planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:32 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1645
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
The problem with all this Vettel vs Leclerc argument is for some they are hoping just like '14 for Leclerc to beat and they already have their mind made up about Vettel, thats why the option of Vettel beating him is not in their hypothetical.

So should Vettel beat Leclerc all we are going to hear is how Leclerc didn't live up to the hype.

Hence if you ask them what happens to Vettel's reputation if he beats Leclerc, they don't want to entertain that.

The only real problem here is that you're so sensitive about Vettel that you take people discussing the hypothetical possibilities of the matchup as some kind of attack on him. People are just considering the possibilities. No one is disrespecting him or even saying that he will actually lose. People are just discussing what would happen if he did lose because that's the most radical possibility.


That's why i said it's a position that has been taken already if not it wont be the only position to take through the thread your argument has been about what happens to his reputation if beaten.

Not being sensitive just wondering why the need for it, and me looking at it the other way means I feel Vettel is being attacked.

Riddle me this what happens to Vettel's reputation if he beats Leclerc since you are considering possibilities.


Last edited by Rockie on Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28376
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I thought we were talking about reputation and risk to it, not whether I think he's the best?

There's always a risk for any driver going up against someone new. If they get beaten by them, their reputation suffers (and the other's goes up). The size of that rise/fall is directly proportionate to how either driver was viewed before. Kimi had already taken a knock to his reputation, so if he'd beaten Vettel it would have led to a bigger knock for Vettel's. But getting beaten by a relatively unknown tends to elevate the rookie more than it does knock the established driver. Alonso's reputation didn't really suffer after getting beaten by an unknown Hamilton, because it was recognized during the year that Hamilton was a very good driver. Hamilton's reputation, OTOH, soared. And I think a similar thing may happen if Leclerc proves to be that good, although of course Vettel will always have that question mark of 2014 hanging over him so many would likely view that as further proof that he's not quite as good as others say he is. But if the battle is close, then I don't think Vettel's status would be negatively affected to a big degree.

In respect to Vettel his reputation surely has to be to be seen as being up there with the best and not be out performed by a teammate, of course any new teammate has to be viewed as a risk, but who is more likely to beat Vettel, a driver that beat him before or Kimi who got beat easily by Alonso and got matched by Massa?

If you are excepting that some other drivers are better than Vettel than I can see why you would view a driver that beat him before as less risk, Kimi only represented a risk of him falling further down the pecking order.

No, I think you are missing the point of what I'm saying. Or I'm explaining it very badly.

Whatever I've written is a generalization. It does not represent my own views on Vettel or his performances. I'm putting hypotheticals out there to explain what I feel would be the impact upon his reputation were certain events to happen. I'm not saying those events will happen. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

E.g. if Kimi were to have beaten him, then his stock would have dropped. But Kimi didn't and that doesn't mean I think Kimi would, clearly.

I simply put the higher risk factor as who is more likely to have a chance of beating you, for Hamilton there would be more of a risk going up against someone like Verstappen rather than someone like Ocon.
Yes but risk to reputation is not the same as risk of being beaten. e.g. there may be a smaller risk of Hamilton being beaten by Stroll but a much bigger risk of damage to his reputation were that to happen.

You're just being impracticable, there is even a bigger risk of damage to him then if I was to beat him.

The risk is in who might actually be able to beat you.

_________________
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 14, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28376
Rockie wrote:
The problem with all this Vettel vs Leclerc argument is for some they are hoping just like '14 for Leclerc to beat and they already have their mind made up about Vettel, thats why the option of Vettel beating him is not in their hypothetical.

So should Vettel beat Leclerc all we are going to hear is how Leclerc didn't live up to the hype.

Hence if you ask them what happens to Vettel's reputation if he beats Leclerc, they don't want to entertain that.

Some like hardly anyone?

_________________
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 14, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Just to be clear; are you saying that, for you, Ferrari have not been the better car this year?

We've had this conversation, haven't we? I think they have largely been too close to call and it varies from track to track. Since the summer break the Ferraris have looked quicker in qualifying but this does not appear to translate to the race itself. They are as close as two different design concepts can be IMO

Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.

And as I've said we've had this conversation before and I simply disagree. Even the last race, at Monza, it's impossible to claim that the Ferraris were quicker in the race because we saw no evidence for that. Even Toto said that he couldn't understand why the Ferrari's clear qualifying advantage seemed to evaporate in the race. You clearly feel very strongly about it, as do I. But given that even you have said that any edge may be down to as little as a tenth I don't feel you can write the driver off in that equation and such a small difference may not be the car at all. We have larger differences between team mates most of the time.

