg's title among those who thought he was just lucky.

I don't see the big deal and why people are being so precious about it, myself. The reference was clearly made to illustrate how both got a big dose of bad luck while in the hunt for the title. It's a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about


I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to 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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
It's getting abit ridicolous now. People trying to compare Hamilton's 2016 reliability issues with Vettel this year by putting in racing incidents aswell. If we are getting like that we might aswell chuck in the Mercedes having clutch problems.
Vettels reliability problems are nothing compared to Hamilton's last year, I'm not even sure why it was brought up.

To discredit Hamilton if he wins the title.

No, in an attempt to restore credibility to Rosberg's title among those who thought he was just lucky.

I don't see the big deal and why people are being so precious about it, myself. The reference was clearly made to illustrate how both got a big dose of bad luck while in the hunt for the title. It's a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about


I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
It was not a massive lockup ffs. Rewatch it. And the readings did not indicate that it was going to fail.

Keep ignoring the fact that Pirelli didn't chalk it up to the lockup :thumbup:

It looked quite big to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0WHNqwDjXc

Also the tyre fell off quite drastically in performance long before the failure, Vettel complained about the tyre but you say that the Ferrari readings say the tyre was perfectly fine, hardly believable.

As I recall Pirelli never said the tyres were faulty on either of the Ferrari's and they failed for different reasons, a construction failure on Kimi's and Vettel's simply wore away, they did however attribute the problems to the aggressive suspension settings Ferrari used which loaded the tyres up too much.

I think it's fair to say that without the big lock up Vettel may well have been able to nurse the tyre to the end of the race.

I don't think it's fair to say that at all. You have zero information to base that on.

It certainly didn't help plus they knew the tyre needed changing but they gambled, that's not pot luck bad luck.

still guessing. Pirelli didn't say that lockup contributed in any way, did they?

What did they say, did they say the tyre was basically worn out?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It looked quite big to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0WHNqwDjXc

Also the tyre fell off quite drastically in performance long before the failure, Vettel complained about the tyre but you say that the Ferrari readings say the tyre was perfectly fine, hardly believable.

As I recall Pirelli never said the tyres were faulty on either of the Ferrari's and they failed for different reasons, a construction failure on Kimi's and Vettel's simply wore away, they did however attribute the problems to the aggressive suspension settings Ferrari used which loaded the tyres up too much.

I think it's fair to say that without the big lock up Vettel may well have been able to nurse the tyre to the end of the race.

I don't think it's fair to say that at all. You have zero information to base that on.

It certainly didn't help plus they knew the tyre needed changing but they gambled, that's not pot luck bad luck.

still guessing. Pirelli didn't say that lockup contributed in any way, did they?

What did they say, did they say the tyre was basically worn out?

No, they said it was caused by a slow puncture:

Full Pirelli statement:
'Pirelli has concluded the analysis on Sebastian Vettel's damaged front-left P Zero Yellow soft tyre, which affected him two laps from the finish of the British Grand Prix.

'As appeared clear since Sunday afternoon, a full investigation has now confirmed that the original cause of the failure was a slow puncture. The consequent driving back to the pits on an underinflated and then flat tyre led to the final failure.

'Kimi Raikkonen's damaged tyre shows less evidence of what occurred, so further tests and analysis are still ongoing in Pirelli's laboratories and indoor testing facilities. It will take a few more days to reach a definitive conclusion.'


http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/ ... li-confirm

No wear issues even mentioned. Or are we going to somehow blame his puncture on that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher). In the later cases they still won the title, in the former cases the reliability played a much larger role that they couldn't overcome.

I believe Vettel will overtake Nico Rosbergs hybrid era record of most races without a mechanical DNF.

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
To discredit Hamilton if he wins the title.

No, in an attempt to restore credibility to Rosberg's title among those who thought he was just lucky.

I don't see the big deal and why people are being so precious about it, myself. The reference was clearly made to illustrate how both got a big dose of bad luck while in the hunt for the title. It's a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about

No it was said that if Hamilton wins the title then he's been lucky, which is short hand for saying it will be undeserved.

I don't recall you having a problem saying that about Rosberg. It's not the point being made, but the drivers involved then, clearly

You equate Vettel's little bit of none fault bad luck to all the bad luck that Hamilton had last year, Hamilton had 3 engine related grid penalties and an engine blow up whilst leading a race, Rosberg had none, Vettel has had just the one grid penalty.

