planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:15 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
pokerman wrote:

Drivers don't perform at the same level forever. You've got to judge them on how good they were then not how much they declined or how good they became. I'm not claiming Alonso was the best out there up with Schumacher for example.

That's quite a convenient way of making anything fit that you want to though?[/quote]

Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's quite a convenient way of making anything fit that you want to though?


Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.

So the opinion on Massa 2007-2008 holds true and he was a tier 1 driver, it wasn't just a case of him being in the best car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 705
Location: Scotland/Lancashire
To be fair to Massa, he did IMO lose a bit of speed after his accident.

I don't think he was ever a tier 1 driver though.

I sort of agree with Pokerman that drivers don't stay at the same level forever. Regulation changes, car changes, personal life changes, confidence, etc... All things that could easily make a drivers performance waiver over a career.

Some drivers are very adaptable, some aren't
Some love positive cars, others less so.
Some love neutral cars, others less so.
Some have speed but no feel.
Some have feel, but limited speed.
and about 1000000 other variables

Cars change, and effect fractions of a percent. A 1% change in performance is unmeasurable to the eye..... but it's nearly a second on a typical F1 lap!

_________________
I'm competing this season, if anyone is interested in how I am getting on.

Car #36 - Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's quite a convenient way of making anything fit that you want to though?


Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.

So the opinion on Massa 2007-2008 holds true and he was a tier 1 driver, it wasn't just a case of him being in the best car?


What?

I honestly don't understand the question and Massa wasn't even on the grid in 2003.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Actually the depth is the biggest weakness to 2003. The guys you named would all be in that top 6-7 for that year. Once you get past them, you start to see drivers like Ralf Firman, Takuma Sato, Justin Wilson and others who would have no prayer of making the grid right now.

I'm not sure what makes you think that Kimi was so great in 2003 anyway. He was no better than he was in 2007-2009 when he and Massa were teammates and he proved to be no better than Felipe. I'll give you Jenson. By 2003, Jenson had matured enough that you started to see his all around ability but Ralf Schumacher and Montoya were inferior to even Kimi and, again, those guys were all in that top handful of drivers of the day.

Like I said before, in my opinion, the overall level of performance in F1 really went through the roof starting in 2006. Guys like Coulthard; who were considered to be among the best of the best just a few years prior; became slowest of the slow.

So much wrong here… where to begin.

You speak of Raikkonen and Massa as if they’re whatever drivers, yet you hold a higher opinion of Button??!?!??

The guy who’s sole championship came when driving a car that was initially all-conquering and head and shoulders ahead of everyone else and barely hung on to take home the championship??!?
Raikkonen and Massa is were far more competitive in more seasons than Button so idk how you rate them so low. And by 2003 Button had done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone see anything except being slightly better than those drivers who lost their seats for 2004. From 2004 - 2008 Button did what exactly to show he’d improved any further from 2003??!? I respect his ability, but so much Bull was said about his finessing touch and how he could do things with tires no one else could get the Pirellis exposed that as pure BS. The supposed tire whisperer had more issues than ANYONE else, including rookies and pay drivers!

Ralf Schumacher was also a solid driver, and I’d dare say better than Button. His problem was landing a seat on the right team, but the days when his team got his car just right he was so untouchable it even his brother could touch him, never mind Button. Lol

Now where you really got me in all this is when you said Montoya is inferior to Kimi because that simply isn’t true. Montoya was noticeably better than Alonso before Alonso won his 2 titles and he was upset going into the 2006 season because they’d already signed Alonso for 2007 and Raikkonen was Ron’s Golden boy so it meant Montoya was going to be the odd man out. This cause tension in the team and upset Montoya to the point the relationship was toxic and When Ron Dennis asked him not to return he said the car sucks anyway so I’m outta here.

What no one knew was that Ferrari was ousting Schumacher and Co from the team and di Montezemelo has signed Raikkonen to replace him as he too wanted the Iceman.

