planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:02 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Junglist wrote:
Long time lurker and have been following this back and forth for some time now.
Seems everyone is caught up on the word 'Lucky'.

My take on it; Lewis (or everyone else not driving a Ferrari) was lucky that it rained as it made it possible to get a result that looked quite unlikely otherwise. However, this is what I think is the main point, Lewis wasn't lucky to get on pole. That was his skills shining through.

Saying he was lucky shouldn't be taken as an insult or detract from his performance. He was lucky it rained but it wasn't luck that put him in P1.

Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Agreed. Only thing I would change in your last sentence is that "it wasn't luck alone that put him in P1", since there was some element of luck in that it rained and negated Ferrari's dry advantage. On a level playfield Lewis put a great performance, that was all him!

yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13735
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Chicken-egg? Hehe

I don't think anyone says that dryness is a leveler... Rain is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?
Hamilton isn't lucky every time it rains, though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 6
I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Junglist wrote:
I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

No confusion, just different opinions


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 6
dompclarke wrote:
Junglist wrote:
I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

No confusion, just different opinions

Think I see it from both sides. I can see why some think he was fortunate that it rained as the Ferrari did have the advantage in the dry but with the rain being a fairly good leveller making things mostly equal between the teams it wasn't luck that he got P1. He simply did the best lap


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
Junglist wrote:
I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

That's exactly what I'm saying, yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13735
Junglist wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Junglist wrote:
I think there is a bit of confusion.

Zoue, am I correct in thinking you aren't saying Lewis had a lucky drive, just he got lucky that it rained? If that's the case I don't know why people are having an issue with what you say.

Did anyone think that P1 was up for grabs for Lewis after the free practice sessions? I sure as hell didn't. I thought that race was going to be damage control. Everyone knows rain is a leveller so he was lucky that it rained. It's not even a negative thing. He put in a brilliant wet weather lap.

No confusion, just different opinions

Think I see it from both sides. I can see why some think he was fortunate that it rained as the Ferrari did have the advantage in the dry but with the rain being a fairly good leveller making things mostly equal between the teams it wasn't luck that he got P1. He simply did the best lap


I'm in agreement with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

This is getting ridiculous. If the weather is normally raining and everything suddenly dries up just in time for qualifying, then of course they would be fortunate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

This is getting ridiculous. If the weather is normally raining and everything suddenly dries up just in time for qualifying, then of course they would be fortunate.

The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept that a point of view that doesn't agree with yours may be valid. As I've said the session was predictable therefore I don't see the result as fortune just a better job being done, given that Kimi thought he had the time for pole within him the Ferrari was most likely capable of being at the front.
I understand why you have your point of view and accept it's a valid one, I just happen to have a different one


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5546
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so... 8)

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13735
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so... 8)


:lol: I think we could broaden this out forever. I'd be happy to agree that both Hamilton and Vettel are very fortunate individuals!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

No more fortunate than if it stays dry for a driver who's car is better in the dry when the forecast says that is likely; so no I don't.

This is getting ridiculous. If the weather is normally raining and everything suddenly dries up just in time for qualifying, then of course they would be fortunate.

The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept that a point of view that doesn't agree with yours may be valid. As I've said the session was predictable therefore I don't see the result as fortune just a better job being done, given that Kimi thought he had the time for pole within him the Ferrari was most likely capable of being at the front.
I understand why you have your point of view and accept it's a valid one, I just happen to have a different one

It wasn't predictable that Mercedes were struggling with handling problems in the dry and this would disappear in the wet and close the gap. Not at all. It's not a question of viewpoint: the facts are that Mercedes needed rain to give them a chance and that happened. This was fortunate for them and I don't see how that may be in dispute


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No need for your nose to be put out of joint. I'm not saying he's talking complete rubbish, just that he's making a number of assumptions. But I also said it was possible. And for Kimi and Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was better, we have Toto and Vettel saying the opposite about the wet weather performance. But even if we imagine that the Ferrari was slightly ahead, the point still stands that the large advantage they appeared to have in the dry, or struggles Mercedes appeared to have, appeared to vanish with the rain and therefore that gave the Mercs a chance. Something Hughes also said, by the way.

I think it's perfectly possible that Kimi may have had the car to get pole. I also think Vettel had a poor qualifying (in the wet). Rain changed things and the timing of it couldn't have worked out better for Mercedes.

