planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:36 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

Lewis admitted later that pitting was never the option, he would never go for it, so what was all this ranting about?

He wasn't ranting. Listen to the radio transcript of the race and you'll see how sensationalized the editing was.

Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 116
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Invade wrote:
Joylon Palmer on Hamilton's dramatisation of the 2019 Monaco GP.


Monaco GP: Putting Lewis Hamilton's 'miracle' in perspective
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48428176

Yeah he was being a bit of a drama queen.

No actually it's the race director and fans like yourself that are being drama queens. Lewis doesn't dictate which radio messages are broadcast. It never ceases to amaze me how many fans get taken in by "the show".


If anything he was more irate about the blue flags. Bit of blue language used!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

Lewis admitted later that pitting was never the option, he would never go for it, so what was all this ranting about?

He wasn't ranting. Listen to the radio transcript of the race and you'll see how sensationalized the editing was.

Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2731
Junglist wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Invade wrote:
Joylon Palmer on Hamilton's dramatisation of the 2019 Monaco GP.


Monaco GP: Putting Lewis Hamilton's 'miracle' in perspective
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48428176

Yeah he was being a bit of a drama queen.

No actually it's the race director and fans like yourself that are being drama queens. Lewis doesn't dictate which radio messages are broadcast. It never ceases to amaze me how many fans get taken in by "the show".


If anything he was more irate about the blue flags. Bit of blue language used!


Yes he was vulnerable going into Portier and Rascasse. He needed to take a wide line into both, and with a car in front of him he couldn't do that because Max was too close and could sling one up the inside.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
He wasn't ranting. Listen to the radio transcript of the race and you'll see how sensationalized the editing was.

Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 815
Location: Stratford
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill


how did Grosjean have a heavier fuel load... surely all drivers are more or less on the same fuel for a race?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
JN23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill


how did Grosjean have a heavier fuel load... surely all drivers are more or less on the same fuel for a race?

He started on the Softs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 815
Location: Stratford
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill


how did Grosjean have a heavier fuel load... surely all drivers are more or less on the same fuel for a race?

He started on the Softs


Oh yes :lol: ignore me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. And a heavier fuel load? How exactly was Gosjean on heavier fuel? You really can't help yourself, can you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3392
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

Hamilton is such an exceptional driver he can produce zero tyre wear for 20 laps. He is a 5x WDC after all.

I suspect that what is probably meant by 0% tyre life (assuming that's an accurate quote) is that for the last 20 laps it had past the final safe limit and was potentially liable to go bang or delaminate at any moment, so required being treated with the utmost delicate care.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

It's not personal Zoue. I just can't help but see a never-ending pattern with your commentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2731
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:

Lewis admitted later that pitting was never the option, he would never go for it, so what was all this ranting about?

He wasn't ranting. Listen to the radio transcript of the race and you'll see how sensationalized the editing was.

Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.


Later in the debrief he clarifies by stating that the front tyre tearing was not normal tyre behavior. Adding that with 20 laps to go they didnt have much tyre left on the front; which is why he used the rear axle to turn the car. Which is obvious if you rewatch the race. So while they may have been certain of the race strategy on the Thursday, the reality on the Sunday was somewhat different.

Although the rain issue was a good point. He bossed Germany on the softer tyre when the rain fell. So putting him on the softer tyre with the prospect of rain was a risk worth taking I think.


Last edited by shoot999 on Thu May 30, 2019 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

Hamilton is such an exceptional driver he can produce zero tyre wear for 20 laps. He is a 5x WDC after all.

I suspect that what is probably meant by 0% tyre life (assuming that's an accurate quote) is that for the last 20 laps it had past the final safe limit and was potentially liable to go bang or delaminate at any moment, so required being treated with the utmost delicate care.

He's undoubtedly a top driver; I'm not questioning his talent, just the premise that a car can race for 20 laps and have effectively zero tyre wear. His lap times remained fairly constant, so I wonder why he couldn't be a tyre whisperer for the whole stint and not just the final 20 laps since it didn't seem to affect his pace at all.

