planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.


Perhaps McLaren prioritizing PR over ability has something to do with their chronic incompetence and inability to win as many Championships as any of their closest rivals. There a racing team not a modeling agency


Really? second in wins to Ferrari in 16 less years.

0.6% behind in races to wins ratio.

2nd in podiums

2nd in pole positions

Third in number of WCCs one behind williams.

I believe most front row lock outs.

and 2nd to Ferrari in WDCs.

So yeah their inability to win as much as their nearest competitors isn't doing to bad.

As for being a racing team not a modelling agency. They are a registered Business.

Quote:
well, yes. There's bankruptcy, for a start. Nobody has bottomless funds, but that doesn't mean they don't value the talent, only that they might not be able to afford it. That doesn't lessen it's importance in any way.


Which means there is something more important than driving talent and we are back to money. This hasn't been about "Value of talent" but that talent isn't first and foremost.

Anyway I'm out.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
Johnston wrote:

Quote:
well, yes. There's bankruptcy, for a start. Nobody has bottomless funds, but that doesn't mean they don't value the talent, only that they might not be able to afford it. That doesn't lessen it's importance in any way.


Which means there is something more important than driving talent and we are back to money. This hasn't been about "Value of talent" but that talent isn't first and foremost.

Anyway I'm out.

that's a facetious argument. You could use that to argue that almost everything in the world involving a transaction of any kind is down to money. Money is used to buy the talent; doesn't mean it's more important if the talent is too expensive for the purchaser to afford.

Seems you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
Johnston wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.


Perhaps McLaren prioritizing PR over ability has something to do with their chronic incompetence and inability to win as many Championships as any of their closest rivals. There a racing team not a modeling agency


Really? second in wins to Ferrari in 16 less years.

0.6% behind in races to wins ratio.

2nd in podiums

2nd in pole positions

Third in number of WCCs one behind williams.

I believe most front row lock outs.

and 2nd to Ferrari in WDCs.

So yeah their inability to win as much as their nearest competitors isn't doing to bad.

As for being a racing team not a modelling agency. They are a registered Business.


Most of that is ancient history now. How many titles have McLaren won in the last 10 years? 1, and that was with a driver they've lost now because they apparently value 'the brand' more than talent. Ferrari, and even Red Bull, who only entered the sport in 2005, have won 6 times more championships than them in the last 10 years. Maybe they should focus on trying to win more titles than focusing their efforts on PR, otherwise they'll keep throwing the titles away and McLaren will become synonymous with incompetence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Stupid question.

If they don't focus on the PR where will the money come from? And of course "The Brand" is more important than the talent. The brand is the team. even Big Ron said himself no one is bigger than the team. So no one is bigger than the brand. Red Bull are the biggest example of PR Branding exercise in F1. Look how much they do with PR. Do you think if Vet said He wasn't going to do any Infiniti adverts or turn up for any street runs he would keep a job?

McLaren are a team that exists to race, to do that they need to do PR to get the money. No PR no money, no money no team. You seem to forget they are also businesses. Which do you think comes first to the likes of the teams? Existing year in year out or winning championships? Do you think ron would be happy to do the double next year only to have to close the doors on Woking in November. Or finish 3rd and live to race another day?

Edit: You know McLaren as a team have existed in F1 since 1966. 2nd most successful F1 team of all time. Something tells me they know what they are doing.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.


Perhaps McLaren prioritizing PR over ability has something to do with their chronic incompetence and inability to win as many Championships as any of their closest rivals. There a racing team not a modeling agency


Really? second in wins to Ferrari in 16 less years.

0.6% behind in races to wins ratio.

2nd in podiums

2nd in pole positions

Third in number of WCCs one behind williams.

I believe most front row lock outs.

and 2nd to Ferrari in WDCs.

So yeah their inability to win as much as their nearest competitors isn't doing to bad.

As for being a racing team not a modelling agency. They are a registered Business.


Most of that is ancient history now. How many titles have McLaren won in the last 10 years? 1, and that was with a driver they've lost now because they apparently value 'the brand' more than talent. Ferrari, and even Red Bull, who only entered the sport in 2005, have won 6 times more championships than them in the last 10 years. Maybe they should focus on trying to win more titles than focusing their efforts on PR, otherwise they'll keep throwing the titles away and McLaren will become synonymous with incompetence

To be fair no-one other than Lewis knows for sure why he left. By all accounts they did everything they could to keep him. Maybe he just wanted to spread his wings a bit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
Zoue wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Johnston wrote:
They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.