This year Hamilton lost a net 17 points to Vettel in Baku when he had a headrest failure, that would be similar to what Vettel lost in Malaysia, he also lost points with a gearbox grid penalty again similar to what Vettel lost in Canada when Verstappen damaged his front wing.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10826
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:
No, in an attempt to restore credibility to Rosberg's title among those who thought he was just lucky.

I don't see the big deal and why people are being so precious about it, myself. The reference was clearly made to illustrate how both got a big dose of bad luck while in the hunt for the title. It's a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about

No it was said that if Hamilton wins the title then he's been lucky, which is short hand for saying it will be undeserved.

I don't recall you having a problem saying that about Rosberg. It's not the point being made, but the drivers involved then, clearly

You equate Vettel's little bit of none fault bad luck to all the bad luck that Hamilton had last year, Hamilton had 3 engine related grid penalties and an engine blow up whilst leading a race, Rosberg had none, Vettel has had just the one grid penalty.

This year Hamilton lost a net 17 points to Vettel in Baku when he had a headrest failure, that would be similar to what Vettel lost in Malaysia, he also lost points with a gearbox grid penalty again similar to what Vettel lost in Canada when Verstappen damaged his front wing.

no, I didn't. Please show me where I went into such nauseating detail. They both suffered bad luck at a very similar critical stage of the WDC. That's it. You're reading far too much into it because as usual you need Hamilton to be portrayed as having the biggest mountain to climb. All. The . Time. It gets old


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


When has Vettel lost 25points in a race due to his engine blowing up? Well if someone wants to include the overall bad luck of a driver from one season then lets do. Hamilton last year got hit by Bottas in Bahrain, he got hit in China at the first corner which damaged the car. Hamilton lost at least 18 points in Spain. Started once in 10th and twice in 20th, engine blew up in Malaysia. Baku engine in wrong setting from the start. That’s all I can think of for now.

Overall bad luck is a bad way of trying to make out last year and this year have any similarities specially when Singapore was mainly down to Vettels own fault. Anyone trying to make comparisons is really reaching specially like I have said last season if you have any sort of realibility issue the other car wins.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.


I don't know what up in arms means in this context but Vettel hasn't lost much at all, yet. If he DNFs from the lead in Japan and Hamilton wins it, then I think it would be fair to say he had his title hopes completely destroyed by mechanical issues. Vettel set the record for most races without a mechanical DNF in the hybrid era earlier in this year and is increasing it race by race.

Hamilton is now the one who can suffer massively though. If he has an engine failure in a race he will not only lose that race but start the next one in P20, that would likely give Vettel the title. Vettel has a spare engine so if that happened to him, no grid penalty in the next race.

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


When has Vettel lost 25points in a race due to his engine blowing up? Well if someone wants to include the overall bad luck of a driver from one season then lets do. Hamilton last year got hit by Bottas in Bahrain, he got hit in China at the first corner which damaged the car. Hamilton lost at least 18 points in Spain. Started once in 10th and twice in 20th, engine blew up in Malaysia. Baku engine in wrong setting from the start. That’s all I can think of for now.

Overall bad luck is a bad way of trying to make out last year and this year have any similarities specially when Singapore was mainly down to Vettels own fault. Anyone trying to make comparisons is really reaching specially like I have said last season if you have any sort of realibility issue the other car wins.


I wouldn't include Spain in that, the two rivals took each other out. It was basically a neutral event, nobody gained or lost points wise. Either could have won, both took risks. Whoever lead after that corner would win the race though.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
lamo wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


When has Vettel lost 25points in a race due to his engine blowing up? Well if someone wants to include the overall bad luck of a driver from one season then lets do. Hamilton last year got hit by Bottas in Bahrain, he got hit in China at the first corner which damaged the car. Hamilton lost at least 18 points in Spain. Started once in 10th and twice in 20th, engine blew up in Malaysia. Baku engine in wrong setting from the start. That’s all I can think of for now.

Overall bad luck is a bad way of trying to make out last year and this year have any similarities specially when Singapore was mainly down to Vettels own fault. Anyone trying to make comparisons is really reaching specially like I have said last season if you have any sort of realibility issue the other car wins.


I wouldn't include Spain in that, the two rivals took each other out. It was basically a neutral event, nobody gained or lost points wise. Either could have won, both took risks. Whoever lead after that corner would win the race though.