Your explanation makes more sense than 0% tyre life I have to say


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

Yeah I think that's rubbish, personally and I think you've just bought into the drama that was created around it. There's no way a driver can make a tyre with 0% life last 20 laps and even if he did you'd have to question how he managed to get them in that state in such a relatively short time and then somehow miraculously make them last for ever with a flick of a switch. Grosjean managed to make his Softs last 50 laps and that's with a heavier fuel load and being stuck in the middle of the pack without having the benefit of clear air like the leading driver. And for three laps after the SC the fastest man on the track was...Russell in his Williams, which says it all about how hard (not) Hamilton must have been pushing and wearing out his (front) tyres.

So yeah, I don't doubt things were a bit marginal and I agree that Mercedes putting him on the Mediums was a bizarre (and wrong) decision, but given the pedestrian pace the race was being run at and the corresponding relatively low stress the tyres were being put under I think a mountain's being made out of a molehill

So you're saying that Toto lied about that? Interesting; and how, pray tell, do you know that? Just curious. I'd hate to think that you're just making that up...

As for Grosjean; yes he was on those tires for 50 laps and they were in such bad shape that he was overtaken on track by Ricciardo in the closing laps. Hamilton had his tires for nearly 70 laps with Max hustling him the entire time. You really can't help yourself, can you?

Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

It's not personal Zoue. I just can't help but see a never-ending pattern with your commentary.

"you really can't help yourself" seems personal to me. It's unnecessary.

there's nothing derogatory about Hamilton in my post, so no need to get defensive


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6883
Location: Michigan, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Hamilton is such an exceptional driver he can produce zero tyre wear for 20 laps. He is a 5x WDC after all.

That's impossible. No one can do that.

He was, however, able to produce very low tyre wear by driving so slowly that he would have been overtaken at any other track on the calendar.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3392
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Hamilton is such an exceptional driver he can produce zero tyre wear for 20 laps. He is a 5x WDC after all.

That's impossible. No one can do that.

He was, however, able to produce very low tyre wear by driving so slowly that he would have been overtaken at any other track on the calendar.

I guess the sarcasm was not obvious?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6883
Location: Michigan, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Hamilton is such an exceptional driver he can produce zero tyre wear for 20 laps. He is a 5x WDC after all.

That's impossible. No one can do that.

He was, however, able to produce very low tyre wear by driving so slowly that he would have been overtaken at any other track on the calendar.

I guess the sarcasm was not obvious?

I thought there was a chance, but you never know with the internet... :thumbup:

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2019 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

It's not personal Zoue. I just can't help but see a never-ending pattern with your commentary.

"you really can't help yourself" seems personal to me. It's unnecessary.

there's nothing derogatory about Hamilton in my post, so no need to get defensive

I'm not defensive and neither I nor anyone else claimed you made a derogatory comment about Hamilton. I'm just pointing out that you completely made up the idea that the tires weren't really dead and then used a terrible example (the example of a driver on younger tires who was so dead in the water that he actually WAS overtaken on track at Monaco) to back up your claim. To top it off you embellished by adding the bit about being on lighter fuel. Of course, as always, as soon as someone catches you out, you resort to some form of playing the victim...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 5:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

It's not personal Zoue. I just can't help but see a never-ending pattern with your commentary.

"you really can't help yourself" seems personal to me. It's unnecessary.

there's nothing derogatory about Hamilton in my post, so no need to get defensive

I'm not defensive and neither I nor anyone else claimed you made a derogatory comment about Hamilton. I'm just pointing out that you completely made up the idea that the tires weren't really dead and then used a terrible example (the example of a driver on younger tires who was so dead in the water that he actually WAS overtaken on track at Monaco) to back up your claim. To top it off you embellished by adding the bit about being on lighter fuel. Of course, as always, as soon as someone catches you out, you resort to some form of playing the victim...
so it is personal then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Toto bigging up his driver shocker. Stop the press.