If Raikkonen was as not up to scratch as you claim, she were the boasss of the 2 top teams in the sport so keen to sign him. These guys don’t make decisions based on what you see on TV, they have multi million dollar equipment that teletrates performance via providing HARD DATA that breaks down performance to a degree you cannot imagine. But I guess your calibrated eye knows more than two of the greatest and most sophisticated racing outfits in the entirety of the world.

Go figure, Raikkonen is STILL a commodity in the sport so I guess you must be right. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

In 2012 Grosjean qualified the Lotus in 3rd place in it's first outing over a second quicker than Kimi, Grosjean had not driven in F1 for 2 years.

Kimi was the problem not the car, the notion that Kimi improved the car itself doesn't add up.

And once Lotus Addressed the issues Kimi pointed out, Grosjean was even faster, but Kimi was able to drive faster than Grosjean consistently until they stopped paying the man. Drivers have certain preferences and sensitivities and if a car is slightly off, it can hinder their ability to push, and trying to find tune cars one way or another shifts the balance, sometimes enough to result in loss of performance. It’s not as simple as you guys point out so matter of fact.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6573
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Actually the depth is the biggest weakness to 2003. The guys you named would all be in that top 6-7 for that year. Once you get past them, you start to see drivers like Ralf Firman, Takuma Sato, Justin Wilson and others who would have no prayer of making the grid right now.

I'm not sure what makes you think that Kimi was so great in 2003 anyway. He was no better than he was in 2007-2009 when he and Massa were teammates and he proved to be no better than Felipe. I'll give you Jenson. By 2003, Jenson had matured enough that you started to see his all around ability but Ralf Schumacher and Montoya were inferior to even Kimi and, again, those guys were all in that top handful of drivers of the day.

Like I said before, in my opinion, the overall level of performance in F1 really went through the roof starting in 2006. Guys like Coulthard; who were considered to be among the best of the best just a few years prior; became slowest of the slow.

So much wrong here… where to begin.

You speak of Raikkonen and Massa as if they’re whatever drivers, yet you hold a higher opinion of Button??!?!??

The guy who’s sole championship came when driving a car that was initially all-conquering and head and shoulders ahead of everyone else and barely hung on to take home the championship??!?
Raikkonen and Massa is were far more competitive in more seasons than Button so idk how you rate them so low. And by 2003 Button had done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone see anything except being slightly better than those drivers who lost their seats for 2004. From 2004 - 2008 Button did what exactly to show he’d improved any further from 2003??!? I respect his ability, but so much Bull was said about his finessing touch and how he could do things with tires no one else could get the Pirellis exposed that as pure BS. The supposed tire whisperer had more issues than ANYONE else, including rookies and pay drivers!

Ralf Schumacher was also a solid driver, and I’d dare say better than Button. His problem was landing a seat on the right team, but the days when his team got his car just right he was so untouchable it even his brother could touch him, never mind Button. Lol

Now where you really got me in all this is when you said Montoya is inferior to Kimi because that simply isn’t true. Montoya was noticeably better than Alonso before Alonso won his 2 titles and he was upset going into the 2006 season because they’d already signed Alonso for 2007 and Raikkonen was Ron’s Golden boy so it meant Montoya was going to be the odd man out. This cause tension in the team and upset Montoya to the point the relationship was toxic and When Ron Dennis asked him not to return he said the car sucks anyway so I’m outta here.

What no one knew was that Ferrari was ousting Schumacher and Co from the team and di Montezemelo has signed Raikkonen to replace him as he too wanted the Iceman.

If Raikkonen was as not up to scratch as you claim, she were the boasss of the 2 top teams in the sport so keen to sign him. These guys don’t make decisions based on what you see on TV, they have multi million dollar equipment that teletrates performance via providing HARD DATA that breaks down performance to a degree you cannot imagine. But I guess your calibrated eye knows more than two of the greatest and most sophisticated racing outfits in the entirety of the world.

Go figure, Raikkonen is STILL a commodity in the sport so I guess you must be right. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9622
The usual suspects at it rewriting history... Mansell must have been the greatest driver in history since the Williams car has now been found out to actually be the slowest of backmarkers.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6629
Location: Nebraska, USA
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's quite a convenient way of making anything fit that you want to though?


Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.

So the opinion on Massa 2007-2008 holds true and he was a tier 1 driver, it wasn't just a case of him being in the best car?


What?

I honestly don't understand the question and Massa wasn't even on the grid in 2003.

That was the opinion at the time and to think otherwise is to work backwards to make the evidence fit?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
So much wrong here… where to begin.

You speak of Raikkonen and Massa as if they’re whatever drivers, yet you hold a higher opinion of Button??!?!??

The guy who’s sole championship came when driving a car that was initially all-conquering and head and shoulders ahead of everyone else and barely hung on to take home the championship??!?
Raikkonen and Massa is were far more competitive in more seasons than Button so idk how you rate them so low. And by 2003 Button had done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone see anything except being slightly better than those drivers who lost their seats for 2004. From 2004 - 2008 Button did what exactly to show he’d improved any further from 2003??!? I respect his ability, but so much Bull was said about his finessing touch and how he could do things with tires no one else could get the Pirellis exposed that as pure BS. The supposed tire whisperer had more issues than ANYONE else, including rookies and pay drivers!

Ralf Schumacher was also a solid driver, and I’d dare say better than Button. His problem was landing a seat on the right team, but the days when his team got his car just right he was so untouchable it even his brother could touch him, never mind Button. Lol

Now where you really got me in all this is when you said Montoya is inferior to Kimi because that simply isn’t true. Montoya was noticeably better than Alonso before Alonso won his 2 titles and he was upset going into the 2006 season because they’d already signed Alonso for 2007 and Raikkonen was Ron’s Golden boy so it meant Montoya was going to be the odd man out. This cause tension in the team and upset Montoya to the point the relationship was toxic and When Ron Dennis asked him not to return he said the car sucks anyway so I’m outta here.

What no one knew was that Ferrari was ousting Schumacher and Co from the team and di Montezemelo has signed Raikkonen to replace him as he too wanted the Iceman.

If Raikkonen was as not up to scratch as you claim, she were the boasss of the 2 top teams in the sport so keen to sign him. These guys don’t make decisions based on what you see on TV, they have multi million dollar equipment that teletrates performance via providing HARD DATA that breaks down performance to a degree you cannot imagine. But I guess your calibrated eye knows more than two of the greatest and most sophisticated racing outfits in the entirety of the world.

Go figure, Raikkonen is STILL a commodity in the sport so I guess you must be right. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

In 2012 Grosjean qualified the Lotus in 3rd place in it's first outing over a second quicker than Kimi, Grosjean had not driven in F1 for 2 years.

Kimi was the problem not the car, the notion that Kimi improved the car itself doesn't add up.

And once Lotus Addressed the issues Kimi pointed out, Grosjean was even faster, but Kimi was able to drive faster than Grosjean consistently until they stopped paying the man. Drivers have certain preferences and sensitivities and if a car is slightly off, it can hinder their ability to push, and trying to find tune cars one way or another shifts the balance, sometimes enough to result in loss of performance. It’s not as simple as you guys point out so matter of fact.

How was Grosjean faster after qualifying 3rd for the first race?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's quite a convenient way of making anything fit that you want to though?


Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.

So the opinion on Massa 2007-2008 holds true and he was a tier 1 driver, it wasn't just a case of him being in the best car?


What?

I honestly don't understand the question and Massa wasn't even on the grid in 2003.

That was the opinion at the time and to think otherwise is to work backwards to make the evidence fit?


That's not what I mean at all.

You look at the evidence available and use that to form your opinion.

When I said about working backwards I meant starting with the opinion and finding evidence to for it. Which I am very clearly not doing.

The idea of driver performance being linear would actually help my argument. But I don't think it is so I'm not trying to argue Alonso was one of the GOATs in 03. I'm not using a theory of variable driver performance to prop up my opinion in other words.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3176
Location: UK
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Actually the depth is the biggest weakness to 2003. The guys you named would all be in that top 6-7 for that year. Once you get past them, you start to see drivers like Ralf Firman, Takuma Sato, Justin Wilson and others who would have no prayer of making the grid right now.

