planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:09 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:21 am
Posts: 466
davidheath461 wrote:

Didn't Massa gift the last race to Kimi?



Massa was number 2 after Italy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So basically Kimi did well to win in the fastest car because the car and tyres were new to him and didn't suit him?

The problem with this theory is that Kimi never improved in 2008 and 2009, his performance level to Massa remained quite consistent.


yes because a lot of people put kimi and massa on the same level (i think kimi is one step up personally between massa and the alonsos hamiltons) but for those that think he is on massa' level then kimi having new team and car and tyres it must be more of an achievement then if massa had won it. i think its well known that kimi struggled getting heat into the tyres in 07 and 08, especially in quali, which on occasion put him down the grid. but as i say knowing how sensative he is to having the car just right i think it adds to the achievement. plus im pretty sure ferrari didnt go to the lengths that mclaren did to get the car right for him.

All these disadvantages yet Kimi still won the title, what disadvantages does he have in present day F1 that seems to hold him back so much?

He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)

Which again brings me around again to he was rubbish on the tyres in 2007 yet he won the title in not the out and out best car, something kind of doesn't add up?

Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Kimi still had more DNFs than both Mclaren drivers. They both just happened to have there 1 in the last 3 races whilst Kimi had 2 earlier in the year.

If Kimi had just been able to just be 0.1 ahead of Massa in the first 7-8 races he would have probably lead the WDC most of the year. People forget how poor Kimi was until France and especially Silverstone.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
yes because a lot of people put kimi and massa on the same level (i think kimi is one step up personally between massa and the alonsos hamiltons) but for those that think he is on massa' level then kimi having new team and car and tyres it must be more of an achievement then if massa had won it. i think its well known that kimi struggled getting heat into the tyres in 07 and 08, especially in quali, which on occasion put him down the grid. but as i say knowing how sensative he is to having the car just right i think it adds to the achievement. plus im pretty sure ferrari didnt go to the lengths that mclaren did to get the car right for him.

All these disadvantages yet Kimi still won the title, what disadvantages does he have in present day F1 that seems to hold him back so much?

He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)

Which again brings me around again to he was rubbish on the tyres in 2007 yet he won the title in not the out and out best car, something kind of doesn't add up?

Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.

Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

_________________
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: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
lamo wrote:
Kimi still had more DNFs than both Mclaren drivers. They both just happened to have there 1 in the last 3 races whilst Kimi had 2 earlier in the year.

If Kimi had just been able to just be 0.1 ahead of Massa in the first 7-8 races he would have probably lead the WDC most of the year. People forget how poor Kimi was until France and especially Silverstone.

In the first part of the season Kimi was 3 tenths slower than Massa, LDM asked if they had signed Kimi's twin brother and then Kimi ends up with 6 wins and we are lead to believe he was gifted the title because the Ferrari wasn't the faster car.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1726
Hypothetically speaking: If Kimi was just 0.1s faster than Massa in the first half of the season, this is what his results would have likely looked like:

Australia - 1st
Malaysia - 2nd
Bahrain - 1st
Spain - DNF
Monaco - 3rd
Canada - 2nd
USA - 3rd

Kimi is on 48 points after the first seven races of the season instead of 33, which puts him level with Alonso and only 6 points behind Lewis who would then be on 54 points.

Then Kimi goes on to win 5 of the remaining 10 races and steamrolls the championship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
All these disadvantages yet Kimi still won the title, what disadvantages does he have in present day F1 that seems to hold him back so much?

He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)

Which again brings me around again to he was rubbish on the tyres in 2007 yet he won the title in not the out and out best car, something kind of doesn't add up?

Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.

Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

last two for starters. Need to ask?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
KingVoid wrote:
Hypothetically speaking: If Kimi was just 0.1s faster than Massa in the first half of the season, this is what his results would have likely looked like:

Australia - 1st
Malaysia - 2nd
Bahrain - 1st
Spain - DNF
Monaco - 3rd
Canada - 2nd
USA - 3rd

Kimi is on 48 points after the first seven races of the season instead of 33, which puts him level with Alonso and only 6 points behind Lewis who would then be on 54 points.

Then Kimi goes on to win 5 of the remaining 10 races and steamrolls the championship.


Yes that’s about right, it would have been the DNF in Spain preventing him from leading it.