No doubt he was using hyperbole. I've given the reasons why I think so above. Not sure about the comment on not helping myself - are you incapable of disagreeing without getting personal?

It's not personal Zoue. I just can't help but see a never-ending pattern with your commentary.

"you really can't help yourself" seems personal to me. It's unnecessary.

there's nothing derogatory about Hamilton in my post, so no need to get defensive

I'm not defensive and neither I nor anyone else claimed you made a derogatory comment about Hamilton. I'm just pointing out that you completely made up the idea that the tires weren't really dead and then used a terrible example (the example of a driver on younger tires who was so dead in the water that he actually WAS overtaken on track at Monaco) to back up your claim. To top it off you embellished by adding the bit about being on lighter fuel. Of course, as always, as soon as someone catches you out, you resort to some form of playing the victim...
so it is personal then

For you? Clearly yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9595
sandman1347 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Invade wrote:
Joylon Palmer on Hamilton's dramatisation of the 2019 Monaco GP.


Monaco GP: Putting Lewis Hamilton's 'miracle' in perspective
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/48428176

Yeah he was being a bit of a drama queen.

No actually it's the race director and fans like yourself that are being drama queens. Lewis doesn't dictate which radio messages are broadcast. It never ceases to amaze me how many fans get taken in by "the show".

What are you on about? Did you even read the article?
Quote:
For me, though, there was an element of showmanship in Hamilton's radio messages. It was all a bit 'Hollywood'.

No other driver would have been on the radio in quite the dramatic way Hamilton was. In fact, we barely heard any other team radio throughout the race, apart from the odd gee-up from Verstappen's race engineer, in typically casual fashion.

Because nothing appeared to be changing - Hamilton still had Verstappen at a close, yet comfortable distance - the world champion's showmanship out front really added something to the grand prix.

We were all thinking: 'Surely he can't do it; he knows he can't do it.' It had the ingredients of a Monaco classic.

But in reality, Hamilton still had the race under control.


Really don't understand what the controversy here is, maybe you think Palmer is being a drama queen?

Or, as you said, you just can't help yourself.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7324
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
He wasn't ranting. Listen to the radio transcript of the race and you'll see how sensationalized the editing was.

Maybe we disagree on this then, call it ranting, moaning, whatever you want. He was on the radio talking (I'm not going to use moaning/ranting) about having a long way to go on the tyres before even the SC went in!! Maybe you can forgive someone for thinking that Lewis was a tiny tad of a drama queen with comments like "let's hope for a miracle" amongst other things.

I simply notice that the ones who seem to have a problem with this are the same ones who always have a problem with Hamilton for one reason or another. The fact that he said something from before the safety car went in shows that he knew even from then that the tires would probably not last (which they didn't). Regardless of the show the broadcasters chose to run with, he won the race. That's really the only thing that matters.

Funny thing is that in the debrief they said that they ran this on FP2 and they were certain they would be able to make this strategy last, which they did.

They did nothing of the sort. The tire was on 0% life for the last 20 laps of the race. That wasn't part of the plan. They got it wrong; plain and simple. Funny thing is that there was no logical impetus to use the Medium tire. No one behind him used it and even if they had; it's Monaco. There is no way that simply being on Hards while the guy behind is on the Mediums is going to cost you a position there. It was the wrong decision; full stop and the fact that Hamilton hung on to bring it home on zero tread should not in any way be seen as vindication of that decision.