We could rehash it, but I think both of us are pretty firmly entrenched in our beliefs at this point and I don't see that either will convince the other. The one thing I would strongly disagree with in your stance is the point about failing to acknowledge the obvious, since I don't believe things are as obvious as you claim. To me the variances are too small to accurately measure, whereas you feel they are measurable. I respect your viewpoint but I cannot agree with it and I don't think there's enough evidence for either of us to be able to claim the other is categorically wrong


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
In respect to Vettel his reputation surely has to be to be seen as being up there with the best and not be out performed by a teammate, of course any new teammate has to be viewed as a risk, but who is more likely to beat Vettel, a driver that beat him before or Kimi who got beat easily by Alonso and got matched by Massa?

If you are excepting that some other drivers are better than Vettel than I can see why you would view a driver that beat him before as less risk, Kimi only represented a risk of him falling further down the pecking order.

No, I think you are missing the point of what I'm saying. Or I'm explaining it very badly.

Whatever I've written is a generalization. It does not represent my own views on Vettel or his performances. I'm putting hypotheticals out there to explain what I feel would be the impact upon his reputation were certain events to happen. I'm not saying those events will happen. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

E.g. if Kimi were to have beaten him, then his stock would have dropped. But Kimi didn't and that doesn't mean I think Kimi would, clearly.

I simply put the higher risk factor as who is more likely to have a chance of beating you, for Hamilton there would be more of a risk going up against someone like Verstappen rather than someone like Ocon.
Yes but risk to reputation is not the same as risk of being beaten. e.g. there may be a smaller risk of Hamilton being beaten by Stroll but a much bigger risk of damage to his reputation were that to happen.

You're just being impracticable, there is even a bigger risk of damage to him then if I was to beat him.

The risk is in who might actually be able to beat you.

I don't see how. The discussion started about the risk to reputation, so that's what I've been focusing on. I don't see why that's impractical


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Nebraska, USA
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?
AnRs,
Quit messing with their attempts to show Lewis winning in an inferior car, thereby further enhancing his greatness and devaluing Seb at the same time. That really what it is all about.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5545
Rockie wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
The problem with all this Vettel vs Leclerc argument is for some they are hoping just like '14 for Leclerc to beat and they already have their mind made up about Vettel, thats why the option of Vettel beating him is not in their hypothetical.

So should Vettel beat Leclerc all we are going to hear is how Leclerc didn't live up to the hype.

Hence if you ask them what happens to Vettel's reputation if he beats Leclerc, they don't want to entertain that.

The only real problem here is that you're so sensitive about Vettel that you take people discussing the hypothetical possibilities of the matchup as some kind of attack on him. People are just considering the possibilities. No one is disrespecting him or even saying that he will actually lose. People are just discussing what would happen if he did lose because that's the most radical possibility.


That's why i said it's a position that has been taken already if not it wont be the only position to take through the thread your argument has been about what happens to his reputation if beaten.

Not being sensitive just wondering why the need for it, and me looking at it the other way means I feel Vettel is being attacked.

Riddle me this what happens to Vettel's reputation if he beats Leclerc since you are considering possibilities.

It all depends on exactly how it happens. If Charles is just nowhere close to Seb; if he's further away than Kimi was, I think people will largely conclude that he is an over-hyped young driver who isn't as good as people thought he was. If Sebastian wins by a very close margin, people may determine that Charles shows promise but isn't yet ready to carry the torch. Either way, I do think that beating Charles will be good for Vettel's reputation. Charles is the big story in F1 at the moment and Vettel "putting him in his place" will enhance Vettel's rep. Even drivers who aren't rated that highly can enhance your reputation if you beat them conclusively. Alonso beating Massa by such a large margin was always the baseline for the many claims that he was dragging the car to places it didn't belong.

Either way, the bar is set MUCH higher for Seb than it is for Charles. For Vettel, beating Charles is a bare minimum. If he cannot beat Lewis to the championship at least once between now and when his contract ends, Ferrari will likely look to replace him regardless of how he matches up with Charles. Make no mistake, Vettel was hired to win championships and so he has to do that to be safe at Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14222
Blake wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?
AnRs,
Quit messing with their attempts to show Lewis winning in an inferior car, thereby further enhancing his greatness and devaluing Seb at the same time. That really what it is all about.