Also if you adjust Kimi and Massa for luck in 2007. I have Massa losing a net 21 points and Kimi losing a net 8 points. That would make the WDC 118-115 in Kimi’s favour, a lot closer.

Kimi had 2 DNFs from third place.

Massa had 2 back row starts, 1 DNF from third, a fueling error in Hungary qualifying resulting in no points and a team order in Brazil.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
lamo wrote:
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

So? He still wouldn't and shouldn't have come anywhere near the title. It was the McLaren drivers to lose and they lost it big time. The title should have been wrapped up with a race to spare.

Aside from the initial race, no Ferrari driver led the Championship at any stage of the year, until the season finale. After the European Grand Prix, Kimi was nearly two full wins behind Hamilton and not much further short of that from Alonso. In fact, he was still nearly two full race wins behind after the Italian Grand Prix, with only four races to go. Lewis only needed four more points after Japan, equivalent to two 7th place finishes, and it wouldn't have mattered what Kimi did. If the McLaren boys hadn't imploded at the end it would have been a walk in the park, so let's not pretend that they were somehow valiantly fighting back against the odds. Kimi shouldn't have won that title, but that had nothing to do with how good his car was


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 275
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
knowing how fickle kimi is with setup, tyres etc i think the achievement of winning the title that year is underestimated by most. remember it was his first year on bridgestones and a new car. the bridgestones were a different beast to what he was used to. massa had all but 1 of his previous seasons on bridgestones and he had driver coach schumacher in his corner. pace wise they were pretty well matched but im sorry massa wasnt and still isnt anywhere near kimi when it comes to race craft. when massa was at the front he was ok. he could put together a good race but was a different driver when starting lower down the grid where he had to work through a field. prone to errors then. and his wet pace was shocking even compared to kimis whose isnt great. i think kimi ultimate level was above massa that year. and he generally carried more fuel in quali then massa which i dont know if the stats take into account.

shuey would probably have beaten kimi that year though.

So basically Kimi did well to win in the fastest car because the car and tyres were new to him and didn't suit him?

The problem with this theory is that Kimi never improved in 2008 and 2009, his performance level to Massa remained quite consistent.


yes because a lot of people put kimi and massa on the same level (i think kimi is one step up personally between massa and the alonsos hamiltons) but for those that think he is on massa' level then kimi having new team and car and tyres it must be more of an achievement then if massa had won it. i think its well known that kimi struggled getting heat into the tyres in 07 and 08, especially in quali, which on occasion put him down the grid. but as i say knowing how sensative he is to having the car just right i think it adds to the achievement. plus im pretty sure ferrari didnt go to the lengths that mclaren did to get the car right for him.

All these disadvantages yet Kimi still won the title, what disadvantages does he have in present day F1 that seems to hold him back so much?

He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)


yes and no for me. pre 2007 the tyres had to be a proper racing tyres because of the tyre war. unfortunately 2007 gave us a conservative control tyre by a conservative company in bridgestone. 2012 and 13 he was much better with the tyres cos pirelli had the remit to create softer tyres that degraded. hence why they got both praise and stick for the tyres not being durable enough. 2014 pirelli were too conservative as it was the new engines and they havent really got better since. this year they are terrible. now yes everyone has the same tyres and its kimis fault, but we know he has a different style then aggressive drivers like hamilton and alonso ie brake earlier and carry more apex speed but with a nice smooth style. this style has cost him but thats how he has always driven and it is probably a lot more difficult to change style then we think. so when the tyres fall for him he is one of the best (2003 to 2006/7 and 2012 and 13 he was considered in the top 4 drivers by most) but when they dont he isnt the same driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So basically Kimi did well to win in the fastest car because the car and tyres were new to him and didn't suit him?

The problem with this theory is that Kimi never improved in 2008 and 2009, his performance level to Massa remained quite consistent.


yes because a lot of people put kimi and massa on the same level (i think kimi is one step up personally between massa and the alonsos hamiltons) but for those that think he is on massa' level then kimi having new team and car and tyres it must be more of an achievement then if massa had won it. i think its well known that kimi struggled getting heat into the tyres in 07 and 08, especially in quali, which on occasion put him down the grid. but as i say knowing how sensative he is to having the car just right i think it adds to the achievement. plus im pretty sure ferrari didnt go to the lengths that mclaren did to get the car right for him.