Perhaps McLaren prioritizing PR over ability has something to do with their chronic incompetence and inability to win as many Championships as any of their closest rivals. There a racing team not a modeling agency


Really? second in wins to Ferrari in 16 less years.

0.6% behind in races to wins ratio.

2nd in podiums

2nd in pole positions

Third in number of WCCs one behind williams.

I believe most front row lock outs.

and 2nd to Ferrari in WDCs.

So yeah their inability to win as much as their nearest competitors isn't doing to bad.

As for being a racing team not a modelling agency. They are a registered Business.


Most of that is ancient history now. How many titles have McLaren won in the last 10 years? 1, and that was with a driver they've lost now because they apparently value 'the brand' more than talent. Ferrari, and even Red Bull, who only entered the sport in 2005, have won 6 times more championships than them in the last 10 years. Maybe they should focus on trying to win more titles than focusing their efforts on PR, otherwise they'll keep throwing the titles away and McLaren will become synonymous with incompetence

To be fair no-one other than Lewis knows for sure why he left. By all accounts they did everything they could to keep him. Maybe he just wanted to spread his wings a bit


Yeah that's what i believe as well, hence 'apparently', i'm merely saying that assuming Johnston is right and McLaren value sponsorship appeal over skill then that could be why they havent won anything in recent years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
Johnston wrote:
Stupid question.

If they don't focus on the PR where will the money come from? And of course "The Brand" is more important than the talent. The brand is the team. even Big Ron said himself no one is bigger than the team. So no one is bigger than the brand. Red Bull are the biggest example of PR Branding exercise in F1. Look how much they do with PR. Do you think if Vet said He wasn't going to do any Infiniti adverts or turn up for any street runs he would keep a job?

McLaren are a team that exists to race, to do that they need to do PR to get the money. No PR no money, no money no team. You seem to forget they are also businesses. Which do you think comes first to the likes of the teams? Existing year in year out or winning championships? Do you think ron would be happy to do the double next year only to have to close the doors on Woking in November. Or finish 3rd and live to race another day?

Edit: You know McLaren as a team have existed in F1 since 1966. 2nd most successful F1 team of all time. Something tells me they know what they are doing.


If you are the champions of a sport then the sponsorships will come much more naturally, of course. At no point did i say PR work is unimportant, so saying "Do you think if Vet said He wasn't going to do any Infiniti adverts or turn up for any street runs he would keep a job?" is totally ridiculous, taking things to the extreme doesn't prove your point... and i'm not saying McLaren don't need sponsors, which you seem to have inferred, it just isn't necessary to go totally overboard with PR and hire/fire drivers on how enthusiastic they are about doing PR work, any driver can do PR work for the team, so why is that more important than driving ability? Would you employ Chandhok who is very popular in India and good at PR over Raikonnen who hates doing PR?

Also yes i know that McLaren have been a team since 1966 and that in the past they were very successful but that doesn't mean much when in the present they cant win anything, in many many ways they are similar to Arsenal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
FormulaFun wrote:
Zoue wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
Most of that is ancient history now. How many titles have McLaren won in the last 10 years? 1, and that was with a driver they've lost now because they apparently value 'the brand' more than talent. Ferrari, and even Red Bull, who only entered the sport in 2005, have won 6 times more championships than them in the last 10 years. Maybe they should focus on trying to win more titles than focusing their efforts on PR, otherwise they'll keep throwing the titles away and McLaren will become synonymous with incompetence

To be fair no-one other than Lewis knows for sure why he left. By all accounts they did everything they could to keep him. Maybe he just wanted to spread his wings a bit


Yeah that's what i believe as well, hence 'apparently', i'm merely saying that assuming Johnston is right and McLaren value sponsorship appeal over skill then that could be why they havent won anything in recent years

Fair enough!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3426
Location: Nebraska, USA
This has become the most pedantic thread I have seen here in quite a while.
:-((

McLaren made Hamilton an offer.

Hamilton said NO

Hamilton moved on

McLaren moved on.

It really is that simple. How in the world can some of you sit here and say that McLaren did not want him. More accurately, it could be said that McLaren did not feel that it was in their best interest to meet all of his demands, that they exceeded his worth to them if the PR work was not to their needs... driving is still the most important aspect in this case, I believe.. PR was probably just one of many other factors

Lewis simply decided that McLaren did not meet his demands and/or expectations so he sought greener fields to play in.

Not one of you/us really knows all that Lewis wanted or all that McLaren did or did not do to meet Lewis' demands. Yet to somehow feel that Lewis has been wronged because McLaren did not meet the line that he drew seems like a stretch to me. It is a job after all, and McLaren the employer... sometimes tough decisions have to be made... and they had the "hammer' so to speak
:?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
Blake wrote:
This has become the most pedantic thread I have seen here in quite a while.
:-((

McLaren made Hamilton an offer.

