planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:45 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.

I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.

I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?

Where did I say it's down to the car? Please point to it. The only reference to the car I made was that his was poor in the dry and the wet evened things out for him. Evened out. Not gave an advantage. Evened out. The luck reference was to the weather, not the car, and even that was directly related to the struggles Mercedes were having in the dry. How is this hard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.

I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?

Where did I say it's down to the car? Please point to it. The only reference to the car I made was that his was poor in the dry and the wet evened things out for him. Evened out. Not gave an advantage. Evened out. The luck reference was to the weather, not the car, and even that was directly related to the struggles Mercedes were having in the dry. How is this hard?

When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1912
sandman1347 wrote:
When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?


It's hardly unreasonable to say the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. Let's say for the sake of argument that it didn't and that Ferrari still had an advantage in the wet (possible), the weather at least caused a far greater potential for volatility of performance, regardless of the performance cieling. I saw virtually no chance for Mercedes to get pole in the dry. The rain opened up the chance, but it of course doesn't guarantee that the Ferrari was suddenly worse, even or still better than the Mercedes. We do know that Mercedes and especially Hamilton did a much better job than Ferrari once the conditions were set.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
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.

Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.

I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?

Where did I say it's down to the car? Please point to it. The only reference to the car I made was that his was poor in the dry and the wet evened things out for him. Evened out. Not gave an advantage. Evened out. The luck reference was to the weather, not the car, and even that was directly related to the struggles Mercedes were having in the dry. How is this hard?

When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?

Ah, I see we've once again entered the realms of being deliberately obtuse. He had no chance in the dry, rain leveled the playing field, so it must all be down to the car.

The issue here is not with me trying to discredit Hamilton. The issue is you being super-defensive on his behalf. I suspect you'll try to twist anything that is said, based on previous experience.

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

So either Wolff is trying to discredit Hamilton's performance in the dry there, or he's acknowledging that rain changed things and gave Hamilton the opportunity to challenge. Which is it, do you think?

From a Sky sports report:

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.

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

But I'm guessing to you that's just a thinly-veiled dig at Hamilton's dry weather driving? I guess they were saying he was poor in the dry and overheated his tyres? Even lewis said:

"To get a 1-2, particularly when we knew that we were not going to be getting pole here in the dry conditions - the Ferraris were just too fast."

Does this mean he was acknowledging that he was just a bit rubbish in the dry? How dare he try to discredit himself, eh?

For the record, I don't think his struggles in the dry were down to poor driving. But whichever way you cut it, the rain changed things for him and Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6513
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?


It's hardly unreasonable to say the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. Let's say for the sake of argument that it didn't and that Ferrari still had an advantage in the wet (possible), the weather at least caused a far greater potential for volatility of performance, regardless of the performance cieling. I saw virtually no chance for Mercedes to get pole in the dry. The rain opened up the chance, but it of course doesn't guarantee that the Ferrari was suddenly worse, even or still better than the Mercedes. We do know that Mercedes and especially Hamilton did a much better job than Ferrari once the conditions were set.


You see, wet weather being a leveller seems to be considered unreasonable now. We have been named and shamed for daring suggesting so! Ending up being accused of being dishonest and disingenuous on top...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Then you clearly haven't read the posts properly. I've stated the fact it rained gave him the chance he wouldn't otherwise have had in the dry, as his car was troublesome in normal conditions. The chance. That's it. I've stated he did well when he got that chance. It was very specific to Hungary, as the Mercs don't normally have dry issues, so the fact it rained when it looked like they were in trouble was fortunate for the team. Toto said it was fortunate, Mark Hughes said rain rescued them. Heck, even Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.

I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?

Where did I say it's down to the car? Please point to it. The only reference to the car I made was that his was poor in the dry and the wet evened things out for him. Evened out. Not gave an advantage. Evened out. The luck reference was to the weather, not the car, and even that was directly related to the struggles Mercedes were having in the dry. How is this hard?

When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?

Ah, I see we've once again entered the realms of being deliberately obtuse. He had no chance in the dry, rain leveled the playing field, so it must all be down to the car.

The issue here is not with me trying to discredit Hamilton. The issue is you being super-defensive on his behalf. I suspect you'll try to twist anything that is said, based on previous experience.