All these disadvantages yet Kimi still won the title, what disadvantages does he have in present day F1 that seems to hold him back so much?

He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)


yes and no for me. pre 2007 the tyres had to be a proper racing tyres because of the tyre war. unfortunately 2007 gave us a conservative control tyre by a conservative company in bridgestone. 2012 and 13 he was much better with the tyres cos pirelli had the remit to create softer tyres that degraded. hence why they got both praise and stick for the tyres not being durable enough. 2014 pirelli were too conservative as it was the new engines and they havent really got better since. this year they are terrible. now yes everyone has the same tyres and its kimis fault, but we know he has a different style then aggressive drivers like hamilton and alonso ie brake earlier and carry more apex speed but with a nice smooth style. this style has cost him but thats how he has always driven and it is probably a lot more difficult to change style then we think. so when the tyres fall for him he is one of the best (2003 to 2006/7 and 2012 and 13 he was considered in the top 4 drivers by most) but when they dont he isnt the same driver.

I think we are saying the same thing. He's pretty underwhelming on these tyres, but on the Michelins - as you say, proper performance tyres - he was pretty damn quick. But these are the tyres that we have got, so if Kimi can't adapt to them properly, then that's his lookout, really. I doubt we'll ever go back to full-on racing tyres, certainly not in his (career) lifetime.

The fact that he occasionally puts in some pretty quick laps shows that he does have the speed, if somewhat inconsistently, but it's no use having it every so often when your rivals are able to turn it on at will


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

So? He still wouldn't and shouldn't have come anywhere near the title. It was the McLaren drivers to lose and they lost it big time. The title should have been wrapped up with a race to spare.

Aside from the initial race, no Ferrari driver led the Championship at any stage of the year, until the season finale. After the European Grand Prix, Kimi was nearly two full wins behind Hamilton and not much further short of that from Alonso. In fact, he was still nearly two full race wins behind after the Italian Grand Prix, with only four races to go. Lewis only needed four more points after Japan, equivalent to two 7th place finishes, and it wouldn't have mattered what Kimi did. If the McLaren boys hadn't imploded at the end it would have been a walk in the park, so let's not pretend that they were somehow valiantly fighting back against the odds. Kimi shouldn't have won that title, but that had nothing to do with how good his car was


He should have been a lot closer in the title race if he wasn’t so slow and unlucky with reliability earlier in the year. Kimi had ALL his mechanical issues (Spain, europe) and errors (Monaco) in the first 10 races. He was also slow for the first 7 races, significantly slower than Massa. That’s the only reason he wasn’t closer to the title fight. Kimi had a trouble free last 7 races whilst all the other 3 contenders had a horrible time in that part of the year.

Hamilton by contrast had 9 straight podiums in the first 9 races, no bad luck and a bulletproof car.

Formula one is a season and is usually evens out and it so happened that Hamiltons bad luck, mistakes and reliability issues ALL came in the 2nd half. Wheel failure in qualifying (Europe) Puncture (turkey) driver error (china) gearbox glitch (Brazil).

Alonso also had ALL of his issues from race 8 onwards, gearbox failure in qualifying (France), grid penalty in Hungary and driver error DNF in Japan.

A similar story in 2014, when Hamilton had all his issues int he first half and Nico all his in the 2nd half. Some seasons it doesn’t even out (2016) but in most it tends to.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He's rubbish on the tyres, quite frankly. He's occasionally shown flashes of single lap pace to match / beat Vettel, but almost never translates that into race pace. I can't think of any solid reason beyond tyre management, tbh, which he didn't have in the (Michelin) days when tyres were built purely for performance. In that respect he's a one-trick pony, but that doesn't preclude him being able to use that trick when the planets align.

Fry said Kimi and Montoya shared 9 front ends in a season, in order to get the car exactly where they needed to be. Says a lot about Kimi's sensitivity (as well as McLaren's flexibility and foresight in accommodating their drivers' peccadilloes), but just reinforces the idea that without things being perfect he's a bit all at sea. And that in turn explains his pretty large performance swings, such as e.g. his first season vs Vettel, compared with this current one. He has possibly the biggest performance swings on anyone on the grid (that we're aware of, anyway)

Which again brings me around again to he was rubbish on the tyres in 2007 yet he won the title in not the out and out best car, something kind of doesn't add up?

Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.

Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

last two for starters. Need to ask?

Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

So? He still wouldn't and shouldn't have come anywhere near the title. It was the McLaren drivers to lose and they lost it big time. The title should have been wrapped up with a race to spare.

Aside from the initial race, no Ferrari driver led the Championship at any stage of the year, until the season finale. After the European Grand Prix, Kimi was nearly two full wins behind Hamilton and not much further short of that from Alonso. In fact, he was still nearly two full race wins behind after the Italian Grand Prix, with only four races to go. Lewis only needed four more points after Japan, equivalent to two 7th place finishes, and it wouldn't have mattered what Kimi did. If the McLaren boys hadn't imploded at the end it would have been a walk in the park, so let's not pretend that they were somehow valiantly fighting back against the odds. Kimi shouldn't have won that title, but that had nothing to do with how good his car was

Kimi winning the title had nothing to do with how good his car was?

You have basically read nothing that other posters have written, either Alonso or Hamilton would have won quite easily in Kimi's car.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

So? He still wouldn't and shouldn't have come anywhere near the title. It was the McLaren drivers to lose and they lost it big time. The title should have been wrapped up with a race to spare.

Aside from the initial race, no Ferrari driver led the Championship at any stage of the year, until the season finale. After the European Grand Prix, Kimi was nearly two full wins behind Hamilton and not much further short of that from Alonso. In fact, he was still nearly two full race wins behind after the Italian Grand Prix, with only four races to go. Lewis only needed four more points after Japan, equivalent to two 7th place finishes, and it wouldn't have mattered what Kimi did. If the McLaren boys hadn't imploded at the end it would have been a walk in the park, so let's not pretend that they were somehow valiantly fighting back against the odds. Kimi shouldn't have won that title, but that had nothing to do with how good his car was

Kimi winning the title had nothing to do with how good his car was?

You have basically read nothing that other posters have written, either Alonso or Hamilton would have won quite easily in Kimi's car.

You would know this how, exactly?

I have read them, but I don't necessarily agree with them. You do understand the difference, I take it?

Kimi did have a good car, but him winning the title was down to the McLaren boys throwing it away. The McLaren drivers could have won quite easily in the McLaren. The fact they didn't is down to them and not because they were battling the odds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Which again brings me around again to he was rubbish on the tyres in 2007 yet he won the title in not the out and out best car, something kind of doesn't add up?

Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.

Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

last two for starters. Need to ask?

Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

It's irrelevant. The fact is that Hamilton should have won with a race to spare and should have beaten Kimi by at least a race win's worth of points. The fact that he didn't was a gift to Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1907
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autos ... ey-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

I can. He messed up the start which had nothing to do with his gearbox. His issue was temporary and who knows what may have happened if he'd not been fighting to get past cars those laps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
For starters? Are you suggesting there are more?

Kimi was gifted the win in Brazil but it was from the other Ferrari.
He was also gifted the win in Australia, again from the other Ferrari.

China, he had already overtaken Hamilton on track for the lead of the race and given that he had made his inters last longer had gained track position and strategy advantage over Hamilton.

Nobody else won more than 4 races.

So? He still wouldn't and shouldn't have come anywhere near the title. It was the McLaren drivers to lose and they lost it big time. The title should have been wrapped up with a race to spare.

Aside from the initial race, no Ferrari driver led the Championship at any stage of the year, until the season finale. After the European Grand Prix, Kimi was nearly two full wins behind Hamilton and not much further short of that from Alonso. In fact, he was still nearly two full race wins behind after the Italian Grand Prix, with only four races to go. Lewis only needed four more points after Japan, equivalent to two 7th place finishes, and it wouldn't have mattered what Kimi did. If the McLaren boys hadn't imploded at the end it would have been a walk in the park, so let's not pretend that they were somehow valiantly fighting back against the odds. Kimi shouldn't have won that title, but that had nothing to do with how good his car was

Kimi winning the title had nothing to do with how good his car was?

You have basically read nothing that other posters have written, either Alonso or Hamilton would have won quite easily in Kimi's car.

You would know this how, exactly?

I have read them, but I don't necessarily agree with them. You do understand the difference, I take it?

Kimi did have a good car, but him winning the title was down to the McLaren boys throwing it away. The McLaren drivers could have won quite easily in the McLaren. The fact they didn't is down to them and not because they were battling the odds.