Hamilton said NO

Hamilton moved on

McLaren moved on.

It really is that simple. How in the world can some of you sit here and say that McLaren did not want him. More accurately, it could be said that McLaren did not feel that it was in their best interest to meet all of his demands, that they exceeded his worth to them if the PR work was not to their needs... driving is still the most important aspect in this case, I believe.. PR was probably just one of many other factors

Lewis simply decided that McLaren did not meet his demands and/or expectations so he sought greener fields to play in.

Not one of you/us really knows all that Lewis wanted or all that McLaren did or did not do to meet Lewis' demands. Yet to somehow feel that Lewis has been wronged because McLaren did not meet the line that he drew seems like a stretch to me. It is a job after all, and McLaren the employer... sometimes tough decisions have to be made... and they had the "hammer' so to speak
:?

I don't think it had anything to do with McLaren. Lewis decided he wanted a change. The fact that they offered him more than anyone else showed they were interested. The choice was Lewis' alone IMO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 2412
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
This has become the most pedantic thread I have seen here in quite a while.
:-((

McLaren made Hamilton an offer.

Hamilton said NO

Hamilton moved on

McLaren moved on.

It really is that simple. How in the world can some of you sit here and say that McLaren did not want him. More accurately, it could be said that McLaren did not feel that it was in their best interest to meet all of his demands, that they exceeded his worth to them if the PR work was not to their needs... driving is still the most important aspect in this case, I believe.. PR was probably just one of many other factors

Lewis simply decided that McLaren did not meet his demands and/or expectations so he sought greener fields to play in.

Not one of you/us really knows all that Lewis wanted or all that McLaren did or did not do to meet Lewis' demands. Yet to somehow feel that Lewis has been wronged because McLaren did not meet the line that he drew seems like a stretch to me. It is a job after all, and McLaren the employer... sometimes tough decisions have to be made... and they had the "hammer' so to speak
:?

I don't think it had anything to do with McLaren. Lewis decided he wanted a change. The fact that they offered him more than anyone else showed they were interested. The choice was Lewis' alone IMO


The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?

_________________
My Top 5 drivers of all times:
1) Prost/ Schumacher
3) Fangio
4) Lauda
5) Brabham

if you don't like it, too bad! There's a reason why it says "My Top 5"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
garagetinkerer wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
This has become the most pedantic thread I have seen here in quite a while.
:-((

McLaren made Hamilton an offer.

Hamilton said NO

Hamilton moved on

McLaren moved on.

It really is that simple. How in the world can some of you sit here and say that McLaren did not want him. More accurately, it could be said that McLaren did not feel that it was in their best interest to meet all of his demands, that they exceeded his worth to them if the PR work was not to their needs... driving is still the most important aspect in this case, I believe.. PR was probably just one of many other factors

Lewis simply decided that McLaren did not meet his demands and/or expectations so he sought greener fields to play in.

Not one of you/us really knows all that Lewis wanted or all that McLaren did or did not do to meet Lewis' demands. Yet to somehow feel that Lewis has been wronged because McLaren did not meet the line that he drew seems like a stretch to me. It is a job after all, and McLaren the employer... sometimes tough decisions have to be made... and they had the "hammer' so to speak
:?

I don't think it had anything to do with McLaren. Lewis decided he wanted a change. The fact that they offered him more than anyone else showed they were interested. The choice was Lewis' alone IMO


The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?

well I was actually agreeing with Blake - probably didn't express it very well :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 905
Hamilton never left due to money, which is a fact, unless your saying Hamilton, Brawn & McLaren are telling porky pies. And yes if your saying they could not agree terms in terms of money then your making up a conspiracy theory as the facts say the opposite.

He left as he needed a new challenge and had enough of McLaren, this season was a good indention of that, considering they probably had the best overall car for the course of the season but blown it with tactical/pit stop errors and unreliability, probably more to it as well but it was nothing to do with money and as stated saying so is just making up a conspiracy theory based on no facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?


The Welder comparison does not hold.

A friend of my family is arguably the countries best Liver transplant surgeon. For arguments sake, say he is the best.

Number 1 in a country of 65 million people.

He is awful with the patients, no people skills and terrible with paperwork and admin duties. He is an introvert so does not shine on that side of the job. That is 90% of the job. The 10% is in theatre doing the Transplants. The bit that counts and the reason he is the best in the country. There are probably 25 million people in this country that could do the 90% of his job better than him. Why aren't they top liver surgeons? The same reason Max Clifford is not an F1 driver.

