planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:07 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 169
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
stuff


I love your blustering return to the topic 10 mins later for a second bite of the cherry, "And another thing!!!" :lol: :lol: This remarkable certainty that Hulkenberg would have won, McLaren finish exactly second and third, Ferrari exactly fourth an.... zzzzz is all baseless speculation to suit your argument. Racing is unpredictable, anything can happen, nothing's a certainty, look at clown pants in China 2007, who'd have thought it.

Long and short of it, yes, Hulkenbergs fault, banzai move that could end in tears, but when you see who is defending, well, it almost becomes a foregone conclusion doesn't it. I've a feeling several other drivers would have escaped that one, Kimi springs to mind as a candidate, he never seems to tangle with anyone (and is 3rd in the WDC) still, that's speculation so is going down a blind alley.

Sometimes I'm convinced it's Hamilton's gung ho bash crash attitude that attracts the diehard tinfoil manboy/fanboy clique, perhaps it's seen as "badass" or well 'ard, I remember after his bumper car bashfest Monaco 2011 he defiately said, "I will never stop racing the way I do, it’s the way I do it. That’s what got me here, it's the way I am!" Proper rabble rousing stuff lol.

Anyway, we don't agree on Brazil, I'm fine with that.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:37 pm
Posts: 854
viariani wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
stuff


I love your blustering return to the topic 10 mins later for a second bite of the cherry, "And another thing!!!" :lol: :lol: This remarkable certainty that Hulkenberg would have won, McLaren finish exactly second and third, Ferrari exactly fourth an.... zzzzz is all baseless speculation to suit your argument. Racing is unpredictable, anything can happen, nothing's a certainty, look at clown pants in China 2007, who'd have thought it.

Long and short of it, yes, Hulkenbergs fault, banzai move that could end in tears, but when you see who is defending, well, it almost becomes a foregone conclusion doesn't it. I've a feeling several other drivers would have escaped that one, Kimi springs to mind as a candidate, he never seems to tangle with anyone (and is 3rd in the WDC) still, that's speculation so is going down a blind alley.

Sometimes I'm convinced it's Hamilton's gung ho bash crash attitude that attracts the diehard tinfoil manboy/fanboy clique, perhaps it's seen as "badass" or well 'ard, I remember after his bumper car bashfest Monaco 2011 he defiately said, "I will never stop racing the way I do, it’s the way I do it. That’s what got me here, it's the way I am!" Proper rabble rousing stuff lol.

Anyway, we don't agree on Brazil, I'm fine with that.

Nonsense, nobody would have escaped that move. Hülkenberg made a mistake to overtake there, he lost the control of his car. Nobody could have done anything against it, only Hülkenberg, not overtaking at this moment.
This is ridiculous to blame Hamilton for others mistakes. Lewis left more than enough space and even backed of, but he could not dissappear, nobody could have

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Posts: 810
So it seems that JB also accepts that LH can extract some 'extra' performance from a bad car? To be fair, and without knocking Jens, he should know, as he hasn't normally been able to do that!
I think this shows my point has been 'demonstrated' as far as it can - in that there are drivers who are able to be a couple of tenths faster than others in the same car. The point was based on Hamilton going to Merc, and perhaps being able to get further up the order in that car - but it is equally valid for SV and FA against their teammates - and it is these differences that make the difference between the top drivers and the average drivers.
Nevertheless, only time will tell - roll on March 2013!
http://planetf1.com/driver/18227/833843 ... se-Rosberg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 169
Inappropriate post removed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:37 pm
Posts: 854
viariani wrote:
Haribo wrote:
viariani wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
stuff


I love your blustering return to the topic 10 mins later for a second bite of the cherry, "And another thing!!!" :lol: :lol: This remarkable certainty that Hulkenberg would have won, McLaren finish exactly second and third, Ferrari exactly fourth an.... zzzzz is all baseless speculation to suit your argument. Racing is unpredictable, anything can happen, nothing's a certainty, look at clown pants in China 2007, who'd have thought it.

