planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:04 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6812
Location: Mumbai, India
JN23 wrote:
Not sure many saw Hamilton pole and win this weekend or a Hamilton win last weekend. So who wants to predict Russia?


If Honda's Spec 3 engine (to be introduced at the back of Toro Rosso) which should be 35hp more powerful bear fruitation, Renault would be dead last in terms of power output. All this would bode well for Red Bull come 2019.
https://www.wheels24.co.za/FormulaOne/honda-poised-to-pass-renault-for-power-20180919

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3060
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19942

An article regarding how many points Vettel has lost, he defiantly should be leading this title race.

Fantasy standings: Vettel 310, Hamilton 257
Real standings: Vettel 241, Hamilton 281

This fantasy scenario is really the best possible scenario that could have ever happened for Vettel. I have no idea how on earth did they came to the conclusion that Raikkonen would have kept Hamilton behind him in Monza if Vettel was leading.


Vettel should be leading the championship, most of it is spot on. Well Monza was Ferraris fault, if Kimi doesn't push too long and too hard on a heavier full load then he doesn't ruin his tyres. Maybe they mean Kimi wouldn't have been asked to do that because the race win would have been secure with Vettel, the race could have played out differently which means Bottas might not have been used as a wingman and then Kimi's tyres don't get ruined for the second time.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I need to revisit the posts before I comment further.

Regarding Hughes if he's seen as a flawed source then he shouldn't be used to validate posts.

I. Didn't. Use. Him.

You've used him in the past to validate your opinion.

I've used him in the past to counter other "expert" opinion, to demonstrate that even the experts don't always agree on things.

Anyway, highlighting somebody else's opinion doesn't mean that a position is uncontestable: it just means that you're not a lone voice. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. It's silly to suggest that if you ever disagree with someone you can't echo their opinion under different circumstances.

But all this is going off tangent. Somebody else used Mark's opinion this time, but you seem to be using that to have a go at me? It goes back to what I said a few posts up that you appear to just be looking to make an argument? I don't see how my quoting Mark in the past has any bearing on whether I may contest what he says now.

If sources are seen as unreliable then they have no weight, sources are alright to back up what someone is saying but when they don't they are wrong, so any outside opinion has no more weight than the opinions put forward on here.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
KingVoid wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19942

An article regarding how many points Vettel has lost, he defiantly should be leading this title race.

Fantasy standings: Vettel 310, Hamilton 257
Real standings: Vettel 241, Hamilton 281

This fantasy scenario is really the best possible scenario that could have ever happened for Vettel. I have no idea how on earth did they came to the conclusion that Raikkonen would have kept Hamilton behind him in Monza if Vettel was leading.

That's only 3 points though.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I need to revisit the posts before I comment further.

Regarding Hughes if he's seen as a flawed source then he shouldn't be used to validate posts.

I. Didn't. Use. Him.

You've used him in the past to validate your opinion.

I've used him in the past to counter other "expert" opinion, to demonstrate that even the experts don't always agree on things.

Anyway, highlighting somebody else's opinion doesn't mean that a position is uncontestable: it just means that you're not a lone voice. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. It's silly to suggest that if you ever disagree with someone you can't echo their opinion under different circumstances.

But all this is going off tangent. Somebody else used Mark's opinion this time, but you seem to be using that to have a go at me? It goes back to what I said a few posts up that you appear to just be looking to make an argument? I don't see how my quoting Mark in the past has any bearing on whether I may contest what he says now.

If sources are seen as unreliable then they have no weight, sources are alright to back up what someone is saying but when they don't they are wrong, so any outside opinion has no more weight than the opinions put forward on here.

It just means sources aren't infallible, that's all. Using someone to back up your point of view isn't exactly unusual, but that doesn't mean that the source then must be right every time. And sometimes Hughes writes with a lot of science to back him up, whereas other times he appears to be writing just an opinion piece. And when it comes to opinions I think his carries as much, or as little, weight as anyone else's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You've used him in the past to validate your opinion.