Of course you don't agree.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 34
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

I can. He messed up the start which had nothing to do with his gearbox. His issue was temporary and who knows what may have happened if he'd not been fighting to get past cars those laps.


Slightly off topic but... McLaren put Hamilton on a three stop strategy after his gearbox issue in Brazil. I can't really remember it but was that a mistake? I.e. would he have finished 5th with a two stop?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Course it does. He won the title because McLaren/Hamilton gifted it to him, not because he beat them into submission.

Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

last two for starters. Need to ask?

Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

It's irrelevant. The fact is that Hamilton should have won with a race to spare and should have beaten Kimi by at least a race win's worth of points. The fact that he didn't was a gift to Ferrari.

It's not irrelevant to the Ferrari being the faster car in the races where you said that they were gifted wins.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?

Hamilton and Alonso, didn't you yourself point out how much inferior the Ferrari would have looked this year if you had 2 Kimi's driving the car, yet in 2007 we are lead to believe that Kimi carried the team winning more races than any other driver.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
mas wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/871878/Kimi-Raikkonen-fastest-drive-Lewis-Hamilton-better-Marc-Priestley-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

Ferrari won half the races on merit, not McLaren dropping the ball, how can you have the 2 best drivers and the best car but lose half of the races on pure performance, it's a nonsense.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kimi won 6 races, which of these races were gifted?

last two for starters. Need to ask?

Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

It's irrelevant. The fact is that Hamilton should have won with a race to spare and should have beaten Kimi by at least a race win's worth of points. The fact that he didn't was a gift to Ferrari.

It's not irrelevant to the Ferrari being the faster car in the races where you said that they were gifted wins.

no, I said they were gifted the title


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

I can. He messed up the start which had nothing to do with his gearbox. His issue was temporary and who knows what may have happened if he'd not been fighting to get past cars those laps.

Which cars qualified in front of him and were quicker in the race?

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
last two for starters. Need to ask?

Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

It's irrelevant. The fact is that Hamilton should have won with a race to spare and should have beaten Kimi by at least a race win's worth of points. The fact that he didn't was a gift to Ferrari.

It's not irrelevant to the Ferrari being the faster car in the races where you said that they were gifted wins.

no, I said they were gifted the title

No you said that Ferrari were gifted the last 2 wins of the season.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
mas wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/871878/Kimi-Raikkonen-fastest-drive-Lewis-Hamilton-better-Marc-Priestley-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

Ferrari won half the races on merit, not McLaren dropping the ball, how can you have the 2 best drivers and the best car but lose half of the races on pure performance, it's a nonsense.

Rosberg got more than 50% more poles than Hamilton in 2014, despite being the clearly inferior driver. Qualifying is as much about pure performance as anything else. You going to credit that to the car, too?

McLaren imploded somewhat in 2007, in case it escaped your notice. The whole point about dropping the ball is that they didn't get the results they should have done, so how can you point to the results as evidence of what they might have achieved?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?

No because neither Hamilton or Alonso could possibly compete against Massa or Kimi in a slightly inferior car?

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Kimi beat Alonso fair and square in China and had already passed Hamilton before he beached his car in the pit lane entrance, in Brazil the win might have been gifted but that was by his teammate and not a Mclaren.

It's irrelevant. The fact is that Hamilton should have won with a race to spare and should have beaten Kimi by at least a race win's worth of points. The fact that he didn't was a gift to Ferrari.

It's not irrelevant to the Ferrari being the faster car in the races where you said that they were gifted wins.

no, I said they were gifted the title

No you said that Ferrari were gifted the last 2 wins of the season.

No, I said they were gifted the title. I pointed to the last two races as an example of that. It was your choice to interpret that as wins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?

No because neither Hamilton or Alonso could possibly compete against Massa or Kimi in a slightly inferior car?

that makes no sense


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
JN23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

I can. He messed up the start which had nothing to do with his gearbox. His issue was temporary and who knows what may have happened if he'd not been fighting to get past cars those laps.


Slightly off topic but... McLaren put Hamilton on a three stop strategy after his gearbox issue in Brazil. I can't really remember it but was that a mistake? I.e. would he have finished 5th with a two stop?

Surely you're not saying that McLaren messed up, that wouldn't be like then at all? :)

_________________
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: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?


He had a gearbox issue in Brazil, I can't see how he can do better there.

I can. He messed up the start which had nothing to do with his gearbox. His issue was temporary and who knows what may have happened if he'd not been fighting to get past cars those laps.