Long and short of it, yes, Hulkenbergs fault, banzai move that could end in tears, but when you see who is defending, well, it almost becomes a foregone conclusion doesn't it. I've a feeling several other drivers would have escaped that one, Kimi springs to mind as a candidate, he never seems to tangle with anyone (and is 3rd in the WDC) still, that's speculation so is going down a blind alley.

Sometimes I'm convinced it's Hamilton's gung ho bash crash attitude that attracts the diehard tinfoil manboy/fanboy clique, perhaps it's seen as "badass" or well 'ard, I remember after his bumper car bashfest Monaco 2011 he defiately said, "I will never stop racing the way I do, it’s the way I do it. That’s what got me here, it's the way I am!" Proper rabble rousing stuff lol.

Anyway, we don't agree on Brazil, I'm fine with that.

Nonsense, nobody would have escaped that move. Hülkenberg made a mistake to overtake there, he lost the control of his car. Nobody could have done anything against it, only Hülkenberg, not overtaking at this moment.
This is ridiculous to blame Hamilton for others mistakes. Lewis left more than enough space and even backed of, but he could not dissappear, nobody could have


Nonsense, several drivers would have escaped that move, that's only how you see it from an LH fans point of view, I'm familar with the way that always works zzzzzz.. I see it differently, it's a classic Hamilton incident and exactly the sort of LH inconsistency that see's him throw season after season down the pan, I mean one dodgy championship in 6 years? Jeeezzz, yeah, amazing driving record... x( I suggest you lookup someone called Sebastian Vettel.

Obviously you did not watch any races. And certainly you did not watch the Brazil race.
Useless to discuss with you.

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
jammin78 wrote:
He didn't say the Red Bull was the best car, just that it was amazing, which for the latter half of the year is kinda true. He didn't say it was better than Macca either. All Hamilton has pointed out is that it's going to be difficult to beat Seb, and that he expects next year's RB to be good as well. Probably how most of the world read next year too to be fair.

You have to factor in that Red Bull's closest challenger next year is liable to be Mclaren, the strongest driver at McLaren will probably be Button, how close has Button come these past 3 seasons to beating Vettel?

Meanwhile Ferrari are still playing catch up to Red Bull, Mercedes are playing catch up to just about everyone, Lotus fell away somewhat last season.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
PGracer wrote:
F1yer wrote:
Otherwise its not even funny because 2012 was yours to lose and you lost it as usual


So Hamilton is responsible for the pit crew's failure for the first half of the year and the reliability issues for the second half of the year. Mclaren threw it away in 2012, not Lewis. (Lewis threw it away in 2011)

Thats debatable he suffered a similar amount of duff calls by his team early in 2011 as this year the only difference being how he reacted to it, reacting better to his misfortunes would not have enabled him to catch the long gone Vettel in the WDC race

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
F1yer wrote:
PGracer wrote:
F1yer wrote:
Otherwise its not even funny because 2012 was yours to lose and you lost it as usual


So Hamilton is responsible for the pit crew's failure for the first half of the year and the reliability issues for the second half of the year. Mclaren threw it away in 2012, not Lewis. (Lewis threw it away in 2011)


Whoever is at fault , 2012 had McLaren as the fastest car and Lewis didnt end up a title holder. So he / they messed up. Thats not important.

What is important is he mentioning that competing with Newey is difficult which is utterly wrong as he himself drive a non-Newey car much faster than the RB8. So he is mis representing the truth.

I agree with that the McLaren was fast enough to beat the Red Bull but i fail to see how Hamilton had any responsibility in the team messing up

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:44 am
Posts: 7
Saying Vettel is the luckiest is absurd. He just driven better than what Lewis could ever match. Alonso is probably the most luckiest driver on the grid by the way he wins through other people's misfortunes and his teammates. Hamilton can continue to jelly on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 201
Location: b. c. canada
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.