I would say Formula one is a lot more similar to that than the welding example. With all Jobs in the world, your wage is almost entirely determined by how easily you are replaced (i.e. how many people can perform the task to the required level). Its the reason road sweepers earn some of the lowest wages because almost anybody can do it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 169
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please don't chat fairy cakes, almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)

_________________
o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:03 am
Posts: 26
viariani wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please don't chat fairy cakes, almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)


oh dear.. fail much :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:37 pm
Posts: 31
Senna88 wrote:
I think some people have actually missed the main point of the article posted. In terms of PR 'work' they are talking about it in the context of F1 not the outside world. The whole point is that the McLaren drivers have probably been a bit miffed that they have to do so many more days then many of their rivals for not much more or the same amount of money.

Also this might sound harsh, but I hate it when people lambast drivers and say 'I would do your job for free' and imply that they are lucky, fact is they all by in large have worked their socks off to get to F1 from the age of about 8, traveled abroad to compete with very little money (See Kimi's early career) and the whole doing their job analogy falls down on the fact that they are a select few in the world who can compete in F1 competitively, so if you did get the gig you would be out by the end of the day.



Best argument I have read so far, very wel put :thumbup:

_________________
Hard Work Never Killed Anyone, But Why Take The Risk ? :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8411
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?


The Welder comparison does not hold.

A friend of my family is arguably the countries best Liver transplant surgeon. For arguments sake, say he is the best.

Number 1 in a country of 65 million people.

He is awful with the patients, no people skills and terrible with paperwork and admin duties. He is an introvert so does not shine on that side of the job. That is 90% of the job. The 10% is in theatre doing the Transplants. The bit that counts and the reason he is the best in the country. There are probably 25 million people in this country that could do the 90% of his job better than him. Why aren't they top liver surgeons? The same reason Max Clifford is not an F1 driver.

I would say Formula one is a lot more similar to that than the welding example. With all Jobs in the world, your wage is almost entirely determined by how easily you are replaced (i.e. how many people can perform the task to the required level). Its the reason road sweepers earn some of the lowest wages because almost anybody can do it.

Agreed :thumbup:

But you're on a hiding to nothing there I'm afraid. You're talking common sense, after all :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?


The Welder comparison does not hold.

A friend of my family is arguably the countries best Liver transplant surgeon. For arguments sake, say he is the best.

Number 1 in a country of 65 million people.

He is awful with the patients, no people skills and terrible with paperwork and admin duties. He is an introvert so does not shine on that side of the job. That is 90% of the job. The 10% is in theatre doing the Transplants. The bit that counts and the reason he is the best in the country. There are probably 25 million people in this country that could do the 90% of his job better than him. Why aren't they top liver surgeons? The same reason Max Clifford is not an F1 driver.

I would say Formula one is a lot more similar to that than the welding example. With all Jobs in the world, your wage is almost entirely determined by how easily you are replaced (i.e. how many people can perform the task to the required level). Its the reason road sweepers earn some of the lowest wages because almost anybody can do it.


My eldest has a lot of surgery.

Time spent with her surgeon is very little. Certainly in 12 years shes spent more time with him unconscious than she does wide awake.

Last Op we didn't even see the Surgeon until she was out of the operating theatre and that was the only time of her stay. It was the Anaesthetist that came into see her pre-op. Oh and he's rated as one of the best paediatric plastic surgeons in the country ;)
She was to get a treatment last month that was cancelled. We met the person involved for 5 minutes previously.


Being a people person doesn't really count when most of the time the person you're working on isn't in a state to give a fairy cakes does it?

Where as, as I pointed out using the link in the OP the most of the drivers work load is out of the car doing PR.#

#Edit:
And what public image perceptions are there with surgeons like there are with PR?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 169
Parker wrote:
viariani wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)


oh dear.. fail much :lol:


Hehe, oops, late night :-P Still in my defence I saw the phrase Almighty Lewis and you can usually be certain there's a crackpot tinfoil penning wah wah wah crap thereon in, I don't read the rest. No offence Garagetinkerer!

_________________
o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Johnston wrote:
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?


The Welder comparison does not hold.

A friend of my family is arguably the countries best Liver transplant surgeon. For arguments sake, say he is the best.

Number 1 in a country of 65 million people.

He is awful with the patients, no people skills and terrible with paperwork and admin duties. He is an introvert so does not shine on that side of the job. That is 90% of the job. The 10% is in theatre doing the Transplants. The bit that counts and the reason he is the best in the country. There are probably 25 million people in this country that could do the 90% of his job better than him. Why aren't they top liver surgeons? The same reason Max Clifford is not an F1 driver.