I've used him in the past to counter other "expert" opinion, to demonstrate that even the experts don't always agree on things.

Anyway, highlighting somebody else's opinion doesn't mean that a position is uncontestable: it just means that you're not a lone voice. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. It's silly to suggest that if you ever disagree with someone you can't echo their opinion under different circumstances.

But all this is going off tangent. Somebody else used Mark's opinion this time, but you seem to be using that to have a go at me? It goes back to what I said a few posts up that you appear to just be looking to make an argument? I don't see how my quoting Mark in the past has any bearing on whether I may contest what he says now.

If sources are seen as unreliable then they have no weight, sources are alright to back up what someone is saying but when they don't they are wrong, so any outside opinion has no more weight than the opinions put forward on here.

It just means sources aren't infallible, that's all. Using someone to back up your point of view isn't exactly unusual, but that doesn't mean that the source then must be right every time. And sometimes Hughes writes with a lot of science to back him up, whereas other times he appears to be writing just an opinion piece. And when it comes to opinions I think his carries as much, or as little, weight as anyone else's.

No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6513
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.


I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
Will Merc continue there form they will sweep The end off this season to, like they have done since 2014, well do e!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6062
Location: Michigan, USA
AnRs wrote:
Will Merc continue there form they will sweep The end off this season to, like they have done since 2014, well do e!

They didn't sweep the end of the season last year - Max won in Mexico.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: England
Siao7 wrote:
I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic


To be fair, at least he does quantify quotes with those statements, a lot of the time people are quite happy to post some properly ropey rumours as if they were unarguable fact.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No sometimes he writes with a lot of science you agree with and sometimes he writes with a lot of science that you dismiss as just his flawed opinion because it disagrees with your own opinion.

Do you think that you have more science in your opinions than Mark Hughes?

As a stand alone thing you have every right to disagree with him but then going forward that kind of invalidates him as a source to back up your own opinions.

I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.

We appear to be going around i circles. I didn't bring him forward as an expert witness. You're probably better off making such a comment when I actually do, wouldn't you say?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6513
Flash2k11 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic


To be fair, at least he does quantify quotes with those statements, a lot of the time people are quite happy to post some properly ropey rumours as if they were unarguable fact.


Normally yes Poker does. There were a few occasions like the Ferrari burning oil I think or Hamilton's contract that was repeatedly claimed without much evidence at that time. That's what I was referring to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't recall seeing much evidence of science in the aforementioned article?

I don't think I've ever been a particular champion of Mark Hughes, or ever claimed he was infallible, so I'm a bit nonplussed why you are being so tenacious on this. I repeat, it wasn't me that brought him up this time but you appear to feel that I in particular shouldn't be allowed to comment on a post where he is quoted? Perhaps you might want to explain why that is?

You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.


I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic

It wasn't me questioning Mark Hughes' article.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1912
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Invade wrote:
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle

Indeed and after Hamilton's lucky Baku win I started a thread about how I was wondering when Hamilton was going to win a race given the speed of the Ferrari.

After Australia the Ferrari was the stronger car and this was a stage of the season were Vettel could have mounted a considerable lead in the WDC, Hamilton got lucky during this period.

Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle

Indeed and after Hamilton's lucky Baku win I started a thread about how I was wondering when Hamilton was going to win a race given the speed of the Ferrari.

After Australia the Ferrari was the stronger car and this was a stage of the season were Vettel could have mounted a considerable lead in the WDC, Hamilton got lucky during this period.

Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes.


Simply not true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle

Indeed and after Hamilton's lucky Baku win I started a thread about how I was wondering when Hamilton was going to win a race given the speed of the Ferrari.

After Australia the Ferrari was the stronger car and this was a stage of the season were Vettel could have mounted a considerable lead in the WDC, Hamilton got lucky during this period.

Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes.


Simply not true.

Another one sentence reply with no explanation.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle

Indeed and after Hamilton's lucky Baku win I started a thread about how I was wondering when Hamilton was going to win a race given the speed of the Ferrari.