Which is the reality of the situation. Nobody needs to try and devalue Vettel. He's doing it himself. Whilst Hamilton by driving better is enhancing his. These are actual things that are happening. A drivers rating isn't set in stone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5545
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?

You mean aside from the consensus among teams, drivers and pundits in the F1 paddock? The people in the sport discuss Ferrari's position as the top car this year as though it is established fact. That a handful of consistently biased forumers want to argue with them is of little consequence.

Your reasoning is completely inadequate. Basically you are suggesting that because Mercedes have beaten them, they must have a faster car. You are ignoring the mistakes and issues that have contributed to the outcomes (my guess is that you're doing that intentionally). One of those wins was in Germany after Vettel crashed out of the race. When a driver makes a mistake and crashes, does that mean he had a worse car? Because that's what your rationale suggests. You also ignore the multiple poles that Hamilton set only because it started raining in Q3.

The main thing is that it's completely possible to win despite not having the fastest car. It's possible to set pole or fastest lap (a meaningless stat) without having the fastest car. You are simply making excuses while intentionally omitting pertinent facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28376
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yep, agree with this. re: your footnote yes I agree that the cars are so closely matched this year that basically both drivers have had an equal opportunity for the title. Whoever wins it will be confident their (and their team's) performance made the difference

I think the relative performances of the cars is debatable, the Ferrari looks faster more often than not.

It's a debate that we'll never resolve. I disagree with that assessment and think the cars have looked very close and performances have varied from track to track

They have varied but not too and fro in recent races in terms of actual car performance, you yourself labelled Hamilton as being lucky in recent races.
With all due respect, I've explained the lucky thing so many times but you just seem to ignore it each time.

Hamilton was lucky at one particular race - Hungary - because the Mercedes clearly looked like it was struggling in the dry - more so than at any other weekend this year, if not since the beginning of the hybrid era - and the rain coming just in Q3 handed them a lifeline because it appeared to mitigate their dry qualifying performance exactly when they needed it to. This is the luck part. It wouldn't have been lucky if it had rained in e.g. Australia because their car didn't look like it was struggling in Australia. While in Belgium Vettel and Hamilton were neck and neck in qualifying before the rain so I don't think luck played a big part there. In Hungary it just did

Ferrari have looked quicker in qualifying recently, and that certainly hands them an advantage, even if their pace looks much closer to the Mercedes in the race itself. But since it's not been the case every race, it remains to be seen whether they will continue with their qualifying advantage for the remainder of the season. Rain negated that advantage in Hungary or Belgium, two out of the last four races, while in Germany the cars looked pretty equal and we'll never know whether Lewis could have overcome the 2 tenths deficit Bottas had on Vettel. Which means that on only one occasion in the last four races have Ferrari had a measurable advantage in qualifying, so I don't think they can be said to be operating at an advantage for any period of time. So in terms of performance when it matters I think the cars have been as equal as they can be

In Spa you take Q2 times were the cars don't need be flat out and ignore Hamilton saying that the Ferrari was 3 to 4 tenths quicker in the race.

Germany, cars may have been close to equal
Hungary, Ferrari quicker hampered by wet qualifying
Spa, Ferrari quicker in the race, again qualifying was wet
Italy, cars may have been close to equal

I think i'm being reasonably generous there given a Ferrari on pole in Germany and Italy (front row lock out)

For me that is Ferrari having the edge but hampered by the rain and Vettel's mistakes/driving.

_________________
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 14, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5545
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Just to be clear; are you saying that, for you, Ferrari have not been the better car this year?

We've had this conversation, haven't we? I think they have largely been too close to call and it varies from track to track. Since the summer break the Ferraris have looked quicker in qualifying but this does not appear to translate to the race itself. They are as close as two different design concepts can be IMO

Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.

And as I've said we've had this conversation before and I simply disagree. Even the last race, at Monza, it's impossible to claim that the Ferraris were quicker in the race because we saw no evidence for that. Even Toto said that he couldn't understand why the Ferrari's clear qualifying advantage seemed to evaporate in the race. You clearly feel very strongly about it, as do I. But given that even you have said that any edge may be down to as little as a tenth I don't feel you can write the driver off in that equation and such a small difference may not be the car at all. We have larger differences between team mates most of the time.

We could rehash it, but I think both of us are pretty firmly entrenched in our beliefs at this point and I don't see that either will convince the other. The one thing I would strongly disagree with in your stance is the point about failing to acknowledge the obvious, since I don't believe things are as obvious as you claim. To me the variances are too small to accurately measure, whereas you feel they are measurable. I respect your viewpoint but I cannot agree with it and I don't think there's enough evidence for either of us to be able to claim the other is categorically wrong

I disagree with you there but I do agree that rehashing the argument is pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?