Well I kind of was making a generalised point that F1 journalists only seem to be relevant when they say things we want to hear.

Over to the luck part of this it seems to be a modern thing that rain now either makes you lucky or unlucky, in the past it made heroes out of drivers, sorted the men out of the boys, Senna won his first race because of the rain, a race he wouldn't have won otherwise, never heard Senna being called lucky just people marveling at his drive.

Now Vettel has a slow speed crash on a wet track and he's deemed to be unlucky, Vettel under performs in wet qualifying when he would have been on pole if it had been dry and again he's viewed as being unlucky, the benefactor Hamilton was lucky.

I think this was the first wet qualifying session in years that full wets set the pole time, normally when conditions are that bad the session gets delayed until the track dries ready for inters and many applauded the session going ahead and the drivers having to deal with the conditions, likewise in the race once the track is wet enough for full wets then normally the SC gets called again until the time the track is ready again for inters.

Compared to the past we have moved away from true wet races and qualifying sessions were conditions have to be as dry as possible for qualifying sessions or races to continue, this almost to the point it seems were wet conditions are to be avoided and unwanted and when it does interfere then that's just bad luck and not tied to feats of heroic or dismal driving.

so when Hamilton said:

"We couldn't have expected this," said Hamilton. "Ferrari have been quickest all weekend. Then the heavens opened and it was fair game."

and Toto said:

"We were lucky with the weather," admitted Mercedes boss Toto Wolff. "In the dry we didn't have the pace."

because:

Mercedes had struggled in Friday's heat when they overheated their tyres. But that characteristic of working the Pirelli tyres hard worked to the Silver Arrows' advantage around a sodden Hungaroring while Ferrari faltered.

you don't think luck has anything to do with it?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11447434/hungarian-gp-qualifying-lewis-hamilton-masters-the-rain-to-take-pole

A Sky Sports article, Hughes also works for Sky Sports but you dismiss what he has to say, just finding opinions that are agreeable to you.

When Hamilton says fair game that means now we have a chance which often can be the case when it rains which is why it's called a leveler, like he did at the start of the wet race in Singapore last year, Red Bull constantly ask for the rain and when it comes and the likes of Verstappen excels I never see the word luck come into play.

Back in 2014 in wet qualifying Vettel nearly out qualified Hamilton's dominant Mercedes, if Vettel had got pole I doubt the word luck would have come into play, more so I would say plaudits would have rained down on Vettel and how he out performed Hamilton's superior car.

All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?

I don't know why I bother but I'll give it a shot

It's truly remarkable how you see anything other than unconditional praise as an attack on Hamilton. The point being made is that he was fortunate the rain came down when it did because it negated Ferrari's advantage at a crucial moment, when they looked to have pole sewn up. He's admitted it, Toto's admitted it, Mark Hughes has stated it, as have a myriad other pundits. I don't think there's a single alternative professional opinion on that. Heck, you've even admitted it's a leveller, but somehow describing it as luck is a step too far? It never ceases to amaze how you can take issue with even the most innocuous of statements where Hamilton is involved.

You really need to lighten up and stop taking issue with absolutely everything where Hamilton is concerned. He had a car disadvantage in the dry, but that disappeared in the wet. It's not an insult to say that was good fortune. Of course, he still had to seize his chance and drove well to get the pole, but the point being made is only that he got that chance in the first place. The rain was brief and came at exactly the right time. How is that not fortunate?

Hamilton is fortunate that every time it rains he seems to do well, this is the first time that I've seen drivers doing well in the wet stuck with the label LUCKY.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?

Then you're wrong. Why on earth would we be praising Vettel for Hamiltom making a mistake, and benefiting from a wet qualifying session?

What you don't seem to be admitting is that most people - not a few outliers, but most forum members - actually do treat the two drivers equally. You, however, often seem to take offense at any statement that takes anything away from Hamilton: it's not enough that he out-drove Vettel in the same conditions, now he has to have out-driven him in the same condition and at a car disadvantage? Sorry, but only one of those things happened. In the wet, the Mercedes seemed to be very much on par with the Ferrari.

You've not read the posts suggesting that the Mercedes was the superior car in the wet?