Except the Red bull wasn't the fastest car that day.

_________________
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: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:41 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Royal Wootton Bassett
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

_________________
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:37 pm
Posts: 854
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Haribo wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.



The fact Lewis was able to build a gap so Vettel couldn't use DRS almost immediately and Button went from 16th on the first lap to what 5th? Says to me the McLaren was pretty strong around Austin.

Remember due to tyres etc the days of drivers building big gaps are over. It's about building enough to nurse it home.

_________________
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: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 2412
Haribo wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.

RBR had such a superior car that McLaren claimed to have the best car. Once it came from MW and then Sam Michael. Why don't you chaps tell McLaren they were wrong? Wait, may be they both report to you at McLaren... do they?

_________________
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: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

I thought that in F1 downforce is basically king, Red Bull have normally the best downforce at the cost of top speed, something they seem quite happy to design into the car

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
garagetinkerer wrote:
Haribo wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.

RBR had such a superior car that McLaren claimed to have the best car. Once it came from MW and then Sam Michael. Why don't you chaps tell McLaren they were wrong? Wait, may be they both report to you at McLaren... do they?

McLaren always seem keen to inform who wants to know just how good the car is, the drivers less so it seems

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
ashley313 wrote:
If your standard for judging "best" driver is how fast they get...fast.....then okay. But that still doesnt mean any one driver is good for a few tenths in any car over everyone else. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.

Further, the "fastest" driver doesn't get the prize. The driver that collects the most points does. If you want to look at the gang at the top, Fernando, Sebastian, and Jenson are the drivers who have outscored their teammates during their time as such. So even if Lewis WERE able to drive any car a couple of tenths faster than anyone else, it hasn't helped him win another title, so would it even matter?

No probably not when the team lets you down, the car breaks down and other drivers crash into you

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
viariani wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
stuff


I love your blustering return to the topic 10 mins later for a second bite of the cherry, "And another thing!!!" :lol: :lol: This remarkable certainty that Hulkenberg would have won, McLaren finish exactly second and third, Ferrari exactly fourth an.... zzzzz is all baseless speculation to suit your argument. Racing is unpredictable, anything can happen, nothing's a certainty, look at clown pants in China 2007, who'd have thought it.

Long and short of it, yes, Hulkenbergs fault, banzai move that could end in tears, but when you see who is defending, well, it almost becomes a foregone conclusion doesn't it. I've a feeling several other drivers would have escaped that one, Kimi springs to mind as a candidate, he never seems to tangle with anyone (and is 3rd in the WDC) still, that's speculation so is going down a blind alley.

Sometimes I'm convinced it's Hamilton's gung ho bash crash attitude that attracts the diehard tinfoil manboy/fanboy clique, perhaps it's seen as "badass" or well 'ard, I remember after his bumper car bashfest Monaco 2011 he defiately said, "I will never stop racing the way I do, it’s the way I do it. That’s what got me here, it's the way I am!" Proper rabble rousing stuff lol.

Anyway, we don't agree on Brazil, I'm fine with that.

It seems the stewards didn't agree with you either

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 2949
viariani wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
stuff


I love your blustering return to the topic 10 mins later for a second bite of the cherry, "And another thing!!!" :lol: :lol: This remarkable certainty that Hulkenberg would have won, McLaren finish exactly second and third, Ferrari exactly fourth an.... zzzzz is all baseless speculation to suit your argument. Racing is unpredictable, anything can happen, nothing's a certainty, look at clown pants in China 2007, who'd have thought it.

Long and short of it, yes, Hulkenbergs fault, banzai move that could end in tears, but when you see who is defending, well, it almost becomes a foregone conclusion doesn't it. I've a feeling several other drivers would have escaped that one, Kimi springs to mind as a candidate, he never seems to tangle with anyone (and is 3rd in the WDC) still, that's speculation so is going down a blind alley.