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

So either Wolff is trying to discredit Hamilton's performance in the dry there, or he's acknowledging that rain changed things and gave Hamilton the opportunity to challenge. Which is it, do you think?

From a Sky sports report:

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.

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

But I'm guessing to you that's just a thinly-veiled dig at Hamilton's dry weather driving? I guess they were saying he was poor in the dry and overheated his tyres? Even lewis said:

"To get a 1-2, particularly when we knew that we were not going to be getting pole here in the dry conditions - the Ferraris were just too fast."

Does this mean he was acknowledging that he was just a bit rubbish in the dry? How dare he try to discredit himself, eh?

For the record, I don't think his struggles in the dry were down to poor driving. But whichever way you cut it, the rain changed things for him and Bottas

Where in either of those comments do they suggest that the weather made the cars even? They said that they couldn't beat the Ferraris in the dry. That's not saying that the cars are magically even in the wet. Believing that they had a better chance in the wet is not down to the car. The thing that tends to change in the wet is that the driver makes more of an impact in extracting the performance from the car. Even with that being said; usually, the fastest cars in the dry are also the fastest cars in the wet. Only occasionally is this not the case.

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself. Almost all of your posts are about trying to rationalize or explain away Hamilton's successes.


Last edited by sandman1347 on Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Invade wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?


It's hardly unreasonable to say the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. Let's say for the sake of argument that it didn't and that Ferrari still had an advantage in the wet (possible), the weather at least caused a far greater potential for volatility of performance, regardless of the performance cieling. I saw virtually no chance for Mercedes to get pole in the dry. The rain opened up the chance, but it of course doesn't guarantee that the Ferrari was suddenly worse, even or still better than the Mercedes. We do know that Mercedes and especially Hamilton did a much better job than Ferrari once the conditions were set.

This I agree with but it's important to note that the nature of the opportunity is not that the Ferrari is somehow hamstrung by the wet weather. It's that the degree of difficulty in extracting performance is significantly higher in that weather. None the less, Ferrari were the quickest in both Q1 and Q2 and were the quickest in Q3 up until the final tire change and hot lap where both Mercedes got one more fast lap in while Raikkonen did not manage to get a clean lap. If Kimi got a clean lap on that last run, it's likely he would have set the fastest time of the session. And Kimi is generally the slower of the two Ferrari drivers. I saw nothing to suggest that the relative performance of the cars changed due to the weather. Did it create an opportunity for Mercedes that would have not been there (or perhaps more accurately would have been much smaller) in the dry? Yes it did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I didn't say you insulted his driving. In fact, no one said that. I said you, once again, are trying to chalk up his success to the car. That is your consistent modus in the forum these last few years. When Hamilton wins a race or a championship for that matter, you want the forum to see it as being down to the car. Are you actually going to suggest that that is not the case?

Where did I say it's down to the car? Please point to it. The only reference to the car I made was that his was poor in the dry and the wet evened things out for him. Evened out. Not gave an advantage. Evened out. The luck reference was to the weather, not the car, and even that was directly related to the struggles Mercedes were having in the dry. How is this hard?

When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?

Ah, I see we've once again entered the realms of being deliberately obtuse. He had no chance in the dry, rain leveled the playing field, so it must all be down to the car.

The issue here is not with me trying to discredit Hamilton. The issue is you being super-defensive on his behalf. I suspect you'll try to twist anything that is said, based on previous experience.

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

So either Wolff is trying to discredit Hamilton's performance in the dry there, or he's acknowledging that rain changed things and gave Hamilton the opportunity to challenge. Which is it, do you think?

From a Sky sports report:

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.

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

But I'm guessing to you that's just a thinly-veiled dig at Hamilton's dry weather driving? I guess they were saying he was poor in the dry and overheated his tyres? Even lewis said:

"To get a 1-2, particularly when we knew that we were not going to be getting pole here in the dry conditions - the Ferraris were just too fast."

Does this mean he was acknowledging that he was just a bit rubbish in the dry? How dare he try to discredit himself, eh?

