planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:54 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've lost track were we are going with this, Ferrari made a quite obvious message in 2010 when team orders were not permitted, what are you trying to say?

That you (or any other Hamilton fan, by extension) had no right to kick up a furor over Alonso benefiting from team orders due to the fact that Hamilton received a similar order in his favor in a prior year - when team orders were also banned. The case would be that the incidents are the same, so it's hypocritical to complain about one while accepting the other.

I never had a problem with it, the only problem I've had is with deniability, unless the team order is laid out in black and white like in 2010 or Germany this year with Vettel and Kimi, then it's often I see nothing.

_________________
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 05, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1704
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

_________________
Pathfinder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.

_________________
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 05, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1704
pokerman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.


True, but Lewis just needs a competitive car and a reliable one. Doesn't have to be out and out the fastest anymore. He's won two weekends when really Vettel should've won. The performance may swing towards merc on some tracks but having had the pleasure of watching Lewis drive at Hungaroring last weekend, the guy hasn't put a foot wrong.

As long he keeps driving like that and applying the pressure to Vettel there's a massive chance for the WDC

_________________
Pathfinder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent

How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

_________________
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 05, 2018 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent

How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
f1madman wrote:
Excellent win by Hamilton if he keeps this up no. 5 could be his!

It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent

How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?

In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It's not going to be easy though in what is starting to look like a slower car.
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent

How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?

In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ferrari should have won Hungary, but rain gave Hamilton a lifeline and he seized it with both hands. I'm not terribly convinced that the Ferrari was quicker in Germany, though. Hamilton looked quicker than Vettel, although to be fair Vettel could afford to take it easy for most of the race. I don't think there's any game changing advantage for either car, tbh, and they're as close as two different designs could possibly be. I think strategy and a little luck will make the difference this season, as neither Ferrari nor Mercedes can afford to be complacent

How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?

In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came

What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
How many lifelines has Hamilton had this season, it starts to become a pattern?

Ferrari should have won the last 2 races and look to be favourites in the races coming up.

They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?

In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came

What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
They should, yes, but circumstance played a part in both. Hamilton shouldn't have started so far down to begin with in Germany and he would likely have started on the front row. I don't think it was a definite Ferrari win without Hamilton being taken out of the picture at the start, that's all. Hamilton was plenty quick there. Hungary looked like being a Ferrari pole before rain, but I don't think one race is any kind of pattern?

In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came

What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 06, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
In the next few races which car do you think is going to be quicker?

Also I think you need to read what Mark Hughes said about the Hungarian wet qualifying, the faster car was the Ferrari which was beautifully balanced whilst the Mercedes was loaded up with loads of understeer to protect its rear tyres in the race, Brundle commented on the amount of understeer Hamilton had in the race itself, the car was unbalanced in the wet, whilst Kimi who is not one to bs said he had the car to qualify on pole, a car not needing a compromised set up to protect its tyres, so I don't even have the back up confidence of the wet helping out unless Vettel continues not to deliver in such conditions.

I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came

What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't know, it's so close.

In qualifying I think it was Brundle who said the Ferraris looked twitchy, while the Mercs were planted, so it's hard to say who was right if Hughes is now saying the complete opposite. But the Ferraris certainly looked better before the rain, so at the very least it took that away from them and gave the Mercs a chance. As to what Kimi said, well he didn't deliver on that, did he? For all we know the Mercs could have gone faster, too. But when both drivers in the same team lock out the front row, it's hard to portray them as having a disadvantage

It looks to be all about qualifying now. On race pace there's nothing in it as far as I can tell

edit I just read Mark Hughes report on motorsportmagazine.com and all he says is that the rain rescued Mercedes, pretty much like I did. So . not quite sure where you're coming from? He said the Ferraris were better balanced in the dry, but all that changed when the rains came

What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What Hughes said is not shown in his race report so it must have been said after, I don't have a source to it just a third party quote.

so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.

Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
so maybe it's possible you misinterpreted and he was talking about them in the dry, as then it was certainly true that the Mercedes looked very nervous. And that's what Hughes wrote in his report, too. But the rain changed that.

Mark Hughes' quotes have been mentioned but not posted. Here they are:



Quote:
Those drivers that got a lap in on fresh wets were between 1-1.5s faster on them than on the worn wets (some of that would be the track drying). Bottas found 1.7s (but had been slow in first part), Hamilton found 1.0s, Vettel found 1.5s. So if Kimi had found just 1.0s by not being put out in spray, he'd have beaten Hamilton's time by 0.5s. Hence his comment that he felt he'd have been on pole comfortably. Vettel just couldn't get any confidence in the car in these conditions, said he couldn't feel the tyres and was generally around 1.5s slower than Raikkonen. That difficulty probably lost him the race. The Ferrari was, I believe, faster in all conditions but Vettel seriously under-performed and Kimi was sent out into the spray.