I'm not sure what makes you think that Kimi was so great in 2003 anyway. He was no better than he was in 2007-2009 when he and Massa were teammates and he proved to be no better than Felipe. I'll give you Jenson. By 2003, Jenson had matured enough that you started to see his all around ability but Ralf Schumacher and Montoya were inferior to even Kimi and, again, those guys were all in that top handful of drivers of the day.

Like I said before, in my opinion, the overall level of performance in F1 really went through the roof starting in 2006. Guys like Coulthard; who were considered to be among the best of the best just a few years prior; became slowest of the slow.

So much wrong here… where to begin.

You speak of Raikkonen and Massa as if they’re whatever drivers, yet you hold a higher opinion of Button??!?!??

The guy who’s sole championship came when driving a car that was initially all-conquering and head and shoulders ahead of everyone else and barely hung on to take home the championship??!?
Raikkonen and Massa is were far more competitive in more seasons than Button so idk how you rate them so low. And by 2003 Button had done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone see anything except being slightly better than those drivers who lost their seats for 2004. From 2004 - 2008 Button did what exactly to show he’d improved any further from 2003??!? I respect his ability, but so much Bull was said about his finessing touch and how he could do things with tires no one else could get the Pirellis exposed that as pure BS. The supposed tire whisperer had more issues than ANYONE else, including rookies and pay drivers!

Ralf Schumacher was also a solid driver, and I’d dare say better than Button. His problem was landing a seat on the right team, but the days when his team got his car just right he was so untouchable it even his brother could touch him, never mind Button. Lol

Now where you really got me in all this is when you said Montoya is inferior to Kimi because that simply isn’t true. Montoya was noticeably better than Alonso before Alonso won his 2 titles and he was upset going into the 2006 season because they’d already signed Alonso for 2007 and Raikkonen was Ron’s Golden boy so it meant Montoya was going to be the odd man out. This cause tension in the team and upset Montoya to the point the relationship was toxic and When Ron Dennis asked him not to return he said the car sucks anyway so I’m outta here.

What no one knew was that Ferrari was ousting Schumacher and Co from the team and di Montezemelo has signed Raikkonen to replace him as he too wanted the Iceman.

If Raikkonen was as not up to scratch as you claim, she were the boasss of the 2 top teams in the sport so keen to sign him. These guys don’t make decisions based on what you see on TV, they have multi million dollar equipment that teletrates performance via providing HARD DATA that breaks down performance to a degree you cannot imagine. But I guess your calibrated eye knows more than two of the greatest and most sophisticated racing outfits in the entirety of the world.

Go figure, Raikkonen is STILL a commodity in the sport so I guess you must be right. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.

:thumbup:

I never understood the Montoya hype. Sure he was great to watch but was terribly inconsistent, and I think his career has been flattered by the strength of the cars he was given. He had the fastest car in the field in two separate seasons (03 and 05) and failed to deliver on both occasions.

I agree on Kimi as well, he looked great at McLaren but when you reflect on his career as a whole it's hard to see him as one of the standout drivers of his time. I don't buy the "car didn't suit him" argument that's made to excuse some of his feeble performances over the years, it is a hugely important part of a driver's skillset to adapt to the machinery he has been given and extract the maximum from it. Alonso and Hamilton never had this problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Only for someone who starts with an opinion and works backward to make the evidence fit.

I could do that for 2003 and use Alonso, Button, Webber, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Frentzen and Panis in their prime. Their best was either in front or behind all those drivers in 03.

I could do that. But I'm not because it wouldn't be fair.

So the opinion on Massa 2007-2008 holds true and he was a tier 1 driver, it wasn't just a case of him being in the best car?


What?

I honestly don't understand the question and Massa wasn't even on the grid in 2003.

That was the opinion at the time and to think otherwise is to work backwards to make the evidence fit?


That's not what I mean at all.

You look at the evidence available and use that to form your opinion.

When I said about working backwards I meant starting with the opinion and finding evidence to for it. Which I am very clearly not doing.