When Spa is included then Spain should be included IMO, both racing incidents.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


When has Vettel lost 25points in a race due to his engine blowing up? Well if someone wants to include the overall bad luck of a driver from one season then lets do. Hamilton last year got hit by Bottas in Bahrain, he got hit in China at the first corner which damaged the car. Hamilton lost at least 18 points in Spain. Started once in 10th and twice in 20th, engine blew up in Malaysia. Baku engine in wrong setting from the start. That’s all I can think of for now.

Overall bad luck is a bad way of trying to make out last year and this year have any similarities specially when Singapore was mainly down to Vettels own fault. Anyone trying to make comparisons is really reaching specially like I have said last season if you have any sort of realibility issue the other car wins.

And we are back to exact comparisons. They both got eliminated from a race by misfortune at virtually the same point in the title hunt, putting them on the back foot. Of course the situations are not identical but no-one's claiming they are. It's not a competition, not from a bad luck perspective


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:

I'm not being precious, no comparisons can be made. Reliability wise Vettel has suffered one issue to Hamiltons 3 or 4 last year. Also last year any issue one Mercedes had usually meant the other Mercedes is guaranteed to win,

Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


When has Vettel lost 25points in a race due to his engine blowing up? Well if someone wants to include the overall bad luck of a driver from one season then lets do. Hamilton last year got hit by Bottas in Bahrain, he got hit in China at the first corner which damaged the car. Hamilton lost at least 18 points in Spain. Started once in 10th and twice in 20th, engine blew up in Malaysia. Baku engine in wrong setting from the start. That’s all I can think of for now.

Overall bad luck is a bad way of trying to make out last year and this year have any similarities specially when Singapore was mainly down to Vettels own fault. Anyone trying to make comparisons is really reaching specially like I have said last season if you have any sort of realibility issue the other car wins.

And we are back to exact comparisons. They both got eliminated from a race by misfortune at virtually the same point in the title hunt, putting them on the back foot. Of course the situations are not identical but no-one's claiming they are. It's not a competition, not from a bad luck perspective


Difference is Hamilton was on the back foot from the start of the season which lead to penalties at Belgium.
Also Mercedes was the only fight in the battle last year, Mercedes could end up being the 3rd best car at some grand prixs.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
F1_Ernie wrote:
I wouldn't include Spain in that, the two rivals took each other out. It was basically a neutral event, nobody gained or lost points wise. Either could have won, both took risks. Whoever lead after that corner would win the race though.

When Spa is included then Spain should be included IMO, both racing incidents.


Spa 2014? But in terms of title fight they collided in Spa (Nico's fault) and Nico scored 18 points and Hamilton 0. Hamilton came out of that a big loser for a faultless accident.

Spain 2016. They both scored 0. No real net loss.

You say Hamilton lost at least 18 in Spain, well if he came second he would have actually been 7 more points behind Nico so he actually came out better off than if he had been 2nd that day. The same for Nico.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
And we are back to exact comparisons. They both got eliminated from a race by misfortune at virtually the same point in the title hunt, putting them on the back foot. Of course the situations are not identical but no-one's claiming they are. It's not a competition, not from a bad luck perspective


At this point in time, the key difference is Hamilton would have easily won the 2016 title with more equal reliability / luck

At this stage, 2017, Vettel is behind in the points but if the reliability/luck had been more even he wouldn't necessarily be ahead. Probably about level or Vettel still slightly behind.

The luck hasn't changed the out come of this year thus far. That is the key difference for me. The luck/reliability will certainly have a few more chances to do so though.

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think it's fair to say that at all. You have zero information to base that on.

It certainly didn't help plus they knew the tyre needed changing but they gambled, that's not pot luck bad luck.

still guessing. Pirelli didn't say that lockup contributed in any way, did they?

What did they say, did they say the tyre was basically worn out?

No, they said it was caused by a slow puncture:

Full Pirelli statement:
'Pirelli has concluded the analysis on Sebastian Vettel's damaged front-left P Zero Yellow soft tyre, which affected him two laps from the finish of the British Grand Prix.

'As appeared clear since Sunday afternoon, a full investigation has now confirmed that the original cause of the failure was a slow puncture. The consequent driving back to the pits on an underinflated and then flat tyre led to the final failure.

'Kimi Raikkonen's damaged tyre shows less evidence of what occurred, so further tests and analysis are still ongoing in Pirelli's laboratories and indoor testing facilities. It will take a few more days to reach a definitive conclusion.'


http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/ ... li-confirm

No wear issues even mentioned. Or are we going to somehow blame his puncture on that?