For the record, I don't think his struggles in the dry were down to poor driving. But whichever way you cut it, the rain changed things for him and Bottas

Where in either of those comments do they suggest that the weather made the cars even? They said that they couldn't beat the Ferraris in the dry. That's not saying that the cars are magically even in the wet. Believing that they had a better chance in the wet is not down to the car. The thing that tends to change in the wet is that the driver makes more of an impact in extracting the performance from the car. Even with that being said; usually, the fastest cars in the dry are also the fastest cars in the wet. Only occasionally is this not the case.

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself. Almost all of your posts are about trying to rationalize or explain away Hamilton's successes.

And yet in a subsequent reply you agree with a poster who states that it's hardly unreasonable to to say the relative performance of the car changed during the weather. I'd say you're being exceptionally dishonest here and it's clear the only reason you're making an issue of it is because of who has posted, rather than the content of the post.

And no-one's explaining away Hamilton's success. Nothing I have said has downplayed his performance in the slightest. But you know that. And you have the gall to call others disingenuous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?

Ah, I see we've once again entered the realms of being deliberately obtuse. He had no chance in the dry, rain leveled the playing field, so it must all be down to the car.

The issue here is not with me trying to discredit Hamilton. The issue is you being super-defensive on his behalf. I suspect you'll try to twist anything that is said, based on previous experience.

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

So either Wolff is trying to discredit Hamilton's performance in the dry there, or he's acknowledging that rain changed things and gave Hamilton the opportunity to challenge. Which is it, do you think?

From a Sky sports report:

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.

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

But I'm guessing to you that's just a thinly-veiled dig at Hamilton's dry weather driving? I guess they were saying he was poor in the dry and overheated his tyres? Even lewis said:

"To get a 1-2, particularly when we knew that we were not going to be getting pole here in the dry conditions - the Ferraris were just too fast."

Does this mean he was acknowledging that he was just a bit rubbish in the dry? How dare he try to discredit himself, eh?

For the record, I don't think his struggles in the dry were down to poor driving. But whichever way you cut it, the rain changed things for him and Bottas

Where in either of those comments do they suggest that the weather made the cars even? They said that they couldn't beat the Ferraris in the dry. That's not saying that the cars are magically even in the wet. Believing that they had a better chance in the wet is not down to the car. The thing that tends to change in the wet is that the driver makes more of an impact in extracting the performance from the car. Even with that being said; usually, the fastest cars in the dry are also the fastest cars in the wet. Only occasionally is this not the case.

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself. Almost all of your posts are about trying to rationalize or explain away Hamilton's successes.

And yet in a subsequent reply you agree with a poster who states that it's hardly unreasonable to to say the relative performance of the car changed during the weather. I'd say you're being exceptionally dishonest here and it's clear the only reason you're making an issue of it is because of who has posted, rather than the content of the post.

And no-one's explaining away Hamilton's success. Nothing I have said has downplayed his performance in the slightest. But you know that. And you have the gall to call others disingenuous

That's not what I agreed with though and I specifically clarified that in my post. This is what it means to be disingenuous Zoue. You presumably read my post; which explicitly clarifies my position and then still chose to misrepresent it in your post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself.


As does yours, sandman.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5544
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself.


As does yours, sandman.

There's nothing about my pattern of behavior that matches Zoue's (or yours for that matter).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:16 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Nebraska, USA
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
When you say it evened things out, that's saying that it's down to the car. You're saying that the relative performance of the car changed due to the weather. How is this hard?

Ah, I see we've once again entered the realms of being deliberately obtuse. He had no chance in the dry, rain leveled the playing field, so it must all be down to the car.

The issue here is not with me trying to discredit Hamilton. The issue is you being super-defensive on his behalf. I suspect you'll try to twist anything that is said, based on previous experience.

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

So either Wolff is trying to discredit Hamilton's performance in the dry there, or he's acknowledging that rain changed things and gave Hamilton the opportunity to challenge. Which is it, do you think?

From a Sky sports report:

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.

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

But I'm guessing to you that's just a thinly-veiled dig at Hamilton's dry weather driving? I guess they were saying he was poor in the dry and overheated his tyres? Even lewis said:

"To get a 1-2, particularly when we knew that we were not going to be getting pole here in the dry conditions - the Ferraris were just too fast."

Does this mean he was acknowledging that he was just a bit rubbish in the dry? How dare he try to discredit himself, eh?