You mean aside from the consensus among teams, drivers and pundits in the F1 paddock? The people in the sport discuss Ferrari's position as the top car this year as though it is established fact. That a handful of consistently biased forumers want to argue with them is of little consequence.

Your reasoning is completely inadequate. Basically you are suggesting that because Mercedes have beaten them, they must have a faster car. You are ignoring the mistakes and issues that have contributed to the outcomes (my guess is that you're doing that intentionally). One of those wins was in Germany after Vettel crashed out of the race. When a driver makes a mistake and crashes, does that mean he had a worse car? Because that's what your rationale suggests. You also ignore the multiple poles that Hamilton set only because it started raining in Q3.

The main thing is that it's completely possible to win despite not having the fastest car. It's possible to set pole or fastest lap (a meaningless stat) without having the fastest car. You are simply making excuses while intentionally omitting pertinent facts.


Just as I guessed, you have nothing to back up your claims, and still pretend to have facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28376
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?

Poles with 3 skimmed tyres, no longer to be used, and 2 wet sessions, wins well that might have something to do with Vettel and no more skimmed tyres wins in the offing going forward.

_________________
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 14, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 131
There is another thread for discussing which is the best car - please move this discussion to it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
deleted post: white pages removed everything I wrote


Last edited by Zoue on Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28376
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?

You mean aside from the consensus among teams, drivers and pundits in the F1 paddock? The people in the sport discuss Ferrari's position as the top car this year as though it is established fact. That a handful of consistently biased forumers want to argue with them is of little consequence.

Your reasoning is completely inadequate. Basically you are suggesting that because Mercedes have beaten them, they must have a faster car. You are ignoring the mistakes and issues that have contributed to the outcomes (my guess is that you're doing that intentionally). One of those wins was in Germany after Vettel crashed out of the race. When a driver makes a mistake and crashes, does that mean he had a worse car? Because that's what your rationale suggests. You also ignore the multiple poles that Hamilton set only because it started raining in Q3.

The main thing is that it's completely possible to win despite not having the fastest car. It's possible to set pole or fastest lap (a meaningless stat) without having the fastest car. You are simply making excuses while intentionally omitting pertinent facts.


Just as I guessed, you have nothing to back up your claims, and still pretend to have facts.

How about Vettel himself admitting he's made 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: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5545
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
AnRs wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couldn't possibly disagree more. The Ferrari have had the edge this year. This is my biggest issue with the discussion in the forum. The frequent failure to even acknowledge the obvious. I count 4 races where Mercedes were quicker (Australia, Barcelona, France, Austria) and 1 race where it was truly too close to call (Canada). In the rest of the rounds Ferrari have had the edge. It's usually a slight edge. It's a tenth or two most of the time and often the race pace differential is even smaller but they have clearly been the quicker car.

To claim there have never been cars closer is highly inaccurate. The cars from these two teams were closer last year; where we saw the advantage see-saw back and forth from track to track. That's not to even mention the many Ferrari vs Mclaren years with closely matched cars. Here, with the exception of the tracks that required the use of those thinner tires, Mercedes have been consistently behind since after Australia.


And still, 6-2 fastest lap Merc, 7-5 poles to Merc, 6-5 race wins Merc, 6-5 constructor Merc, so off course it's very debatable, or do you have anything to back up your claims?

You mean aside from the consensus among teams, drivers and pundits in the F1 paddock? The people in the sport discuss Ferrari's position as the top car this year as though it is established fact. That a handful of consistently biased forumers want to argue with them is of little consequence.

Your reasoning is completely inadequate. Basically you are suggesting that because Mercedes have beaten them, they must have a faster car. You are ignoring the mistakes and issues that have contributed to the outcomes (my guess is that you're doing that intentionally). One of those wins was in Germany after Vettel crashed out of the race. When a driver makes a mistake and crashes, does that mean he had a worse car? Because that's what your rationale suggests. You also ignore the multiple poles that Hamilton set only because it started raining in Q3.

The main thing is that it's completely possible to win despite not having the fastest car. It's possible to set pole or fastest lap (a meaningless stat) without having the fastest car. You are simply making excuses while intentionally omitting pertinent facts.


Just as I guessed, you have nothing to back up your claims, and still pretend to have facts.