The idea of driver performance being linear would actually help my argument. But I don't think it is so I'm not trying to argue Alonso was one of the GOATs in 03. I'm not using a theory of variable driver performance to prop up my opinion in other words.

Well I'm not sure who you think is doing that, the starting opinion in 2007-2008 was that Massa was a top driver but then subsequent evidence showed that to be wrong.

Regarding 2003 I don't think it's actually possible to revisit what we actually thought about all those drivers at that time without being corrupted by what they did subsequently, if you can do that then you must have a far better memory than me?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
pokerman wrote:

That's not what I mean at all.

You look at the evidence available and use that to form your opinion.

When I said about working backwards I meant starting with the opinion and finding evidence to for it. Which I am very clearly not doing.

The idea of driver performance being linear would actually help my argument. But I don't think it is so I'm not trying to argue Alonso was one of the GOATs in 03. I'm not using a theory of variable driver performance to prop up my opinion in other words.

Well I'm not sure who you think is doing that, the starting opinion in 2007-2008 was that Massa was a top driver but then subsequent evidence showed that to be wrong.

Regarding 2003 I don't think it's actually possible to revisit what we actually thought about all those drivers at that time without being corrupted by what they did subsequently, if you can do that then you must have a far better memory than me?[/quote]

You said you could use the theory of drivers have variable ability to justify anything. I am showing you how I am not doing that. Even showing you how me believing drivers ability can change throughout a career harms rather than hurts my argument.

As for your last paragraph that's not for me to say but yes i'm pretty confident I can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 655
Since when did judging a driver towards the end of their career become rewriting history?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
So much wrong here… where to begin.

You speak of Raikkonen and Massa as if they’re whatever drivers, yet you hold a higher opinion of Button??!?!??

The guy who’s sole championship came when driving a car that was initially all-conquering and head and shoulders ahead of everyone else and barely hung on to take home the championship??!?
Raikkonen and Massa is were far more competitive in more seasons than Button so idk how you rate them so low. And by 2003 Button had done absolutely NOTHING to make anyone see anything except being slightly better than those drivers who lost their seats for 2004. From 2004 - 2008 Button did what exactly to show he’d improved any further from 2003??!? I respect his ability, but so much Bull was said about his finessing touch and how he could do things with tires no one else could get the Pirellis exposed that as pure BS. The supposed tire whisperer had more issues than ANYONE else, including rookies and pay drivers!

Ralf Schumacher was also a solid driver, and I’d dare say better than Button. His problem was landing a seat on the right team, but the days when his team got his car just right he was so untouchable it even his brother could touch him, never mind Button. Lol

Now where you really got me in all this is when you said Montoya is inferior to Kimi because that simply isn’t true. Montoya was noticeably better than Alonso before Alonso won his 2 titles and he was upset going into the 2006 season because they’d already signed Alonso for 2007 and Raikkonen was Ron’s Golden boy so it meant Montoya was going to be the odd man out. This cause tension in the team and upset Montoya to the point the relationship was toxic and When Ron Dennis asked him not to return he said the car sucks anyway so I’m outta here.

What no one knew was that Ferrari was ousting Schumacher and Co from the team and di Montezemelo has signed Raikkonen to replace him as he too wanted the Iceman.

If Raikkonen was as not up to scratch as you claim, she were the boasss of the 2 top teams in the sport so keen to sign him. These guys don’t make decisions based on what you see on TV, they have multi million dollar equipment that teletrates performance via providing HARD DATA that breaks down performance to a degree you cannot imagine. But I guess your calibrated eye knows more than two of the greatest and most sophisticated racing outfits in the entirety of the world.

Go figure, Raikkonen is STILL a commodity in the sport so I guess you must be right. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.

:thumbup:

I never understood the Montoya hype. Sure he was great to watch but was terribly inconsistent, and I think his career has been flattered by the strength of the cars he was given. He had the fastest car in the field in two separate seasons (03 and 05) and failed to deliver on both occasions.