Vettel said the tyres had dropped off in performance which is indicative of heavily worn tyres, his lap times had dropped by a second a lap just before Bottas passed him. Both he and Verstappen stopped much earlier than the other drivers both doing a long run on the tyres, Verstappen complained that the tyres had no more performance left in them again indicative of heavily worn tyres and after they saw Kimi's failure they thought best to get new tyres, Vettel had also complained of lack of performance in the tyres, I would say it was not best to have such a big lock up on a tyre that was getting close to the end of it's life, eventually they will fail or puncture.

Pirelli never came out and said the tyres were not fit for use but I know I heard mention of the Ferrari suspension settings, coincidence that it was only the Ferrari car that experienced failures?

_________________
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


Last edited by pokerman on Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

Are you referring to the massive lock up he had at the start when trying to pass Hamilton and he had to cut the corner?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2513
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't see the big deal and why people are being so precious about it, myself. The reference was clearly made to illustrate how both got a big dose of bad luck while in the hunt for the title. It's a ridiculous thing to get up in arms about

No it was said that if Hamilton wins the title then he's been lucky, which is short hand for saying it will be undeserved.

I don't recall you having a problem saying that about Rosberg. It's not the point being made, but the drivers involved then, clearly

You equate Vettel's little bit of none fault bad luck to all the bad luck that Hamilton had last year, Hamilton had 3 engine related grid penalties and an engine blow up whilst leading a race, Rosberg had none, Vettel has had just the one grid penalty.

This year Hamilton lost a net 17 points to Vettel in Baku when he had a headrest failure, that would be similar to what Vettel lost in Malaysia, he also lost points with a gearbox grid penalty again similar to what Vettel lost in Canada when Verstappen damaged his front wing.

no, I didn't. Please show me where I went into such nauseating detail. They both suffered bad luck at a very similar critical stage of the WDC. That's it. You're reading far too much into it because as usual you need Hamilton to be portrayed as having the biggest mountain to climb. All. The . Time. It gets old

You are clearly making a case for Hamilton winning the title purely because of luck especially when comparing with last year, going into actual detail may actually prove you to be exaggerating this enormous amount of bad luck that Vettel has apparently had.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It certainly didn't help plus they knew the tyre needed changing but they gambled, that's not pot luck bad luck.

still guessing. Pirelli didn't say that lockup contributed in any way, did they?

What did they say, did they say the tyre was basically worn out?

No, they said it was caused by a slow puncture:

Full Pirelli statement:
'Pirelli has concluded the analysis on Sebastian Vettel's damaged front-left P Zero Yellow soft tyre, which affected him two laps from the finish of the British Grand Prix.

'As appeared clear since Sunday afternoon, a full investigation has now confirmed that the original cause of the failure was a slow puncture. The consequent driving back to the pits on an underinflated and then flat tyre led to the final failure.

'Kimi Raikkonen's damaged tyre shows less evidence of what occurred, so further tests and analysis are still ongoing in Pirelli's laboratories and indoor testing facilities. It will take a few more days to reach a definitive conclusion.'


http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/ ... li-confirm

No wear issues even mentioned. Or are we going to somehow blame his puncture on that?

Vettel said the tyres had dropped off in performance which is indicative of heavily worn tyres, his lap times had dropped by a second a lap just before Bottas passed him. Both he and Verstappen stopped much earlier than the other drivers both doing a long run on the tyres, Verstappen complained that the tyres had no more performance left in them again indicative of heavily worn tyres and after they saw Kimi's failure they thought best to get new tyres, Vettel had also complained of lack of performance in the tyres, I would say it was not best to have such a big lock up on a tyre that were getting close to the end of it's life, eventually they will fail or puncture.

Pirelli never came out and said the tyres were not fit for use but I know I heard mention of the Ferrari suspension settings, coincidence that it was only the Ferrari car that experienced failures?

You asked if Pirelli said the tyres were worn out, I provided evidence they didn't, now you are ignoring that and saying they were anyway? Why ask if you are just going to ignore the answer?

The simple fact is that a slow puncture was the cause of Vettel's tyre issue. Anything else is pure speculation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No it was said that if Hamilton wins the title then he's been lucky, which is short hand for saying it will be undeserved.