I would say Formula one is a lot more similar to that than the welding example. With all Jobs in the world, your wage is almost entirely determined by how easily you are replaced (i.e. how many people can perform the task to the required level). Its the reason road sweepers earn some of the lowest wages because almost anybody can do it.


My eldest has a lot of surgery.

Time spent with her surgeon is very little. Certainly in 12 years shes spent more time with him unconscious than she does wide awake.

Last Op we didn't even see the Surgeon until she was out of the operating theatre and that was the only time of her stay. It was the Anaesthetist that came into see her pre-op. Oh and he's rated as one of the best paediatric plastic surgeons in the country ;)
She was to get a treatment last month that was cancelled. We met the person involved for 5 minutes previously.


Being a people person doesn't really count when most of the time the person you're working on isn't in a state to give a fairy cakes does it?

Where as, as I pointed out using the link in the OP the most of the drivers work load is out of the car doing PR.#

#Edit:
And what public image perceptions are there with surgeons like there are with PR?


I know the guys duties. It is as simply as that. But you think you know better ?

When it is something as complex as a Liver Transplant the surgeon who is also a consultant Liver specialist is a lot more involved before and especially after surgery as there are always complications. The patient does not leave Hospital for at least 3 weeks and is seen everyday by the surgeon. The patinet will also have treatment for the rest of their life (continually on going, monitored and changing) and check ups with their surgeon for their rest of their life. It is as far from routine surgery you can get.

I have had my tonsils removed and met the surgeon for 5 minutes only, but that is a routine operation, wheel you in and wheel you out. Probably the same for your child.

The point I was making, is that the part of your job you spend the most time doing is irrelevant. So your 4:1 ratio is nonsense.

When I worked for an injury law firm, I spent 50-75% of my day driving between meeting clients (inside the M25). The majority of the job was travelling between meeting potential clients.

That's me done in here.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
viariani wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please don't chat fairy cakes, almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)


ahahaha what an embarrassment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?



What? you've taken the extreme of someone not doing PR but not the extreme of the other, if you wanted to take it to the extreme you have to say it for the both which would be "The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the awful driver that cant figure out to change gears but who is exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches?"

But that's still stupid, what you should be asking is "would you take the World class driver who's average at PR but doesn't enjoy it as much or an Average driver that enjoys PR?"

I know which i'd take in both cases if i was taking a driver to put into my racing team. I'll ask you again, would you rather have the team: Jim Clark & Raikkonen or Karun Chandhok & some other average driver who likes PR?

Also, being good in the public doesn't mean you are a more marketable person, talent sells a lot more than personality, i dont think anyone would argue that Heikki is more charismatic, but as Coulthard wrote "when it was him [Hamilton] with Heikki Kovalainen it did not take a genius to guess which driver the sponsor was going to want for their contracted time." (http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/07/26/ ... ing-races/)

A driver that doesn't have what it takes talent-wise, no matter how much of a smooth talker he is, will not bring in as many sponsorship deals as a driver that is more talented, even though they might not have the same level of charisma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
FormulaFun wrote:
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?



What? you've taken the extreme of someone not doing PR but not the extreme of the other, if you wanted to take it to the extreme you have to say it for the both which would be "The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the awful driver that cant figure out to change gears but who is exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches?"

But that's still stupid, what you should be asking is "would you take the World class driver who's average at PR but doesn't enjoy it as much or an Average driver that enjoys PR?"

I know which i'd take in both cases if i was taking a driver to put into my racing team. I'll ask you again, would you rather have the team: Jim Clark & Raikkonen or Karun Chandhok & some other average driver who likes PR?

Also, being good in the public doesn't mean you are a more marketable person, talent sells a lot more than personality, i dont think anyone would argue that Heikki is more charismatic, but as Coulthard wrote "when it was him [Hamilton] with Heikki Kovalainen it did not take a genius to guess which driver the sponsor was going to want for their contracted time." (http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/07/26/ ... ing-races/)

A driver that doesn't have what it takes talent-wise, no matter how much of a smooth talker he is, will not bring in as many sponsorship deals as a driver that is more talented, even though they might not have the same level of charisma.


Not about what I like, I don't run a multi million pound business that relies on other peoples money funding it.

If talent sells better than personality how come the top 2 in GP2 aren't getting a look in but yet 3rd, 4th and I think 6th are?

How come someone who hasn't even raced in GP2 is getting a shot?