For the record, I don't think his struggles in the dry were down to poor driving. But whichever way you cut it, the rain changed things for him and Bottas

Where in either of those comments do they suggest that the weather made the cars even? They said that they couldn't beat the Ferraris in the dry. That's not saying that the cars are magically even in the wet. Believing that they had a better chance in the wet is not down to the car. The thing that tends to change in the wet is that the driver makes more of an impact in extracting the performance from the car. Even with that being said; usually, the fastest cars in the dry are also the fastest cars in the wet. Only occasionally is this not the case.

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself. Almost all of your posts are about trying to rationalize or explain away Hamilton's successes.

And yet in a subsequent reply you agree with a poster who states that it's hardly unreasonable to to say the relative performance of the car changed during the weather. I'd say you're being exceptionally dishonest here and it's clear the only reason you're making an issue of it is because of who has posted, rather than the content of the post.

And no-one's explaining away Hamilton's success. Nothing I have said has downplayed his performance in the slightest. But you know that. And you have the gall to call others disingenuous

That's not what I agreed with though and I specifically clarified that in my post. This is what it means to be disingenuous Zoue. You presumably read my post; which explicitly clarifies my position and then still chose to misrepresent it in your post.

No, you are completely dishonest. That poster wrote almost exactly what I did and you agreed with the general tone only with the caveat that Ferrari is not somehow hamstrung by wet weather. The ppster said rain gave Mercedes a chance, which is pretty much all I've been claiming. You're just spoiling for a fight because that's your nature. It's not the first time and I daresay it won't be the last.

Anyone with half a brain can see that what I wrote wasn't criticising or downgrading Hamilton's performance in the slightest. I even clarified it in later posts and confirmed with other posters. But you couldn't resist an opportunity to get all offended on Hamilton's behalf, even concocting reasons that I'm somehow giving the credit to the car. Pathetic, utterly pathetic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself.


As does yours, sandman.

There's nothing about my pattern of behavior that matches Zoue's (or yours for that matter).

you're the one that started with the disingenuous accusations, so yeah I'd call that out as a lie, I'm afraid. You're incapable of discussing dispassionately, it seems. You do this all the time. You escalate things, and then try to make out it's others when all they do is defend against your attacks. Predictable pattern, every time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14222
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:

By the way, your pattern of behavior in here speaks for itself.


As does yours, sandman.


As in fairness does yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:13 pm
Posts: 297
OK guys, lets dial it down a bit now.

It's clearly an issue none of you are ever going to agree on and it's beginning to veer into off topic territory to boot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6513
Mod Yellow wrote:
OK guys, lets dial it down a bit now.

It's clearly an issue none of you are ever going to agree on and it's beginning to veer into off topic territory to boot.

Agreed. To think that pretty much all of the accused have praised Hamilton for the last race makes it a bit ironic, but your post is noted Mod


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 pm
Posts: 1033
Zoue wrote:
Toto said it was fortunate, Hamilton said ""So for the heavens to open and for us to be in this position, it's such a blessing for us."" Nothing, absolutely nothing, in that may be taken as any kind of insult to his driving. Except to paranoid fans, of course.


Exactly. When the team and driver both admit it.. why is it even an argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1738
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.


How exactly is that luck? That's not luck at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1738
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 729
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?


I agree as well.

That list is a little misleading though.

Silverstone 2015, Rosberg was quicker for about 4-5 laps when it was damp track with dry tyres. It was said afterwards because he had much higher tyre temperatures (as he was fighting Vettel). Once they both had inters on, Hamilton was 0.5 a lap quicker

Monaco 2016, as soon as Hamilton was let by Rosberg he was the fastest man on track and was catching Ricciardo. It was once it was essentially dry that Ricciardo was quicker but Hamiltonw as on wet tyres on a dry track and Ricciardo on inters. Hamilton also would have won if not for a shocking out lap, it wasn't just the long Ricciardo pit stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6062
Location: Michigan, USA
Johnson wrote:
Monaco 2016, as soon as Hamilton was let by Rosberg he was the fastest man on track and was catching Ricciardo. It was once it was essentially dry that Ricciardo was quicker but Hamiltonw as on wet tyres on a dry track and Ricciardo on inters. Hamilton also would have won if not for a shocking out lap, it wasn't just the long Ricciardo pit stop.