After Australia the Ferrari was the stronger car and this was a stage of the season were Vettel could have mounted a considerable lead in the WDC, Hamilton got lucky during this period.

Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes.


Simply not true.

Another one sentence reply with no explanation.


Explain how Vettel or Raikkonen had the speed to take on Hamilton in the Merc then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Invade wrote:
Here's an interesting report from much earlier in the year from some dude who calls himself Mark Hughes...


Mark Hughes
F1 Expert

F1 2018: Analysing the Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull battle
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/32420 ... ull-battle

Indeed and after Hamilton's lucky Baku win I started a thread about how I was wondering when Hamilton was going to win a race given the speed of the Ferrari.

After Australia the Ferrari was the stronger car and this was a stage of the season were Vettel could have mounted a considerable lead in the WDC, Hamilton got lucky during this period.

Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes.


Simply not true.

Another one sentence reply with no explanation.


Explain how Vettel or Raikkonen had the speed to take on Hamilton in the Merc then.

Like you explain your posts?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:

Like you explain your posts?


Which haven't I explained to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:

Like you explain your posts?


Which haven't I explained to you?

What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:

Like you explain your posts?


Which haven't I explained to you?

What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?


If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:

Like you explain your posts?


Which haven't I explained to you?

What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?


If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?

When did one race become races that Ferrari should have won?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:

Like you explain your posts?


Which haven't I explained to you?

What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?


If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?

When did one race become races that Ferrari should have won?


You wrote "Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
Which haven't I explained to you?

What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?


If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?

When did one race become races that Ferrari should have won?


You wrote "Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."

Even in Singapore it's being questioned whether or not Ferrari dropped the ball, should Mark Hughes qualifying article get referenced again which I guess you didn't read even though it was featured on here?

You know Singapore is maybe a turning point for Mercedes but even then the previous 4 races Ferrari looked stronger.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What can you explain in one or two sentences?

Am I prepared to compose a post that's going to take me at least 30 minutes for your wordly wise one sentence reply?


If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?

When did one race become races that Ferrari should have won?


You wrote "Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."

Even in Singapore it's being questioned whether or not Ferrari dropped the ball, should Mark Hughes qualifying article get referenced again which I guess you didn't read even though it was featured on here?

You know Singapore is maybe a turning point for Mercedes but even then the previous 4 races Ferrari looked stronger.

they didn't look faster in the race in Monza


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
pokerman wrote:
Even in Singapore it's being questioned whether or not Ferrari dropped the ball, should Mark Hughes qualifying article get referenced again which I guess you didn't read even though it was featured on here?

You know Singapore is maybe a turning point for Mercedes but even then the previous 4 races Ferrari looked stronger.


IMO Monza was the last turning point where Merc looks faster and Singapore sealed that.
I read Mark Hughes but IMO it's just an opinion.

So, IMO it's not like we are "back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6513
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his article to validate your opinion.

an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.


I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic

It wasn't me questioning Mark Hughes' article.


I didn't say you were


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 728
We only have Kimi to judge Monza race pace. I can’t think of a race day Ferrari looked strong in if you use Kimi to judge them. Hamilton is beating him 10-1 when they both finished.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Johnson wrote:
We only have Kimi to judge Monza race pace. I can’t think of a race day Ferrari looked strong in if you use Kimi to judge them. Hamilton is beating him 10-1 when they both finished.
By the same token there is zero evidence to suggest the Ferrari was faster. In the race that just wasn't the case


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2631
Location: England
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
We only have Kimi to judge Monza race pace. I can’t think of a race day Ferrari looked strong in if you use Kimi to judge them. Hamilton is beating him 10-1 when they both finished.
By the same token there is zero evidence to suggest the Ferrari was faster. In the race that just wasn't the case