Quote:
I am saying that the Merc in the dry was around 0.3s off the Ferrari and that the quality of Kimi's lap in the used wet session was maybe a couple of tenths faster than Hamilton's pole. Which adds up to 0.5s. The 0.5s to 1s is just the application of the average improvement everyone made with the new tyres/drier track. Watching the onboard, the Merc was not particualrlty well balanced. Hamilton had set it up with understeer because in the dry it was killing its rear tyres. Kimi's Ferrari, by contrast, was beautifully balanced because it didn't need a compromised set up - as it was looking after its rears in the dry just fine. So we are talking about a slightly faster car with a better set up. I believe that had Kimi got in the fresh wet-tyred lap he'd have been on a very comfortable pole. That backs up everything I saw with my own eyes, every bit of data I looked at through the weekend and everything Kimi said.


Reading it again made me realise that only Hamilton had the understeer dialed into his car which may explain why Bottas was closer to him than normal in the wet conditions.

I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.

Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.

Kimi didn't say he could have been on pole if he had not been caught in the spray?

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think there's some flawed logic in that reasoning by Hughes. IIRC Kimi put in his fast lap a good deal later than Hamilton or Bottas and the track conditions may have been different. It certainly came out of nowhere and he improved by over a second on his previous lap. I don't think Hughes' estimations of how much quicker their final runs would be is all that accurate. He himself admitted they were averages, so there's a lot of guesswork going on. Not saying it's impossible, but seems to me there are some apples being compared with oranges there.

In any event, the central point about raining being very fortuitous for Hamilton stands. He reckoned he would have been nowhere in the dry, so it came at exactly the right moment to give him the chance he needed

Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.

Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.

Kimi didn't say he could have been on pole if he had not been caught in the spray?

Sure, but feel free to disregard any part of his interview that does not agree with your point


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.

Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.

Kimi didn't say he could have been on pole if he had not been caught in the spray?

Sure, but feel free to disregard any part of his interview that does not agree with your point

So your interpretation of Kimi saying how good the car felt, how he could have been on pole was his belief that the Mercedes was better?

_________________
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)


Last edited by pokerman on Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2959
Siao7 wrote:
Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.


It could mean anything really, any driver in any car can say they was surprised how good the car felt, how often do they get to experience wet sessions?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 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.

Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.

Kimi didn't say he could have been on pole if he had not been caught in the spray?

Sure, but feel free to disregard any part of his interview that does not agree with your point

So your interpretation of Kimi saying how good the car felt, how he could have been on pole was his belief that the Mercedes was better?


Typical answer from you, vague answer with a question. I swear, it feels like you are deliberately trying not to understand some times... Here's Kimi's quote for your perusal:

"It’s disappointing not to be the first. I think we had the speed today. I was pleasantly surprised how nice the car was in the wet, because that definitely hasn't been our strongest point."

Ferrari's strong point wasn't the wet, it did not look like being the fastest in the wet, looked unstable and less planted than the Merc. It came as a surprise to their driver that it felt nice in the car in the wet in his final run. So yes, he could have had the pole, but it was not that the car was clear cut the favourite in the wet as you make it sound. This ties up with everything that Vettel and Totto have said so far. You banging on that Kimi could have had pole therefore the Ferrari was the best car does not make it necessarily right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
F1_Ernie wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.


It could mean anything really, any driver in any car can say they was surprised how good the car felt, how often do they get to experience wet sessions?


Yes, indeed you have a point. But how many did they say this in the last GP though? I do not believe I heard another driver stating this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Only that Kimi didn't say that the Ferrari was better in the wet, Kimi was surprised by how good the car felt suddenly, which points more to the opposite really.

Kimi didn't say he could have been on pole if he had not been caught in the spray?

Sure, but feel free to disregard any part of his interview that does not agree with your point

So your interpretation of Kimi saying how good the car felt, how he could have been on pole was his belief that the Mercedes was better?


Typical answer from you, vague answer with a question. I swear, it feels like you are deliberately trying not to understand some times... Here's Kimi's quote for your perusal:

"It’s disappointing not to be the first. I think we had the speed today. I was pleasantly surprised how nice the car was in the wet, because that definitely hasn't been our strongest point."

Ferrari's strong point wasn't the wet, it did not look like being the fastest in the wet, looked unstable and less planted than the Merc. It came as a surprise to their driver that it felt nice in the car in the wet in his final run. So yes, he could have had the pole, but it was not that the car was clear cut the favourite in the wet as you make it sound. This ties up with everything that Vettel and Totto have said so far. You banging on that Kimi could have had pole therefore the Ferrari was the best car does not make it necessarily right.

I see what Kimi said which doesn't diverge from what I said, but how does that get turned into looking unstable and less planted than the Mercedes when Kimi said how nice the car was and it had the speed?

My reference to Kimi saying he could have had pole was a reply to someone that was adamant that the Mercedes was the fastest car, also I don't understand what you mean that Kimi's car felt nice in the final run, you make it sound like it just felt nice for 1 lap?

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27908
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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?

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Michigan, USA
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.