They gambled on the medium, of course they did as they were expecting rain. So rain didn't come in the end as they predicted and their strategy didn't work as they wanted, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done, because they freaking did it. The tyre had little life but didn't disintegrate and Lewis didn't end up in the ditch like in China, he had to adapt his style and he did it. Nothing less than a great drive, but the "talking" was there for all to hear. And to nitpick a bit, they didn't say that with 20 laps the tyre was at 0% life, they said it had little life left. That "little life" took them to the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15010
Surely 0% tyre life is down on the canvas?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
mikeyg123 wrote:
Surely 0% tyre life is down on the canvas?

yep that's how I'd normally read it too which is why I'm calling it out as I don't think it's possible to drive 20 laps while maintaining the same pace as previously on bare canvas. And thinking it further, if it was already past the safety margin by then that suggest they were deliberately putting their driver at risk of a dangerous blowout for 20 laps and I'm just not buying that. The tyres were no doubt marginal, but not to the stage they were unsafe, which is what 0% suggests


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 116


Haven't seen this video of Niki and Lewis before. Wonder if he was trying to poach him from this stage. Seems unlikely though

edit. Hadn't/Haven't... I'm still not sure which is correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 15010
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Surely 0% tyre life is down on the canvas?

yep that's how I'd normally read it too which is why I'm calling it out as I don't think it's possible to drive 20 laps while maintaining the same pace as previously on bare canvas. And thinking it further, if it was already past the safety margin by then that suggest they were deliberately putting their driver at risk of a dangerous blowout for 20 laps and I'm just not buying that. The tyres were no doubt marginal, but not to the stage they were unsafe, which is what 0% suggests


I think Toto meant it more as a figure of speech. Not something to be taken literally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2731
mikeyg123 wrote:
Surely 0% tyre life is down on the canvas?



Only if you take a throwaway expression literally. Max said in interview that towards the end Lewis had no front tyre left. But when I looked after the race he still had four tyres on his car. Similarly when Hamilton and others say 'these tyres are not going to last'. I think we all know the unsaid bit after is 'so we are going to have to do something different'.

I think if you leave yourself vulnerable going into Portier and coming out of the tunnel because you need to get the car straight before applying any power; and as Vowles said 'steering on the back axle', because the tyres are shot, you can probably get away with saying 0% tyre life?


Edi: Opps. Just seen your latest post. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3676
Zoue, sandman, take 5. If it's getting personal, get some air.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 25158
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Surely 0% tyre life is down on the canvas?

yep that's how I'd normally read it too which is why I'm calling it out as I don't think it's possible to drive 20 laps while maintaining the same pace as previously on bare canvas. And thinking it further, if it was already past the safety margin by then that suggest they were deliberately putting their driver at risk of a dangerous blowout for 20 laps and I'm just not buying that. The tyres were no doubt marginal, but not to the stage they were unsafe, which is what 0% suggests


I think Toto meant it more as a figure of speech. Not something to be taken literally.

Yes I agree. I was more countering the claim on here which repeated it in a way that made it look real


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2019 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:15 am
Posts: 116
The Netflix David Letterman interview with Lewis Hamilton is now live, just a heads up



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 952
Win 78.

A 29 point championship lead and into the crucial zone of being able to absorb a DNF. Such is the influence of the DNFs, a win with Bottas DNF in the next race and it starts to look like a hand on the WDC. The opposite and its basically all level again.

One or two more races of Mercedes winning and that is surely it down to a 2 horse race between Hamilton and Bottas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:35 pm
Posts: 192
Hamilton will win this year and next. It is clear as daylight to the disinterested observer. F1 is broken and the Mercedes advantage cannot be overturned. Bottas is not good enough to challenge him consistently. We are just going through the motions arguing about stewards and penalties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3123
Location: UK
FrusEldar wrote:
Hamilton will win this year and next. It is clear as daylight to the disinterested observer. F1 is broken and the Mercedes advantage cannot be overturned. Bottas is not good enough to challenge him consistently. We are just going through the motions arguing about stewards and penalties.

Also Ferrari are not good enough to challenge him consistently. I also don't like the unfair advantages that the big teams get, but I don't see how Mercedes get any more favours than Ferrari do; both teams make their own engines in a formula that is heavily engine-dependent and both get a disproportionate share of the TV revenue. Mercedes have just done a much better job over the past 5 years, and they do deserve credit for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
j man wrote:
FrusEldar wrote:
Hamilton will win this year and next. It is clear as daylight to the disinterested observer. F1 is broken and the Mercedes advantage cannot be overturned. Bottas is not good enough to challenge him consistently. We are just going through the motions arguing about stewards and penalties.