My references to what Kimi said was basically to disprove the above.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Invade wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No need for your nose to be put out of joint. I'm not saying he's talking complete rubbish, just that he's making a number of assumptions. But I also said it was possible. And for Kimi and Mark Hughes saying the Ferrari was better, we have Toto and Vettel saying the opposite about the wet weather performance. But even if we imagine that the Ferrari was slightly ahead, the point still stands that the large advantage they appeared to have in the dry, or struggles Mercedes appeared to have, appeared to vanish with the rain and therefore that gave the Mercs a chance. Something Hughes also said, by the way.

I think it's perfectly possible that Kimi may have had the car to get pole. I also think Vettel had a poor qualifying (in the wet). Rain changed things and the timing of it couldn't have worked out better for Mercedes.

Well I kind of was making a generalised point that F1 journalists only seem to be relevant when they say things we want to hear.

Over to the luck part of this it seems to be a modern thing that rain now either makes you lucky or unlucky, in the past it made heroes out of drivers, sorted the men out of the boys, Senna won his first race because of the rain, a race he wouldn't have won otherwise, never heard Senna being called lucky just people marveling at his drive.

Now Vettel has a slow speed crash on a wet track and he's deemed to be unlucky, Vettel under performs in wet qualifying when he would have been on pole if it had been dry and again he's viewed as being unlucky, the benefactor Hamilton was lucky.

I think this was the first wet qualifying session in years that full wets set the pole time, normally when conditions are that bad the session gets delayed until the track dries ready for inters and many applauded the session going ahead and the drivers having to deal with the conditions, likewise in the race once the track is wet enough for full wets then normally the SC gets called again until the time the track is ready again for inters.

Compared to the past we have moved away from true wet races and qualifying sessions were conditions have to be as dry as possible for qualifying sessions or races to continue, this almost to the point it seems were wet conditions are to be avoided and unwanted and when it does interfere then that's just bad luck and not tied to feats of heroic or dismal driving.

so when Hamilton said:

"We couldn't have expected this," said Hamilton. "Ferrari have been quickest all weekend. Then the heavens opened and it was fair game."

and Toto said:

"We were lucky with the weather," admitted Mercedes boss Toto Wolff. "In the dry we didn't have the pace."

because:

Mercedes had struggled in Friday's heat when they overheated their tyres. But that characteristic of working the Pirelli tyres hard worked to the Silver Arrows' advantage around a sodden Hungaroring while Ferrari faltered.

you don't think luck has anything to do with it?

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/11447434/hungarian-gp-qualifying-lewis-hamilton-masters-the-rain-to-take-pole

A Sky Sports article, Hughes also works for Sky Sports but you dismiss what he has to say, just finding opinions that are agreeable to you.

When Hamilton says fair game that means now we have a chance which often can be the case when it rains which is why it's called a leveler, like he did at the start of the wet race in Singapore last year, Red Bull constantly ask for the rain and when it comes and the likes of Verstappen excels I never see the word luck come into play.

Back in 2014 in wet qualifying Vettel nearly out qualified Hamilton's dominant Mercedes, if Vettel had got pole I doubt the word luck would have come into play, more so I would say plaudits would have rained down on Vettel and how he out performed Hamilton's superior car.

All of a sudden such things become a matter of luck, Vettel skates off on a wet track into a barrier and he was unlucky, Hamilton gets pole only because it rained and he's lucky, if the roles were reversed would we be talking about luck or giving praise to Vettel at the expense of Hamilton, I'm thinking the latter?


Hamilton was lucky and good and Vettel was unlucky and bad in Hungary qualifying.

As for Germany, Vettel wasn't unlucky but instead was just bad... bad enough to ruin his race in one instant.

Well at least that's more balanced but when did wet weather driving become a matter of luck, wet weather strategy yes but the actual driving?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
yeah it's what I've been saying all along. It's not an insult to acknowledge that it was fortunate the rain provided the opportunity Hamilton would otherwise have been denied. He did well to seize it with both hands, but that's another story

Through a season we have to expect rain in qualifying at some point so drivers and teams should be able to deal with it. Rain was forecast so the teams and drivers were prepared.
If it hadn't rained and Vettel had made pole would people be saying he was fortunate or lucky? I doubt it...