I don't recall you having a problem saying that about Rosberg. It's not the point being made, but the drivers involved then, clearly

You equate Vettel's little bit of none fault bad luck to all the bad luck that Hamilton had last year, Hamilton had 3 engine related grid penalties and an engine blow up whilst leading a race, Rosberg had none, Vettel has had just the one grid penalty.

This year Hamilton lost a net 17 points to Vettel in Baku when he had a headrest failure, that would be similar to what Vettel lost in Malaysia, he also lost points with a gearbox grid penalty again similar to what Vettel lost in Canada when Verstappen damaged his front wing.

no, I didn't. Please show me where I went into such nauseating detail. They both suffered bad luck at a very similar critical stage of the WDC. That's it. You're reading far too much into it because as usual you need Hamilton to be portrayed as having the biggest mountain to climb. All. The . Time. It gets old

You are clearly making a case for Hamilton winning the title purely because of luck especially when comparing with last year, going into actual detail may actually prove you to be exaggerating this enormous amount of bad luck that Vettel has apparently had.

I'm not, because a) it wasn't me who made the original comparison anyway, and b) I'm not the one making a big deal of it. If anything, I'm the one trying to downplay it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Bad luck has had a major impact on both. Trying to pin it down to exact percentages to say Driver A was wronged more than Driver B is just pointless. There are parallels: they don't have to be identical


Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10826
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

Are you referring to the massive lock up he had at the start when trying to pass Hamilton and he had to cut the corner?


No, the one in the final stint: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/129260

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

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


Last edited by lamo on Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21119
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

Are you referring to the massive lock up he had at the start when trying to pass Hamilton and he had to cut the corner?
more likely the infamous lock up he had on lap 38


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10826
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:

Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.


Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2513
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Why is that pointless? One driver can have a title challenge completely destroyed by reliability and another can lose a small amount. They aren't the same thing.

Kimi 2005, Senna 1989 and Hamilton 2016 are not comparable to say Raikkonen 2007 (who also had the worst reliability that year) or Alonso 2006 (who marginally had worse reliability than Schumacher)

It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.

It's not setting aside debate when the response is a debatable point.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
still guessing. Pirelli didn't say that lockup contributed in any way, did they?

What did they say, did they say the tyre was basically worn out?

No, they said it was caused by a slow puncture:

Full Pirelli statement:
'Pirelli has concluded the analysis on Sebastian Vettel's damaged front-left P Zero Yellow soft tyre, which affected him two laps from the finish of the British Grand Prix.

'As appeared clear since Sunday afternoon, a full investigation has now confirmed that the original cause of the failure was a slow puncture. The consequent driving back to the pits on an underinflated and then flat tyre led to the final failure.

'Kimi Raikkonen's damaged tyre shows less evidence of what occurred, so further tests and analysis are still ongoing in Pirelli's laboratories and indoor testing facilities. It will take a few more days to reach a definitive conclusion.'


http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/ ... li-confirm

No wear issues even mentioned. Or are we going to somehow blame his puncture on that?

Vettel said the tyres had dropped off in performance which is indicative of heavily worn tyres, his lap times had dropped by a second a lap just before Bottas passed him. Both he and Verstappen stopped much earlier than the other drivers both doing a long run on the tyres, Verstappen complained that the tyres had no more performance left in them again indicative of heavily worn tyres and after they saw Kimi's failure they thought best to get new tyres, Vettel had also complained of lack of performance in the tyres, I would say it was not best to have such a big lock up on a tyre that were getting close to the end of it's life, eventually they will fail or puncture.

Pirelli never came out and said the tyres were not fit for use but I know I heard mention of the Ferrari suspension settings, coincidence that it was only the Ferrari car that experienced failures?

You asked if Pirelli said the tyres were worn out, I provided evidence they didn't, now you are ignoring that and saying they were anyway? Why ask if you are just going to ignore the answer?

The simple fact is that a slow puncture was the cause of Vettel's tyre issue. Anything else is pure speculation.

It's clear the tyres were heavily worn because of the way they lost performance on both Vettel and Verstappen's car, Pirelli never said the tyres had some kind of design fault bearing in mind there was more than one failure, also i believe it's no coincidence that it was only the Ferrari cars that had punctures, Pirelli perhaps wouldn't want to be pointing fingers as such, diplomacy?