Really? That must have been some shocking out lap indeed, to be about equal to the 16 seconds Ricciardo lost in the pits. It was close between them when Ricciardo exited as was - it wouldn't have been remotely close otherwise.

Hamilton was very impressive in the wet, but he was never going to win that without Ricciardo's pitstop issue.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 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: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2281
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.

Australia 2010 Vettel started from pole and there was a SC after the first lap, the race restarted on lap 4, Button pitted for slicks on lap 6 a decision that won him the race, hardly a wet race.

So 4 races in 10 years also bear in mind the really good cars that Vettel has had.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2281
Vettel record in rainy qualifying sessions is excellent though. Obviously took pole at Monza 2008. He took four rainy pole positions in 2013: Australia, Malaysia, Canada and Brazil. He less than a tenth slower than Hamilton in both Malaysia 2014 and Malaysia 2015 despite driving an inferior car.

Apart from Hamilton, no other current driver has a better record than Vettel in the rain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14222
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.


Hamilton was quickest in the race in Monza. Vettel still put in a great performance though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2613
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.

Australia 2010 Vettel started from pole and there was a SC after the first lap, the race restarted on lap 4, Button pitted for slicks on lap 6 a decision that won him the race, hardly a wet race.

So 4 races in 10 years also bear in mind the really good cars that Vettel has had.
That was a decision that put Button into second place. It was Vettel's brake failure that handed Button the win.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
KingVoid wrote:
Vettel record in rainy qualifying sessions is excellent though. Obviously took pole at Monza 2008. He took four rainy pole positions in 2013: Australia, Malaysia, Canada and Brazil. He less than a tenth slower than Hamilton in both Malaysia 2014 and Malaysia 2015 despite driving an inferior car.

Apart from Hamilton, no other current driver has a better record than Vettel in the rain.

Australia 2013 it was wet for Q1 but qualifying got suspended, Q3 was dry, that's the first one I checked and that was wrong so I've not bothered with the rest.

The past couple of years Kimi has looked better than Vettel in the wet, Kimi not really renowned for wet weather ability, Vettel was running 9th in Silverstone 2016 whilst Kimi was running near the front, Kimi started 5th and finished 5th, Vettel started 11th and finished 9th, Kimi outqualified Vettel in Monza 2017 although it was close, both of them 2.5s slower than Hamilton, then of course this year Kimi outquailified Vettel last time out.

When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
tootsie323 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.

Australia 2010 Vettel started from pole and there was a SC after the first lap, the race restarted on lap 4, Button pitted for slicks on lap 6 a decision that won him the race, hardly a wet race.

So 4 races in 10 years also bear in mind the really good cars that Vettel has had.
That was a decision that put Button into second place. It was Vettel's brake failure that handed Button the win.

Still the track was dry it was only wet for about 2 racing laps.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
mikeyg123 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
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.


I also considered them equal best in rain. It might be that his engineer at Ferrari can't seem to set up his car in rain?

How many times has Vettel been the quickest in the rain, Monza 2008 and Abu Dhabi 2010 are the only times I can remember?

Monza 2008
China 2009
Australia 2010
Korea 2010
Silverstone 2011

He won the first two, the last three he should have won if not for circumstances out of his control.


Hamilton was quickest in the race in Monza. Vettel still put in a great performance though.

Yeah Hamilton rather stymied himself by qualifying 15th after glazing his brakes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2281
pokerman wrote:
Australia 2013 it was wet for Q1 but qualifying got suspended, Q3 was dry, that's the first one I checked and that was wrong so I've not bothered with the rest.

Australia 2013 was still damp and slippery in Q3, the pole time was 3.5 seconds slower than 2012 despite no significant rule changes. The rest are 100% correct.

Quote:
When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

From 2007-2015 yes, since then no.

You don't just need to look at the final results, just watch Brazil 2008. Vettel started 7th and was chasing down Massa in the early stages of the race in changing conditions, then near the end of the race he passed Hamilton and nearly cost him the WDC.

Or Silverstone 2015 - he was nowhere in the dry, but as soon as the rain hit, he began lapping much quicker than everyone else apart from Rosberg (including Hamilton), overtook Kimi, and finished on the podium.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:26 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
pokerman wrote:
When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

Um... No. Anyone can go off in the rain, but Vettel's lack of attention off at Hockemheim was a sophomoric mistake.