Just as if Vettel had made pole in the dry, Hamiltons pole was a result of good work by the team and driver dealing with the hand that was dealt.
I think you are also missing the point. It's not about who was prepared or not. It's not about anybody's abilities or preparation. The luck is in the fact that it seemed that nothing bar rain was going to let Mercedes get near the front in qualifying, as they were struggling mightily. And lo and behold, rain came in the exact moment that they needed it, just before Q3, to give them a chance. That's the luck element, not how good/bad the drivers were.

I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

Were did it disappear in the rain, Hamilton had the same understeer in the rain that he had for the race, this was dialed in to protect his rear tyres.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Nail on the head. :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?
Hamilton isn't lucky every time it rains, though

Just about 90% of the time, I see it's still labelled as luck though.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I get your point, I disagree with it is all

It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

Not being able to drive in the rain is a weakness not bad luck, it's all part of a drivers CV, if Hamilton had been driving the Ferrari then this might not have even been a debate?

I raced for may years, not the best wet weather driver, if ever I had a race result worsened because of rain I never felt I'd been unlucky, I put it on myself, I just don't understand the concept of luck because it rained, Senna was never called lucky because it rained and improved his result, I just don't understand an ability that was once marveled at is now getting bracketed into the luck department.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26841
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so... 8)

Does the temperature have a default state as well?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6287
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't know why I bother but I'll give it a shot

It's truly remarkable how you see anything other than unconditional praise as an attack on Hamilton. The point being made is that he was fortunate the rain came down when it did because it negated Ferrari's advantage at a crucial moment, when they looked to have pole sewn up. He's admitted it, Toto's admitted it, Mark Hughes has stated it, as have a myriad other pundits. I don't think there's a single alternative professional opinion on that. Heck, you've even admitted it's a leveller, but somehow describing it as luck is a step too far? It never ceases to amaze how you can take issue with even the most innocuous of statements where Hamilton is involved.

You really need to lighten up and stop taking issue with absolutely everything where Hamilton is concerned. He had a car disadvantage in the dry, but that disappeared in the wet. It's not an insult to say that was good fortune. Of course, he still had to seize his chance and drove well to get the pole, but the point being made is only that he got that chance in the first place. The rain was brief and came at exactly the right time. How is that not fortunate?

Hamilton is fortunate that every time it rains he seems to do well, this is the first time that I've seen drivers doing well in the wet stuck with the label LUCKY.


Why are you so damned obstinate when it comes to trying to understand what is being said? it has been stated over and over and over again, with the reasoning quite clear to most, but you still see it as an affront to Lewis... everything other than glowing Praise of Lewis is an insult in your mind, it seems... even at times when he has done nothing to earn it! You love to paint me as being a "Hamilton hater", but poker, it is these constant "battles" over anything Lewis, that is so irritating.

To say that it was fortunate for Lewis/Mercedes to have the rain at a time when Ferrari seemed to have the edge in the dry, is not an insult to Lewis or Mercedes... it is a statement, one that many/most think is fact.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6287
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

No, because it being dry is the default state.

However, arguably they are already lucky to be in a car capable of pole, so... 8)

Does the temperature have a default state as well?


Give it up, Exediron, Zoue (and internal message to Blake as well).... it is like batting your head against a brick wall.

I think I need a summer "holiday" from here as well... twas probably a mistake to come in tonight.
:uhoh:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2169
Hamilton is the best rain driver of this decade, but he’s also been quite lucky in recent rain races IMO.

Silverstone 2015 - Rosberg was the fastest in the changing condition. Hamilton won this race in the dry period.

USA 2015 - again Rosberg was the fastest in the rainy conditions. Hamilton won this race in the dry period.

Monaco 2016 - 14 second pit stop for Ricciardo

China 2017 - Vettel was on course to jump Hamilton in the pits before Giovinazzi crashed and caused a safety car.

Singapore 2017 - the front 3 take themselves out and eliminate any competition.

From 2007 to 2015, I considered Hamilton and Vettel equals in the rain. Ever since 2016 however, Vettel has been abysmal in the wet. I don’t know what’s happened to him, but nowadays Lewis is the clear best rain driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
It baffles me how it can be disagreed with. When just about every pundit and driver involved says that it was fortunate that rain came down when it did, it's beyond me that it could even be a question.

If rain had happened just 20 minutes later, it would likely have been a Ferrari pole. Only the perfect circumstance of rain falling in Q3 only (let's face it, Q2 was much lighter) gave Mercedes a chance. And it was a complete fluke that Mercedes' handling problems in the dry, which they readily admitted to, disappeared with the rain. Nobody planned for that.