_________________
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: Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1884
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Hughes was perfectly alright when he said something you agreed with, and Brundle is quoted for the same reason, then I bring something forward to the contrary from Hughes and then he must be wrong, Kimi also said he was good for pole if he had not been caught in the spray, sort of backed up by his fastest laps on worn wets but with this lap it's dismissed because Kimi had the benefit of one lap more on the worn tyres, were was Vettel in all of this?

Generally speaking this is not just a preposition that Mercedes got lucky but also that Mercedes had the better car ignoring what Kimi had to say and also Hughes who was perfectly alright in what he had to say to begin with when it appeared he was saying things that you agreed with.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
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.


In Hungary Vettel wasn't unlucky (unless you mean the rain that negated his dry pace advantage), he was just bad in the wet. He said it in his interview, he wasn't fast enough and the car didn't give him confidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5908
Location: Michigan, USA
Siao7 wrote:
In Hungary Vettel wasn't unlucky (unless you mean the rain that negated his dry pace advantage), he was just bad in the wet. He said it in his interview, he wasn't fast enough and the car didn't give him confidence.

How is it not unlucky to have random conditions take away an advantage?

Without the rain, it looked like he had pole and the win all sewn up. It was unlucky that he had to fight for it at all, and that was when he failed to deliver. Both things happened: Vettel got unlucky, and then he under-performed.

_________________
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: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
In Hungary Vettel wasn't unlucky (unless you mean the rain that negated his dry pace advantage), he was just bad in the wet. He said it in his interview, he wasn't fast enough and the car didn't give him confidence.

How is it not unlucky to have random conditions take away an advantage?

Without the rain, it looked like he had pole and the win all sewn up. It was unlucky that he had to fight for it at all, and that was when he failed to deliver. Both things happened: Vettel got unlucky, and then he under-performed.


Uuuuuh, that's what I explained in the brackets in case you missed it... That he wasn't unlucky to qualify 4th in the wet session, he just wasn't as good in the wet as the first three. He was somewhat unlucky that his dry pace was negated, but it rains for everyone last time I checked so he should have done better in the wet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 17
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 17
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!


You've worded that better than I did. Which is one of the reasons I haven't posted on these boards for years, I'm just not great at articulating my thoughts! I prefer to read others well put arguments as there is a wealth of knowledge on these boards. I just wanted to chime in as it seemed people were really arguing about the use of the word.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline

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

I would say in Germany Vettel wasn't bad - he just made a small mistake which had big consequences. I think that qualifies as unlucky. Other drivers have gone off before without ruining their race. In Hungary, however, he was poor in qualifying and his team mate looked to have much greater potential than he did


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 17
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


I think if people would've used the word fortunate from the get-go, you guys wouldn't have argued this for a few pages :D

Lucky sounds like he did no work to get the result he did, which would be unfair. But to say he was fortunate that it rained, even though it carries the same message, doesn't sound unfair.

Let's be honest, he had no right winning that race judging from FP1/2/3 but when it rained and the field was levelled, he made the difference and grabbed it with both hands.

Everyone needs a bit of luck from time to time and Lewis is no different. However lucky/fortunate he was that it rained he also had the necessary talent to capitalise on said luck. As it has been pointed out - It rained for everyone. Doing better than everyone else in the same conditions isn't luck


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Junglist 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


I think if people would've used the word fortunate from the get-go, you guys wouldn't have argued this for a few pages :D

Lucky sounds like he did no work to get the result he did, which would be unfair. But to say he was fortunate that it rained, even though it carries the same message, doesn't sound unfair.

Let's be honest, he had no right winning that race judging from FP1/2/3 but when it rained and the field was levelled, he made the difference and grabbed it with both hands.

Everyone needs a bit of luck from time to time and Lewis is no different. However lucky/fortunate he was that it rained he also had the necessary talent to capitalise on said luck. As it has been pointed out - It rained for everyone. Doing better than everyone else in the same conditions isn't luck

I did! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Junglist 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


I think if people would've used the word fortunate from the get-go, you guys wouldn't have argued this for a few pages :D

Lucky sounds like he did no work to get the result he did, which would be unfair. But to say he was fortunate that it rained, even though it carries the same message, doesn't sound unfair.

Let's be honest, he had no right winning that race judging from FP1/2/3 but when it rained and the field was levelled, he made the difference and grabbed it with both hands.

Everyone needs a bit of luck from time to time and Lewis is no different. However lucky/fortunate he was that it rained he also had the necessary talent to capitalise on said luck. As it has been pointed out - It rained for everyone. Doing better than everyone else in the same conditions isn't luck


Well, even the last bit has a little bit of luck. For example Vettel in Q2 was fortunate enough to put the right tires at the right time, got a time when everyone else was on the slicks and then it was too wet to better that time. Same (albeit changing) conditions for everyone, but a bit of luck (and possibly oversight from the team) nailed him a time that was 2+ secs faster than anyone else!


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, Lojik, Turnip Racer 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