Sometimes I'm convinced it's Hamilton's gung ho bash crash attitude that attracts the diehard tinfoil manboy/fanboy clique, perhaps it's seen as "badass" or well 'ard, I remember after his bumper car bashfest Monaco 2011 he defiately said, "I will never stop racing the way I do, it’s the way I do it. That’s what got me here, it's the way I am!" Proper rabble rousing stuff lol.

Anyway, we don't agree on Brazil, I'm fine with that.

You obviously didn't watch the race... The only way Hamilton could have yielded more (as opposed to what he did, which was leave the door massively open) and avoided the accident was if he slammed on the brakes which is not a viable solution. Even Kimi would have been taken out in this case.

_________________
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

"It's hammer time!"

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Greg Moore - Dan Wheldon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 2412
pokerman wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
Haribo wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.

RBR had such a superior car that McLaren claimed to have the best car. Once it came from MW and then Sam Michael. Why don't you chaps tell McLaren they were wrong? Wait, may be they both report to you at McLaren... do they?

McLaren always seem keen to inform who wants to know just how good the car is, the drivers less so it seems

doesn't MW always praise his drivers right after the race... even in 2011 he was pretty positive about Lewis. What more do you want from a team principal? Should the team ignore they had a great car, like when they had one this year? Of course they didn't capitalize on the car, and they admitted as much. Again, what else do you want McLaren to do?

_________________
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: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 201
Location: b. c. canada
Thats the most ridiculous reply i have ever heard zekenwolf (ha ha). The cars were very evenly matched. Anybody thats driven a race car will tell you how difficult it is to pass a car that can match your lap times.When you are sitting in the other cars dirty air you need the other driver to make a mistake. Think of how long it took hamilton to pulll off that pass. How long did he have to sit behind vettle waiting for that one moment. If you have ever driven a race car you would know how difficult it is to keep your focus for that length of time waiting for that one moment. Vettel was able to get off that corner leading on to the straightaway better and could get a gap so that the mclaren speed down the straight was nullified.

I know how hard it is to give hamilton any credit but in that case it was a perfect example of two really good drivers dueling it out in a race long battle. Just my opinion but i don't think that either driver had a superior car, it was just a battle between two very good drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
spiritone wrote:
Thats the most ridiculous reply i have ever heard zekenwolf (ha ha). The cars were very evenly matched. Anybody thats driven a race car will tell you how difficult it is to pass a car that can match your lap times.When you are sitting in the other cars dirty air you need the other driver to make a mistake. Think of how long it took hamilton to pulll off that pass. How long did he have to sit behind vettle waiting for that one moment. If you have ever driven a race car you would know how difficult it is to keep your focus for that length of time waiting for that one moment. Vettel was able to get off that corner leading on to the straightaway better and could get a gap so that the mclaren speed down the straight was nullified.

I know how hard it is to give hamilton any credit but in that case it was a perfect example of two really good drivers dueling it out in a race long battle. Just my opinion but i don't think that either driver had a superior car, it was just a battle between two very good drivers.



So they were evenly matched? Neither driver had a superior car?

What happened to Vettel in the faster car?

spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


Surely if one car is faster they are not evenly matched and by default one has to be in a superior car ? :?

_________________
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: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
garagetinkerer wrote:
doesn't MW always praise his drivers right after the race... even in 2011 he was pretty positive about Lewis. What more do you want from a team principal? Should the team ignore they had a great car, like when they had one this year? Of course they didn't capitalize on the car, and they admitted as much. Again, what else do you want McLaren to do?

No i meant the drivers are less likely to praise the car rather than the team themselves, is it true then that MW and SM said that the McLaren was the best car in Austin despite Hamilton barely beating Vettel?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 201
Location: b. c. canada
Thats the best you can come up with johnston. Pretty weak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:17 pm
Posts: 2412
pokerman wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
doesn't MW always praise his drivers right after the race... even in 2011 he was pretty positive about Lewis. What more do you want from a team principal? Should the team ignore they had a great car, like when they had one this year? Of course they didn't capitalize on the car, and they admitted as much. Again, what else do you want McLaren to do?