I agree on Kimi as well, he looked great at McLaren but when you reflect on his career as a whole it's hard to see him as one of the standout drivers of his time. I don't buy the "car didn't suit him" argument that's made to excuse some of his feeble performances over the years, it is a hugely important part of a driver's skillset to adapt to the machinery he has been given and extract the maximum from it. Alonso and Hamilton never had this problem.

Kimi's performances have fluctuated quite severely over the years. If not the car not suiting him, what is it down to, do you think?

I don't think it's an excuse, BTW. If he's that susceptible to the car being just right then clearly he lacks adaptability. But it's been substantiated by Pat Fry who said that PM and KR had nine different front ends between them one season to cater for their different requirements, so plainly he needs the car to be just right in order to get the best out of it. OTOH, it doesn't preclude him being good when conditions are right; it just makes him a one-trick pony. I agree that today's drivers need a broader skillset but I don't believe that was the case in Kimi's early years, not to the same extent.

Personally I think the Michelins suited him like no other tyre since. He can't seem to manage these thermally sensitive versions, that's for sure. But there's no reason to believe that his performances on the Michelins are somehow a myth: he was fast on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well I'm not sure who you think is doing that, the starting opinion in 2007-2008 was that Massa was a top driver but then subsequent evidence showed that to be wrong.

Regarding 2003 I don't think it's actually possible to revisit what we actually thought about all those drivers at that time without being corrupted by what they did subsequently, if you can do that then you must have a far better memory than me?


You said you could use the theory of drivers have variable ability to justify anything. I am showing you how I am not doing that. Even showing you how me believing drivers ability can change throughout a career harms rather than hurts my argument.

As for your last paragraph that's not for me to say but yes i'm pretty confident I can.

That's kind of what you're doing though when you say the Kimi of 2003 was better than what we've seen these past 5 years.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Zoue wrote:
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Honestly man I completely disagree with everything you've written. I think the issue is that you make no attempt whatsoever to separate the driver from the car. If you actually want to claim that Montoya was better than Alonso I don't think we are even in the same universe. Montoya certainly had a better car than Alonso but he was NOT a better driver. Likewise Kimi drove some of the best cars during those years but he was exposed the moment he was teamed with drivers who were truly top tier so that he no longer had a car advantage over them.

Honestly your perspective is completely alien to me. As for the Button v Raikkonen thing; who held their own better when teamed with top tier talent? Raikkonen, Massa or Button? Button was respectable both as Hamilton's teammate and as Alonso's. Massa and Raikkonen were demolished when teamed with Alonso, Vettel and Schumacher. That's my reasoning. What's yours? Is it just that Kimi is cool and he's the Ice Man and all that same old tired stuff? Because that has gotten really old at this point.

During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.

:thumbup:

I never understood the Montoya hype. Sure he was great to watch but was terribly inconsistent, and I think his career has been flattered by the strength of the cars he was given. He had the fastest car in the field in two separate seasons (03 and 05) and failed to deliver on both occasions.

I agree on Kimi as well, he looked great at McLaren but when you reflect on his career as a whole it's hard to see him as one of the standout drivers of his time. I don't buy the "car didn't suit him" argument that's made to excuse some of his feeble performances over the years, it is a hugely important part of a driver's skillset to adapt to the machinery he has been given and extract the maximum from it. Alonso and Hamilton never had this problem.

Kimi's performances have fluctuated quite severely over the years. If not the car not suiting him, what is it down to, do you think?

I don't think it's an excuse, BTW. If he's that susceptible to the car being just right then clearly he lacks adaptability. But it's been substantiated by Pat Fry who said that PM and KR had nine different front ends between them one season to cater for their different requirements, so plainly he needs the car to be just right in order to get the best out of it. OTOH, it doesn't preclude him being good when conditions are right; it just makes him a one-trick pony. I agree that today's drivers need a broader skillset but I don't believe that was the case in Kimi's early years, not to the same extent.

Personally I think the Michelins suited him like no other tyre since. He can't seem to manage these thermally sensitive versions, that's for sure. But there's no reason to believe that his performances on the Michelins are somehow a myth: he was fast on them.