If there is something that stands in the way of talent. Talent can't be king can it?

If the best talent keeps getting skipped over, if the teams are willing to lose the best talented drivers or indeed not even make a move for them then Talent isn't king. doesn't matter if it is trophies PR days Money or the permission to use the Team Principles private potty. If the team think that one thing is more important to keep than getting the talent. then there is something more important than talent.

If Talent was king, paid drivers wouldn't exist and the best team would have the 2 best drivers. Yet of all unless you think Webber is better than alonso and Hamilton never mind the other WDCs like Kimi and Button that simply isn't true.

Or would you like to explain why neither Ferrari or Red Bull were interested in Lewis? (And remember simon Fuller admitted talking to both)

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 1944
Johnston wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:
lamo wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?



What? you've taken the extreme of someone not doing PR but not the extreme of the other, if you wanted to take it to the extreme you have to say it for the both which would be "The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the awful driver that cant figure out to change gears but who is exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches?"

But that's still stupid, what you should be asking is "would you take the World class driver who's average at PR but doesn't enjoy it as much or an Average driver that enjoys PR?"

I know which i'd take in both cases if i was taking a driver to put into my racing team. I'll ask you again, would you rather have the team: Jim Clark & Raikkonen or Karun Chandhok & some other average driver who likes PR?

Also, being good in the public doesn't mean you are a more marketable person, talent sells a lot more than personality, i dont think anyone would argue that Heikki is more charismatic, but as Coulthard wrote "when it was him [Hamilton] with Heikki Kovalainen it did not take a genius to guess which driver the sponsor was going to want for their contracted time." (http://www.formula1blog.com/2011/07/26/ ... ing-races/)

A driver that doesn't have what it takes talent-wise, no matter how much of a smooth talker he is, will not bring in as many sponsorship deals as a driver that is more talented, even though they might not have the same level of charisma.


Not about what I like, I don't run a multi million pound business that relies on other peoples money funding it.

If talent sells better than personality how come the top 2 in GP2 aren't getting a look in but yet 3rd, 4th and I think 6th are?

How come someone who hasn't even raced in GP2 is getting a shot?

If there is something that stands in the way of talent. Talent can't be king can it?

If the best talent keeps getting skipped over, if the teams are willing to lose the best talented drivers or indeed not even make a move for them then Talent isn't king. doesn't matter if it is trophies PR days Money or the permission to use the Team Principles private potty. If the team think that one thing is more important to keep than getting the talent. then there is something more important than talent.

If Talent was king, paid drivers wouldn't exist and the best team would have the 2 best drivers. Yet of all unless you think Webber is better than alonso and Hamilton never mind the other WDCs like Kimi and Button that simply isn't true.

Or would you like to explain why neither Ferrari or Red Bull were interested in Lewis? (And remember simon Fuller admitted talking to both)


Because having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work, re: 2007, that wasn't to do with talent or PR and RBR and Ferrari not taking two number 1 drivers wasn't to do with PR, unless you can provide evidence to suggest otherwise.

Again, i don't think i've ever suggested that talent is the all deciding factor, and just because someone is successful in GP2 doesn't always mean that they will enjoy the same level of success in F1, they are unproven talents, it isn't something that the teams are sure of, it isn't the same as a known quantity that is already in F1, Valsecchi is 26, a bit old to be entering F1 now really, also you have to take into account the fact that he has been driving GP2 cars since 2008. Do you think Hamilton would have gotten his drive with McLaren in 2007 if he hadn't won the 2006GP championship in his first attempt?

i'm out as well, this is starting to remind me of a certain user from the old forum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 169
FormulaFun wrote:
viariani wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please don't chat fairy cakes, almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)


ahahaha what an embarrassment


Not an embarrassment at all, I thought Garagetinkerer was a tinfoil (you know the ones that try and talk Almighty Hamilton into multiple WDCs with the "what if" peaky ahahaha) that's all, the rest is true, so blx :)


viariani wrote:
Hehe, oops, late night :-P Still in my defence I saw the phrase Almighty Lewis and you can usually be certain there's a crackpot tinfoil penning wah wah wah crap thereon in, I don't read the rest. No offence Garagetinkerer!

_________________
o·ver·rat·ed - overestimation of skills or abilities, anything that is given too much credit and hype.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
FormulaFun wrote:

Because having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work, re: 2007, that wasn't to do with talent or PR and RBR and Ferrari not taking two number 1 drivers wasn't to do with PR, unless you can provide evidence to suggest otherwise.