There is only no evidence because Vettel's car was damaged and ended up at the back of the field. Without him as a marker, you are comparing the number 1 driver to the number 2. While Bottas' race was almost certainly compromised by strategy, he still never looked like getting near Raikonnen all afternoon. With the hindsight of Singapore, it could well be a driver slump, but at the time, Kimi looking that strong was a decent indicator that the Ferrari was definately up there with the Mercedes, though its impossible to draw a definitive conclusion on the Sunday.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Flash2k11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
We only have Kimi to judge Monza race pace. I can’t think of a race day Ferrari looked strong in if you use Kimi to judge them. Hamilton is beating him 10-1 when they both finished.
By the same token there is zero evidence to suggest the Ferrari was faster. In the race that just wasn't the case


There is only no evidence because Vettel's car was damaged and ended up at the back of the field. Without him as a marker, you are comparing the number 1 driver to the number 2. While Bottas' race was almost certainly compromised by strategy, he still never looked like getting near Raikonnen all afternoon. With the hindsight of Singapore, it could well be a driver slump, but at the time, Kimi looking that strong was a decent indicator that the Ferrari was definately up there with the Mercedes, though its impossible to draw a definitive conclusion on the Sunday.

I don't really disagree with what you write hear, but it still means that we can't say the Ferrari was quicker at Monza, because there was no evidence of that. I'm basically disagreeing with the claim that the Ferrari looked faster these last four races because I don't think that claim may be made for Monza


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
AnRs wrote:
If you have so much trouble explaining why Ferrari where faster than Merc in Singapore maybe that's a clue?

When did one race become races that Ferrari should have won?


You wrote "Mercedes had the odd race were they were quicker soon after this period but recently we are back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."

Even in Singapore it's being questioned whether or not Ferrari dropped the ball, should Mark Hughes qualifying article get referenced again which I guess you didn't read even though it was featured on here?

You know Singapore is maybe a turning point for Mercedes but even then the previous 4 races Ferrari looked stronger.

they didn't look faster in the race in Monza

Faster in qualifying which last year was so, so important when determining the faster car, the faster Ferrari driver was basically out of the race after the second corner so we don't know the actual state of play, if the cars were equal in the race that still gives it to the superior qualifying of the Ferrari, again like I say playing by last years rules.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
AnRs wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Even in Singapore it's being questioned whether or not Ferrari dropped the ball, should Mark Hughes qualifying article get referenced again which I guess you didn't read even though it was featured on here?

You know Singapore is maybe a turning point for Mercedes but even then the previous 4 races Ferrari looked stronger.


IMO Monza was the last turning point where Merc looks faster and Singapore sealed that.
I read Mark Hughes but IMO it's just an opinion.

So, IMO it's not like we are "back to races that Ferrari should have won if not for the weather or Ferrari/Vettel mistakes."

How can the Mercs look faster in Monza when Ferrari locked out the front row and Vettel was basically out of the race after the second corner?

Monza is actually seen by some as a mistake by Vettel, a race he could have won, as for Singapore you may not believe Hughes but even Vettel is basically saying that Ferrari messed up in qualifying and all things being equal they could have been on pole, let's see what Sochi brings.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
an article of his article? :?

Look, I'm not the first person to either agree or disagree with a pundit. What exactly is the root of your problem here?

Typo, You're not a particular champion of Mark Hughes but then will use an article of his to validate your opinion.

My problem is you can't bring forward a guy as an expert witness when half the time you think he is wrong.


I find it funny that you would question someone else's sources when half your posts quote "rumours say" or "heard around the paddock" Poker. Kind of ironic

It wasn't me questioning Mark Hughes' article.


I didn't say you were

Yes you did, it's actually Zoue that's questioning the source, a source that himself has used in the past which was the actual point I was making.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28350
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
We only have Kimi to judge Monza race pace. I can’t think of a race day Ferrari looked strong in if you use Kimi to judge them. Hamilton is beating him 10-1 when they both finished.
By the same token there is zero evidence to suggest the Ferrari was faster. In the race that just wasn't the case

Also you can't judge that Mercedes was faster in the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


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: LKS1 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