If Q3 had been variable conditions where timing of runs was crucial to lap time I'd agree luck may play a part, had a driver gone off causing a red flag to the detriment of one driver again luck/fortune comes into it. As it was it was a predictable session for the teams to work with so comes down to how well the team/driver deal with it as far as I'm concerned.

Had it been raining throughout Q1, 2 and 3 with the same result I'm sure luck would still be the cause to many....

If a car is at a disadvantage in the dry, but rain allows it to compete, you don't consider it fortunate for them that it does rain? Strange

Not being able to drive in the rain is a weakness not bad luck, it's all part of a drivers CV, if Hamilton had been driving the Ferrari then this might not have even been a debate?

I raced for may years, not the best wet weather driver, if ever I had a race result worsened because of rain I never felt I'd been unlucky, I put it on myself, I just don't understand the concept of luck because it rained, Senna was never called lucky because it rained and improved his result, I just don't understand an ability that was once marveled at is now getting bracketed into the luck department.
You don't seem to understand the point being made that it's nothing to do with the drivers' ability. Tell me, do you think Toto was referring to Hamilton's driving when he said Mercedes were lucky in Hungary?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?
Hamilton isn't lucky every time it rains, though

Just about 90% of the time, I see it's still labelled as luck though.

no I don't think that's true


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Nail on the head. :thumbup:

not even close


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6255
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
If Hamilton is lucky when it rains is Vettel, or any of his competitors who are not as good in the wet, lucky everytime it stays dry?

Nail on the head. :thumbup:

not even close

Far from it actually. Why bother though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 643
What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Laz_T800 wrote:
What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

It's the same people; Zoue, Siao7, KingVoid, etc. They are apparently quite bothered by Hamilton's success and will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to try to discredit or dampen it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23176
sandman1347 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

It's the same people; Zoue, Siao7, KingVoid, etc. They are apparently quite bothered by Hamilton's success and will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to try to discredit or dampen it.

what a load of nonsense. Nothing I have written here diminishes Hamilton's driving in any way whatsoever. I even said he did well to seize the opportunity with both hands.

This whole thing started from a discussion I was having with pokerman about Ferrari looking to have the slower car and me saying circumstance played a part in the results from the last two races. It's only people like you who see anything other than unmitigated praise as somehow diminishing the driver. It takes a special kind of paranoia to reach that conclusion.

Even Toto stated Mercedes were lucky in qualifying on Saturday. Strange I haven't seen that much condemnation of him. Hamilton's not normally shy when he perceives he's been insulted, so if he doesn't think it diminishes him to say it, why should you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5020
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
What is all this negative stuff doing in the Official thread.
Gotta be better places for discussing Hamiltons luck, as opposed to his driver skill, than this.

It's the same people; Zoue, Siao7, KingVoid, etc. They are apparently quite bothered by Hamilton's success and will perform all manner of mental gymnastics to try to discredit or dampen it.

what a load of nonsense. Nothing I have written here diminishes Hamilton's driving in any way whatsoever. I even said he did well to seize the opportunity with both hands.

This whole thing started from a discussion I was having with pokerman about Ferrari looking to have the slower car and me saying circumstance played a part in the results from the last two races. It's only people like you who see anything other than unmitigated praise as somehow diminishing the driver. It takes a special kind of paranoia to reach that conclusion.

Even Toto stated Mercedes were lucky in qualifying on Saturday. Strange I haven't seen that much condemnation of him. Hamilton's not normally shy when he perceives he's been insulted, so if he doesn't think it diminishes him to say it, why should you?

Yeah the difference is that you are suggesting that the "luck" is based on the car's performance and not his. In the dry, the Ferrari would have been on pole. That much is agreed. You want to suggest that it's the car that turns the tables in the wet. While I can already tell that you're on the defensive here, I just have to point out that you consistently try to chalk up his every achievement to the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1734
I put it down to the driver once it turned wet - namely Vettel. Vettel in the wet is a mystery in recent years. Hamilton did what needed to be done, though I was more impressed with his Monza 2017 lap, which was outstanding. Either Ferrari driver could have taken pole.


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: Google Adsense [Bot], owenmahamilton, wj_gibson 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