Again, i don't think i've ever suggested that talent is the all deciding factor, and just because someone is successful in GP2 doesn't always mean that they will enjoy the same level of success in F1, they are unproven talents, it isn't something that the teams are sure of, it isn't the same as a known quantity that is already in F1, Valsecchi is 26, a bit old to be entering F1 now really, also you have to take into account the fact that he has been driving GP2 cars since 2008. Do you think Hamilton would have gotten his drive with McLaren in 2007 if he hadn't won the 2006GP championship in his first attempt?

i'm out as well, this is starting to remind me of a certain user from the old forum


Well if hes too old to enter doesn't that mean age before talent?

And if 2 #1s doesn't work, then making it work comes before talent.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
"If talent sells better than personality how come the top 2 in GP2 aren't getting a look in but yet 3rd, 4th and I think 6th are?"

Because it took Valeschi 4/5 of driving GP2 car to win the GP2 title.
Razia (runner up) has been in there for 4/5 years.

Calado was a rookie and Gutiérrez in his second year.

Simply not good enough, every GP2 champion before that has immediately graduated to F1 with the exception of Patano who had already been in F1 and was 32 years old when he won GP2.

GP2 Champions have shone in F1. Three of them winning races last year. In fact if things had gone a little different 5 of them where in contention to win a race last year, only Glock who wasn't.

2005: Rosberg (race winner)
2006: Hamilton (world champion)
2007: Glock (best finish 2nd)
2009: Hulkenberg (best finish 4th)
2010: Maldanado (race winner)
2011: Grosjean (best finish 2nd)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Johnston wrote:
FormulaFun wrote:

Because having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work, re: 2007, that wasn't to do with talent or PR and RBR and Ferrari not taking two number 1 drivers wasn't to do with PR, unless you can provide evidence to suggest otherwise.

Again, i don't think i've ever suggested that talent is the all deciding factor, and just because someone is successful in GP2 doesn't always mean that they will enjoy the same level of success in F1, they are unproven talents, it isn't something that the teams are sure of, it isn't the same as a known quantity that is already in F1, Valsecchi is 26, a bit old to be entering F1 now really, also you have to take into account the fact that he has been driving GP2 cars since 2008. Do you think Hamilton would have gotten his drive with McLaren in 2007 if he hadn't won the 2006GP championship in his first attempt?

i'm out as well, this is starting to remind me of a certain user from the old forum


Well if hes too old to enter doesn't that mean age before talent?

And if 2 #1s doesn't work, then making it work comes before talent.


Age not important for him, the fact he spent 4 hopeless years in GP2 seals his fate

GP2 Career
2008: 15th
2009: 17th
2010: 8th
2011: 8th
2012: 1st

He competed in 129 GP2 races (asia and full series) and won 11 races.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Well he must be better than the others.

after all he beat them.

Or are you saying the winner of the championship isn't the best?

Although thinking about it, I must remember this next year. If anyone beats Vettel next year It's not because they were better drivers. It's because they have done more races.


(Assuming it's Lewis, Fred, Kimi, Button, Webber etc. )

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 905
But it took him a while to do anything, one of the most experienced. Usually the better drivers need do it on their second/third season, or first full.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Johnston wrote:
Well he must be better than the others.

after all he beat them.

Or are you saying the winner of the championship isn't the best?

Although thinking about it, I must remember this next year. If anyone beats Vettel next year It's not because they were better drivers. It's because they have done more races.


(Assuming it's Lewis, Fred, Kimi, Button, Webber etc. )


If you watch GP2 you'll know he has been a back marker for years.

Valeschi: 18th, 17th, 8th, 8th, 1st

Record for least wins, poles, podiums and points for any GP2 champion per start in title winning year. 4 wins in 24 races.

I think its clear to anybody reading this why its not a great surprise he is not in an F1 seat. You can beg to differ if you choose.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Jomox wrote:
But it took him a while to do anything, one of the most experienced. Usually the better drivers need do it on their second/third season, or first full.


Before Valeschi the lowest any GP2 champion had finished in a full season was 6th. Most of the others managed top 4 in there full seasons before they won it. Hulk and Lewis winning in the first year and of cource Nico had to win it in his first year.

Rosberg - first year champ

Hamilton - first year champ

Glock - 2nd year, 4th in 1st year

Pantano - 4th year, 6th,5th,3rd, 1st. Already shown in F1 he was not talented enough. Still had decent showings in early years of GP2 though.

Hulkenberg - 1st year champ

Maldanado - 3rd full year. He impressed each year winning races, but just like F1 lots of mistakes and incidents every year. Retired from nearly 40% of his GP2 races says it all.