Which cars qualified in front of him and were quicker in the race?

well, for starters only one car, not cars, qualified in front of him. And then he messed up the start, so it's a little unclear what he may have done in the race if he hadn't done that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8774
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mas wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/871878/Kimi-Raikkonen-fastest-drive-Lewis-Hamilton-better-Marc-Priestley-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

Ferrari won half the races on merit, not McLaren dropping the ball, how can you have the 2 best drivers and the best car but lose half of the races on pure performance, it's a nonsense.

Rosberg got more than 50% more poles than Hamilton in 2014, despite being the clearly inferior driver. Qualifying is as much about pure performance as anything else. You going to credit that to the car, too?

McLaren imploded somewhat in 2007, in case it escaped your notice. The whole point about dropping the ball is that they didn't get the results they should have done, so how can you point to the results as evidence of what they might have achieved?


What does that post have to do with anything what was being spoken about. Rosberg and Hamilton had the same car in 2014.

You often dispute Ferrari being the better car but never mention the drivers - who was the quickest driver in 2007?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
lamo wrote:
That’s not true either, if Hamilton had maintained 2nd in China and the Brazil result was the same then Hamilton would have won the title by 7 points or 9 points if Ferrari didn’t switch.

If Hamilton did win it too, I am sure we would have more people saying he only won it because of Kimi’s reliability too. Since Kimi had 2 mechanical DNFs and both Mclaren drivers 0. A lot of Kimi fans claim he lost 2003 to being unreliable and he only had 1 more than Schumacher and less than Montoya.

it is true. I said what should have happened, not what did happen. Hamilton should have done better in both China and Brazil.

What people would say is irrelevant in the context of the fact that Kimi's win relied on McLaren messing up in the end. And in any event, how is that any different from people trying to make out that Hamilton was up against it in an inferior car?

Hamilton and Alonso, didn't you yourself point out how much inferior the Ferrari would have looked this year if you had 2 Kimi's driving the car, yet in 2007 we are lead to believe that Kimi carried the team winning more races than any other driver.

because this year Kimi has been poor. We're ten years on from 2007, so I'm unclear why you think me saying Kimi has been inferior this year means that I must feel the same for every year he's ever driven?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21099
lamo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mas wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/871878/Kimi-Raikkonen-fastest-drive-Lewis-Hamilton-better-Marc-Priestley-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

Ferrari won half the races on merit, not McLaren dropping the ball, how can you have the 2 best drivers and the best car but lose half of the races on pure performance, it's a nonsense.

Rosberg got more than 50% more poles than Hamilton in 2014, despite being the clearly inferior driver. Qualifying is as much about pure performance as anything else. You going to credit that to the car, too?

McLaren imploded somewhat in 2007, in case it escaped your notice. The whole point about dropping the ball is that they didn't get the results they should have done, so how can you point to the results as evidence of what they might have achieved?


What does that post have to do with anything what was being spoken about. Rosberg and Hamilton had the same car in 2014.

You often dispute Ferrari being the better car but never mention the drivers - who was the quickest driver in 2007?

Well, if you actually read the post you'd understand that I was saying a faster driver being beaten isn't necessarily proof they had a worse car


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24075
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mas wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/871878/Kimi-Raikkonen-fastest-drive-Lewis-Hamilton-better-Marc-Priestley-F1-news

But the 2007 season, when Priestley was able to work with both Alonso and Hamilton in the same team, ended in disaster: “That year when we had by far the best car, by far the two best drivers in the world and both championships should have been ours.They were there for the taking and in the end we missed out on them both. ”

Ferrari won half the races on merit, not McLaren dropping the ball, how can you have the 2 best drivers and the best car but lose half of the races on pure performance, it's a nonsense.

Rosberg got more than 50% more poles than Hamilton in 2014, despite being the clearly inferior driver. Qualifying is as much about pure performance as anything else. You going to credit that to the car, too?

McLaren imploded somewhat in 2007, in case it escaped your notice. The whole point about dropping the ball is that they didn't get the results they should have done, so how can you point to the results as evidence of what they might have achieved?

Ferrari won 9 out of 17 races on pure performance with 2 inferior drivers, the Ferrari was the fastest car, I put it that they dropped far more points because of reliability issues plus the drivers not being as good.

_________________
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: No registered users 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group