I think what's changed for Kimi is basically the level of competition when having to compete against tier 1 drivers, Kimi looked good when he had Grosjean as a teammate and he presently is looking quite good with Giovinazzi as a teammate although it's still early days for Giovinazzi.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15278
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well I'm not sure who you think is doing that, the starting opinion in 2007-2008 was that Massa was a top driver but then subsequent evidence showed that to be wrong.

Regarding 2003 I don't think it's actually possible to revisit what we actually thought about all those drivers at that time without being corrupted by what they did subsequently, if you can do that then you must have a far better memory than me?


You said you could use the theory of drivers have variable ability to justify anything. I am showing you how I am not doing that. Even showing you how me believing drivers ability can change throughout a career harms rather than hurts my argument.

As for your last paragraph that's not for me to say but yes i'm pretty confident I can.

That's kind of what you're doing though when you say the Kimi of 2003 was better than what we've seen these past 5 years.


You can disagree or not I don't care. The point is it is what I actually think. I'm not just saying it to help my argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
During the years Montoya was in F1 he was definitely better than Alonso and if you think otherwise you’re delusional. Furthermore you say Raikkonen was flattered by being in superior cars when he was at his best, but in those seasons, outside of Montoya, WHERE were the guys driving the same cars?
And while Alonso is indeed a beast of a driver, in one of his championship seasons he had a nifty little trick system that offered him an advantage over everyone else and barely beat Michael, and in the following year he was lucky that Michael suffered the only engine failure for Ferrari in several seasons to capture that title. Had Michael’s engine not blown Hamilton would still need 3 more titles to match his record instead of just 2.

Raikkonen is a special driver because of his innate ability to figure out problem areas with a car and communicating it to his team and engineers. And historically, when teams addressed those deficiencies, both he and his teammates were able to go faster, even when paired with Alonso.

In Lotus for example, he struggled initially because the front end was off, and when the finally listened to him the car was much improved and he was brilliant. On the other hand, when Button found himself in difficult cars, like his Honda stint, he did just ok and nothing ever improved. His most brilliant drive was his Canada win in the rain, but he and McLaren made all the right calls at the right times and he drove magnificently, just as Barrichello also did in the rain once. Button did respectably well against Hamilton and Alonso, but nothing particularly special in 8 seasons between them.

And Massa is far better than armchair experts believe, so please get off that nonsense. And you cannot ever use Michael as a basis for comparison because he’s other worldly and even the best looked ordinary against him.

Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.

:thumbup:

I never understood the Montoya hype. Sure he was great to watch but was terribly inconsistent, and I think his career has been flattered by the strength of the cars he was given. He had the fastest car in the field in two separate seasons (03 and 05) and failed to deliver on both occasions.

I agree on Kimi as well, he looked great at McLaren but when you reflect on his career as a whole it's hard to see him as one of the standout drivers of his time. I don't buy the "car didn't suit him" argument that's made to excuse some of his feeble performances over the years, it is a hugely important part of a driver's skillset to adapt to the machinery he has been given and extract the maximum from it. Alonso and Hamilton never had this problem.

Kimi's performances have fluctuated quite severely over the years. If not the car not suiting him, what is it down to, do you think?

I don't think it's an excuse, BTW. If he's that susceptible to the car being just right then clearly he lacks adaptability. But it's been substantiated by Pat Fry who said that PM and KR had nine different front ends between them one season to cater for their different requirements, so plainly he needs the car to be just right in order to get the best out of it. OTOH, it doesn't preclude him being good when conditions are right; it just makes him a one-trick pony. I agree that today's drivers need a broader skillset but I don't believe that was the case in Kimi's early years, not to the same extent.

Personally I think the Michelins suited him like no other tyre since. He can't seem to manage these thermally sensitive versions, that's for sure. But there's no reason to believe that his performances on the Michelins are somehow a myth: he was fast on them.