Grosjean - 2nd full year. 4th in first year, was running second in year 2 when he pulled out of championship. Won it the next year.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
lamo wrote:
If you watch GP2 you'll know he has been a back marker for years.

Valeschi: 18th, 17th, 8th, 8th, 1st

Record for least wins, poles, podiums and points for any GP2 champion per start in title winning year. 4 wins in 24 races.

I think its clear to anybody reading this why its not a great surprise he is not in an F1 seat. You can beg to differ if you choose.



He still beat the guys that made it through to F1. For example twice as many wins as Max Chilton.

So how can the guy that wins more and scores more points in a spec series have less talent than the others?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3916
Johnston wrote:
lamo wrote:
If you watch GP2 you'll know he has been a back marker for years.

Valeschi: 18th, 17th, 8th, 8th, 1st

Record for least wins, poles, podiums and points for any GP2 champion per start in title winning year. 4 wins in 24 races.

I think its clear to anybody reading this why its not a great surprise he is not in an F1 seat. You can beg to differ if you choose.



He still beat the guys that made it through to F1. For example twice as many wins as Max Chilton.

So how can the guy that wins more and scores more points in a spec series have less talent than the others?


I edited post to simplify my point.

How can a talented driver finish 18th, 17th, 8th and 8th in a spec series?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
lamo wrote:



I edited post to simplify my point.

How can a talented driver finish 18th, 17th, 8th and 8th in a spec series?


He still beat the others that are getting seats in F1. So what does that say about them?

If he is crap surely they must be worse or else they would have beat him?

Or how do you spin someone getting beat in a spec series in one case by almost 90 points I think is better than the guy that won it?

If the winner is bad, by the fact he BEAT everyone they must be worse. You can't pull the "He only won because of Newey" excuse in a spec series

So in which way did they show they had more talent to be more deserving of the F1 seat?

How did LOSING show that they are better, have more talent? How did Esteban losing by 71 points show he has more talent?

Edit

DV 8th, 8th, 1st
MC 25th, 20th, 4th
EG 13th, 3rd

So over the two certs for next year DV has beaten them every year they have competed. His results not being as bad as Max Chilton who gets a seat.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Last edited by Johnston on Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 1167
Can this please end

Nobody is willing to see what points the other has

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1565
viariani wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
The fact they didn't bow down before almighty Lewis is proof enough that they had a choice... they exercised it. Whether what came out of exercising that choice is something they like/ love is entirely different.

I seriously think there's no need to read too much into what happened... as Blake said... they simply couldn't agree on terms and have parted ways. Why not leave it at that?


Almighty Lewis? Oh Lord please don't chat fairy cakes, almighty my pickle, what has he ever achieved to claim that accolade? One lucky WDC, in 6 years? Oh yeah, dominant... :lol: He demanded things that McLaren simply said no to, you have to be a winner to dictate the terms in any walk of life, Hamilton can't bargain with multiple WDC's like Vettel can for instance (tinfoil "what if" bollocks aside... zzzzzzz) JB took him out too in the head to head points tally don't forget, Macca are now just giving Perez a try, move along :)

Look who's 'chatting fairy cakes'....

_________________
Lewis Hamilton Fan's Mood Race by Race: :( 8) 8) 8) 8) :evil: :-(( :) :D :proud: ;) x( 8) 8) :uhoh: 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 1167
Poor Lewis had to do another PR day yesterday, travelling all the way to Malta (that must've taken ages.. Like 3 whole hours!!) and the drive an F1 car about doing donuts. I sympathise with his plight and am happier he will no longer h e to do so many long hard days like this

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5683
Johnston wrote:
lamo wrote:



I edited post to simplify my point.

How can a talented driver finish 18th, 17th, 8th and 8th in a spec series?


He still beat the others that are getting seats in F1. So what does that say about them?

If he is crap surely they must be worse or else they would have beat him?

Or how do you spin someone getting beat in a spec series in one case by almost 90 points I think is better than the guy that won it?

If the winner is bad, by the fact he BEAT everyone they must be worse. You can't pull the "He only won because of Newey" excuse in a spec series

So in which way did they show they had more talent to be more deserving of the F1 seat?

How did LOSING show that they are better, have more talent? How did Esteban losing by 71 points show he has more talent?

Edit

DV 8th, 8th, 1st
MC 25th, 20th, 4th
EG 13th, 3rd

So over the two certs for next year DV has beaten them every year they have competed. His results not being as bad as Max Chilton who gets a seat.


One word: Experience.

[/thread-crashing mode]

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


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: F1Krof, Google Adsense [Bot], Herb, P-F1 Mod 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