(How any of this Vettel discussion has anything to do with a Hamilton thread is hard to understand.)

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 694
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Monaco 2016, as soon as Hamilton was let by Rosberg he was the fastest man on track and was catching Ricciardo. It was once it was essentially dry that Ricciardo was quicker but Hamiltonw as on wet tyres on a dry track and Ricciardo on inters. Hamilton also would have won if not for a shocking out lap, it wasn't just the long Ricciardo pit stop.

Really? That must have been some shocking out lap indeed, to be about equal to the 16 seconds Ricciardo lost in the pits. It was close between them when Ricciardo exited as was - it wouldn't have been remotely close otherwise.

Hamilton was very impressive in the wet, but he was never going to win that without Ricciardo's pitstop issue.


Not though it really matters but Hamilton did have a shocking outlap and Ricciardo didn't lose 16 seconds because of the pitstop.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2811
Location: Perth, Australia
Laz_T800 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Monaco 2016, as soon as Hamilton was let by Rosberg he was the fastest man on track and was catching Ricciardo. It was once it was essentially dry that Ricciardo was quicker but Hamiltonw as on wet tyres on a dry track and Ricciardo on inters. Hamilton also would have won if not for a shocking out lap, it wasn't just the long Ricciardo pit stop.

Really? That must have been some shocking out lap indeed, to be about equal to the 16 seconds Ricciardo lost in the pits. It was close between them when Ricciardo exited as was - it wouldn't have been remotely close otherwise.

Hamilton was very impressive in the wet, but he was never going to win that without Ricciardo's pitstop issue.


Not though it really matters but Hamilton did have a shocking outlap and Ricciardo didn't lose 16 seconds because of the pitstop.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton


Just watched the stop and timed it myself. From the time that all four of Ricciardo's tyres are off the car, it's about 11 seconds until the next set are on and the car is dropped. So let's say 10 seconds. In the eight laps leading up to his stop, Hamilton was about .5s a lap quicker.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2281
Johnson wrote:
Monaco 2016, as soon as Hamilton was let by Rosberg he was the fastest man on track and was catching Ricciardo. It was once it was essentially dry that Ricciardo was quicker but Hamiltonw as on wet tyres on a dry track and Ricciardo on inters. Hamilton also would have won if not for a shocking out lap, it wasn't just the long Ricciardo pit stop.

At Monaco 2016, Hamilton lacked pace and confidence on cold tyres. This was a consistent theme throughout the race, as we saw on VSC restarts. His shocking outlap was no coincidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Australia 2013 it was wet for Q1 but qualifying got suspended, Q3 was dry, that's the first one I checked and that was wrong so I've not bothered with the rest.

Australia 2013 was still damp and slippery in Q3, the pole time was 3.5 seconds slower than 2012 despite no significant rule changes. The rest are 100% correct.

Quote:
When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

From 2007-2015 yes, since then no.

You don't just need to look at the final results, just watch Brazil 2008. Vettel started 7th and was chasing down Massa in the early stages of the race in changing conditions, then near the end of the race he passed Hamilton and nearly cost him the WDC.

Or Silverstone 2015 - he was nowhere in the dry, but as soon as the rain hit, he began lapping much quicker than everyone else apart from Rosberg (including Hamilton), overtook Kimi, and finished on the podium.

Slick tyres, wet conditions mean wet tyres, Brazil 2008 Hamilton was put on a low down force set up in case he needed to pass cars on the straight, not great for wet conditions.

I wouldn't like to go through all the races so as a shortcut found someone who compiled all the wet race wins and podiums, a wet race being classified as the grid having to use wet tyres.

Hamilton has 11 wins and in total 16 podiums.
Vettel has 2 wins and in total 7 podiums.

Out of interest Alonso has 3 wins and in total 7 podiums.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28354
MB-BOB wrote:
pokerman wrote:
When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

Um... No. Anyone can go off in the rain, but Vettel's lack of attention off at Hockemheim was a sophomoric mistake.

(How any of this Vettel discussion has anything to do with a Hamilton thread is hard to understand.)

Not sure now, I think it was something to do with Hamilton being lucky to win because it rained.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blake, MB-BOB, UnlikeUday 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