I think what's changed for Kimi is basically the level of competition when having to compete against tier 1 drivers, Kimi looked good when he had Grosjean as a teammate and he presently is looking quite good with Giovinazzi as a teammate although it's still early days for Giovinazzi.
Competition is a part of it, sure. But Kimi's performance has fluctuated a lot even against the same team mates and it's no secret that he struggles when he's not completely comfortable in the car. And his pace on the Pirellis has never looked anywhere near as good as it did on the Michelins. I don't think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to figure that the Michelins suited him and because he didn't have to worry about management he could just focus on speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 31555
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
j man wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Let's start with the bolded part. What exactly makes you think that Montoya was better than Alonso? The fact that he had better race results? This is what I mean. You don't seem to actually know where to even begin to assess the DRIVER and not just the driver/car combination. Montoya had MUCH faster cars than Alonso until 2005; at which point Alonso proceeded to win a championship (something Montoya never did). It's not that Montoya was a better driver; it's that he was in better cars. Those Williams from 2001-2003 were outstanding cars. In fact, they had the best car for much of 2003 in particular. The McLaren in 2005 was also the fastest car on the grid (although not the most reliable). Montoya was a good talent and he was my favorite F1 driver for a brief time but he was NOT the same caliber of all around performer as Fernando Alonso. Not even close.

As for Raikkonen; sure he looked good when he was teamed with the likes of Coulthard and Montoya but he was then paired with Massa while both drivers were in their prime and the bottom line is that Felipe was better than him. You can make excuses for Raikkonen if you want but the best thing you can possibly say for him would be that he was on par with Massa. He later teamed with truly top-tier talents like Alonso and Vettel and he was nowhere near them. He was a #2 driver. He flat out could not compete. Enough with the "Kimi is so special" nonsense. He is definitively not. You want to bring up his time at Lotus because that was when he had another relatively weak teammate in Grosjean. Not that Romain is terrible but he's far from top shelf. So yes; Kimi can look pretty damn good next to mediocre or poor F1 drivers but, when measured against the best, he has consistently come up short.

:thumbup:

I never understood the Montoya hype. Sure he was great to watch but was terribly inconsistent, and I think his career has been flattered by the strength of the cars he was given. He had the fastest car in the field in two separate seasons (03 and 05) and failed to deliver on both occasions.

I agree on Kimi as well, he looked great at McLaren but when you reflect on his career as a whole it's hard to see him as one of the standout drivers of his time. I don't buy the "car didn't suit him" argument that's made to excuse some of his feeble performances over the years, it is a hugely important part of a driver's skillset to adapt to the machinery he has been given and extract the maximum from it. Alonso and Hamilton never had this problem.

Kimi's performances have fluctuated quite severely over the years. If not the car not suiting him, what is it down to, do you think?

I don't think it's an excuse, BTW. If he's that susceptible to the car being just right then clearly he lacks adaptability. But it's been substantiated by Pat Fry who said that PM and KR had nine different front ends between them one season to cater for their different requirements, so plainly he needs the car to be just right in order to get the best out of it. OTOH, it doesn't preclude him being good when conditions are right; it just makes him a one-trick pony. I agree that today's drivers need a broader skillset but I don't believe that was the case in Kimi's early years, not to the same extent.

Personally I think the Michelins suited him like no other tyre since. He can't seem to manage these thermally sensitive versions, that's for sure. But there's no reason to believe that his performances on the Michelins are somehow a myth: he was fast on them.

I think what's changed for Kimi is basically the level of competition when having to compete against tier 1 drivers, Kimi looked good when he had Grosjean as a teammate and he presently is looking quite good with Giovinazzi as a teammate although it's still early days for Giovinazzi.
Competition is a part of it, sure. But Kimi's performance has fluctuated a lot even against the same team mates and it's no secret that he struggles when he's not completely comfortable in the car. And his pace on the Pirellis has never looked anywhere near as good as it did on the Michelins. I don't think it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to figure that the Michelins suited him and because he didn't have to worry about management he could just focus on speed.

Kimi got a seat at Ferrari based on his performances on the Pirelli tyred Lotus, does he not focus on speed during qualifying?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


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: LBET 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