No i meant the drivers are less likely to praise the car rather than the team themselves, is it true then that MW and SM said that the McLaren was the best car in Austin despite Hamilton barely beating Vettel?

Yes! They both claimed McLaren have a better overall package (and if i remember correctly, pace too). Well, one of the comments came right after losing to RBR in 4 straight races... i'm not so sure of the timeline entirely, but you could check the homepage here for older stories and sure as heck you'd find them.

_________________
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: Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
spiritone wrote:
Thats the best you can come up with johnston. Pretty weak.


You're the one that changed tune not me. I merely pointed it 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: Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:37 pm
Posts: 854
garagetinkerer wrote:
Haribo wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
spiritone wrote:
I would say lewis matched him pretty well in austin. Somehow vettle in the fastest car couldn't hold on to the lead.


That is the most ridiculous statement that I have ever heard. Watch the recording of the race and the number of times they commented on the difference in speeds between the 2 cars. On that long and slightly bendy "straight", Hamilton's McLaren clocked a max speed of 313 Kph as opposed to 295 kph of Vettel's RB8. That sort of flat speed differential cannot be made up by the slight downforce advantage that the Red Bull had.

The straight & DRS zone was not long enough to get a significant advantage from more top speed
RBR at the corners superior due to more downforce, therfeore they were pretty evenly matched. Hamilton needed a slight mistake from Vettel & a backmarker to overtake, and for the rest of the race remaing vettel was very close to Hamilton, Hamilton was busy to stay out of DRS all laps remaining.

RBR had such a superior car that McLaren claimed to have the best car. Once it came from MW and then Sam Michael. Why don't you chaps tell McLaren they were wrong? Wait, may be they both report to you at McLaren... do they?

i chose to watch the races & live timing, there you see very well how big the difference is, at Us GP it was nearly nothing. Vettel & Hamilton were lapping similar fast, the RBR gained time in the corners while McL gained on the straights , in the end they were equal.

_________________
"Everything you can imagine is real." Pablo Picasso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 7447
garagetinkerer wrote:
pokerman wrote:
garagetinkerer wrote:
doesn't MW always praise his drivers right after the race... even in 2011 he was pretty positive about Lewis. What more do you want from a team principal? Should the team ignore they had a great car, like when they had one this year? Of course they didn't capitalize on the car, and they admitted as much. Again, what else do you want McLaren to do?

No i meant the drivers are less likely to praise the car rather than the team themselves, is it true then that MW and SM said that the McLaren was the best car in Austin despite Hamilton barely beating Vettel?

Yes! They both claimed McLaren have a better overall package (and if i remember correctly, pace too). Well, one of the comments came right after losing to RBR in 4 straight races... i'm not so sure of the timeline entirely, but you could check the homepage here for older stories and sure as heck you'd find them.

Well i guess it shows an emphasis of how they put the car before the driver and how they managed to lose a driver of Lewis's Hamilton calibre, i don't see other teams with the need to big the car as much as McLaren do

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1117
Macca and Red Bull were more or less equal around Austin. Neither could pass the other without assistance and that is what we saw. Hamilton got by on an opportunity and Vettel never got a similar opportunity to try to get back.

We saw this is Spain 2010 also - remember, Hamilton behind for 30+ laps. That time he got no opportunity and Vettel kept the lead. The Macca may have been a tad quicker in Spain, but not enough to make any practical difference in the circumstances.

That's racing.

As for the Article and Lewis saying Vettel looks unbeatable; well it is no different than what he was saying during the year. It is true that among top drivers, the driver with the best car should win. Lewis should have added the bit about top drivers, but quite frankly, everyone knows that Vettel is a top driver (unless they are kidding themselves), so it could go without saying - by Lewis anyway, because he has acknowledged that Vettel is a top driver in the past.


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: cosmo, Exediron 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