This is getting tiring dealing with you. So you've basically ignored my post (which debunks your argument) entirely? The irony is that the reason you want to claim that the Mercedes is quicker is that you want to make the claim that Hamilton is winning because of the car; which presumably suggests that Vettel is losing because of the car. This season in particular, it's painfully obvious that Vettel is losing becaue of his own driving so the argument you are trying to be able to make is an impossible one. The number of errors Vettel has made alone creates too big of a gap between his performance and Lewis's to make the argument you want to. Vettel's lack of consistency this year is glaring. Raikkonen has finished on the podium more often than Vettel so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the relative performances of the cars is debatable, the Ferrari looks faster more often than not.

It's a debate that we'll never resolve. I disagree with that assessment and think the cars have looked very close and performances have varied from track to track

They have varied but not too and fro in recent races in terms of actual car performance, you yourself labelled Hamilton as being lucky in recent races.
With all due respect, I've explained the lucky thing so many times but you just seem to ignore it each time.

Hamilton was lucky at one particular race - Hungary - because the Mercedes clearly looked like it was struggling in the dry - more so than at any other weekend this year, if not since the beginning of the hybrid era - and the rain coming just in Q3 handed them a lifeline because it appeared to mitigate their dry qualifying performance exactly when they needed it to. This is the luck part. It wouldn't have been lucky if it had rained in e.g. Australia because their car didn't look like it was struggling in Australia. While in Belgium Vettel and Hamilton were neck and neck in qualifying before the rain so I don't think luck played a big part there. In Hungary it just did

Ferrari have looked quicker in qualifying recently, and that certainly hands them an advantage, even if their pace looks much closer to the Mercedes in the race itself. But since it's not been the case every race, it remains to be seen whether they will continue with their qualifying advantage for the remainder of the season. Rain negated that advantage in Hungary or Belgium, two out of the last four races, while in Germany the cars looked pretty equal and we'll never know whether Lewis could have overcome the 2 tenths deficit Bottas had on Vettel. Which means that on only one occasion in the last four races have Ferrari had a measurable advantage in qualifying, so I don't think they can be said to be operating at an advantage for any period of time. So in terms of performance when it matters I think the cars have been as equal as they can be

In Spa you take Q2 times were the cars don't need be flat out and ignore Hamilton saying that the Ferrari was 3 to 4 tenths quicker in the race.

Germany, cars may have been close to equal
Hungary, Ferrari quicker hampered by wet qualifying
Spa, Ferrari quicker in the race, again qualifying was wet
Italy, cars may have been close to equal

I think i'm being reasonably generous there given a Ferrari on pole in Germany and Italy (front row lock out)

For me that is Ferrari having the edge but hampered by the rain and Vettel's mistakes/driving.

I'm not really ignoring it, as I was talking about qualifying. After Q2 the Ferrari and Mercedes were neck and neck.

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree, except to add that the Ferrari looked quicker in qualifying at Monza. If you look at my previous post I was focusing on qualifying advantage, so you are basically agreeing that the only race they have enjoyed an advantage there in the last four races was Monza.

The trend does point to Ferrari enjoying a qualifying advantage in their car since the summer break and I'm not disputing that. But they've only ever been able to take advantage of that once, which needs to be pointed out when describing who has the best car. But the way Mercedes caught up at Monza was seriously impressive, given they only had a week to sort out their traction issues, so I wouldn't put money on things remaining the same in the coming races.

edit: I've copy/pasted this to the Red Bull/Ferrari/Mercedes comparison thread following Mod Blue's comment. Happy to take it up further there if you like


Last edited by Zoue on Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 981
sandman1347 wrote:
This is getting tiring dealing with you. So you've basically ignored my post (which debunks your argument) entirely? The irony is that the reason you want to claim that the Mercedes is quicker is that you want to make the claim that Hamilton is winning because of the car; which presumably suggests that Vettel is losing because of the car. This season in particular, it's painfully obvious that Vettel is losing becaue of his own driving so the argument you are trying to be able to make is an impossible one. The number of errors Vettel has made alone creates too big of a gap between his performance and Lewis's to make the argument you want to. Vettel's lack of consistency this year is glaring. Raikkonen has finished on the podium more often than Vettel so far.


Still nothing but insults and insinuations, you have nothing that debunks anything, I've never even mentioned the drivers, but that shows your agenda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:13 pm
Posts: 297
You've all been asked once to take the 'which car is better' discussion elsewhere, i'm now reiterating that request.

It's in your interest to adhere to that.


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group