I did hear mention of the suspension settings that Ferrari were using, did Ferrari throw Pirelli under the bus?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't recall you having a problem saying that about Rosberg. It's not the point being made, but the drivers involved then, clearly

You equate Vettel's little bit of none fault bad luck to all the bad luck that Hamilton had last year, Hamilton had 3 engine related grid penalties and an engine blow up whilst leading a race, Rosberg had none, Vettel has had just the one grid penalty.

This year Hamilton lost a net 17 points to Vettel in Baku when he had a headrest failure, that would be similar to what Vettel lost in Malaysia, he also lost points with a gearbox grid penalty again similar to what Vettel lost in Canada when Verstappen damaged his front wing.

no, I didn't. Please show me where I went into such nauseating detail. They both suffered bad luck at a very similar critical stage of the WDC. That's it. You're reading far too much into it because as usual you need Hamilton to be portrayed as having the biggest mountain to climb. All. The . Time. It gets old

You are clearly making a case for Hamilton winning the title purely because of luck especially when comparing with last year, going into actual detail may actually prove you to be exaggerating this enormous amount of bad luck that Vettel has apparently had.

I'm not, because a) it wasn't me who made the original comparison anyway, and b) I'm not the one making a big deal of it. If anything, I'm the one trying to downplay it.

By saying that Vettel has had enormous bouts of bad luck?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2268
lamo wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
I wouldn't include Spain in that, the two rivals took each other out. It was basically a neutral event, nobody gained or lost points wise. Either could have won, both took risks. Whoever lead after that corner would win the race though.

When Spa is included then Spain should be included IMO, both racing incidents.


Spa 2014? But in terms of title fight they collided in Spa (Nico's fault) and Nico scored 18 points and Hamilton 0. Hamilton came out of that a big loser for a faultless accident.

Spain 2016. They both scored 0. No real net loss.

You say Hamilton lost at least 18 in Spain, well if he came second he would have actually been 7 more points behind Nico so he actually came out better off than if he had been 2nd that day. The same for Nico.


Sorry I was talking about Singapore. I was just generally talking about the bad luck over a season last year. If Singapore was bad luck for Vettel then it was bad luck for Hamilton in Spain. To be fair to Hamilton he could have one in Singapore anyway. I wasn't really looking at each race individually and the final outcome of how the result benefited each driver.

You are correct about the final outcome in Spain though.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

Are you referring to the massive lock up he had at the start when trying to pass Hamilton and he had to cut the corner?


No, the one in the final stint: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/129260

Oh yes for some reason I was thinking you said Rosberg, that doesn't actually show the lock up, with Vettel I was bringing forward mitigating circumstances surrounding his tyres at that time that had already lost a second a lap in performance.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
lamo wrote:
Hamilton has theories for Malasyia woe

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13217 ... sepang-woe

I have always wondered, stories like this. These aren't fresh comments made on Monday or Tuesday are they? News sites are just re-cycling material from the post race interviews on the Sunday?

I wonder how that sits with those that have said that a driver has little influence over the car, it's not incidental that I say this has some people will tend to say this about Hamilton.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
^^ this above. Also, the side view of that lockup didn't look as harsh as this head-on view. Tyre actually didn't block for that long, pretty brief and it came back to rolling state quite fast.

Bottas had a MUCH harsher lockup in Russia, for example.

Which he had to change straight away.


He drove the rest of the stint and finished the race on that tyre.

Are you referring to the massive lock up he had at the start when trying to pass Hamilton and he had to cut the corner?
more likely the infamous lock up he had on lap 38

Yeah it's been pointed out to me now.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.


Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10826
pokerman wrote:
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.


Malaysia had nothing to do with his own actions.
Singapore was a standard manoeuvre as well in which circumstances went against. Of course that's bad luck.

Obviously I didn't mean Malaysia, in Singapore he was the chief protagonist and you can't call it none fault bad luck, you can't equate that the same as having a mechanical failure.


I don't care which bad luck label you attribute to it. It was a standard manoeuvre, he didn't do anything wrong, and it turned ugly. That's bad luck in my book.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24116
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It's pointless to get up in arms about it. They both suffered from fairly spectacular bouts of bad luck at critical stages in their title charges.

Vettel has had spectacular bouts of bad luck, really?

He has been heavily compromised in the most two recent races where he had the strongest chances of maximising points - setting aside any debate on blame at Singapore.

It's not bad luck when something is caused largely by your own actions.

It's not setting aside debate when the response is a debatable point.

He chose to be aggressive and it didn't work out for him, he is responsible for his actions and takes in my opinion most of the blame.

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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], TheGiantHogweed 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