Also Ferrari are not good enough to challenge him consistently. I also don't like the unfair advantages that the big teams get, but I don't see how Mercedes get any more favours than Ferrari do; both teams make their own engines in a formula that is heavily engine-dependent and both get a disproportionate share of the TV revenue. Mercedes have just done a much better job over the past 5 years, and they do deserve credit for that.

What's happening now hasn't happened since around 2004. Basically things are reaching a critical mass. Hamilton and Mercedes will increasingly be vilified moving forwards because there are a lot of people who are simply tired of them winning everything. The backlash will become more and more outlandish until someone actually beats him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 663
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
It's not Hamilton's fault. He is hardly going to say ''no I don't want a car that is capable of winning >10 races a season - every season'' - and he is absolutely capitalising on it.

I think unlike 2004, and this is the big difference for me, there is a feeling that we've been denied a truely great era simply by the way things have been. Money, or rather the balance of money, has ruined the sport. It's became stale, boring, predictable.

We've had a crop of some fantastic drivers over the last decade, but we haven't seen that much legendary action. Indeed the 2010's has IMHO been the worst decade - and by quite a margin.

TBH, a bit like the money has ruined football, and the internet has taken away any wonder. Maybe I am just becoming old, but I generally do think the fun has been sapped out things in general and things were more enjoyable in the pre-internet (or rather smart phone) era.

_________________
Car 36 Blog - if anyone is interested in how I'm getting on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6316
Badgeronimous wrote:
It's not Hamilton's fault. He is hardly going to say ''no I don't want a car that is capable of winning >10 races a season - every season''.

I think unlike 2004, there is a feeling that we've been denied a truely great era simply by the way things have been. Money, or rather the balance of money, has ruined the sport. It's became stale, boring, predictable.

We've had a crop of some fantastic drivers over the last decade, but we haven't seen that much legendary action. Indeed the 2010's has IMHO been the worst decade - and by quite a margin.

TBH, a bit like the money has ruined football, and the internet has taken away any wonder. Maybe I am just becoming old, but I generally do think the fun has been sapped out things in general and things were more enjoyable in the pre-internet (or rather smart phone) era.

You've got a fuzzy memory. Back in 2004 there was even more backlash and claims of boredom and the sport being ruined. You didn't have overtaking back then because it was pre-DRS and, unlike Hamilton, Michael did not have to compete with his teammates. So years where the Ferrari was dominant meant that the WDC was 100% a foregone conclusion. The only difference is that we are now in the drama-queen era of fans who overreact to pretty much everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2717
It's a little ironic that Hamilton had been looking forward to a good scrap, with the cars (Merc & Ferrari) looking more evenly matched this weekend. That was very much the case until the incident and resulting penalty. Had Hamilton managed to pass Vettel at that point, I suspect that people would have shrugged their shoulders and thought, well at least we had a decent race for the win. Instead we just had the pinion that Merc were gifted the win and the 'decent race' fizzled out thanks to the penalty. The knock-on effect is that Merc are further vilified (along with the stewards /. rule-makers!).
My tuppence-worth on it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2452
I don't rate Bottas any higher than Barrichello, so this whole argument that Hamilton has to compete against his teammate is a bit meaningless in 2019 context.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 815
Location: Stratford
Badgeronimous wrote:
It's not Hamilton's fault. He is hardly going to say ''no I don't want a car that is capable of winning >10 races a season - every season'' - and he is absolutely capitalising on it.

I think unlike 2004, and this is the big difference for me, there is a feeling that we've been denied a truely great era simply by the way things have been. Money, or rather the balance of money, has ruined the sport. It's became stale, boring, predictable.

We've had a crop of some fantastic drivers over the last decade, but we haven't seen that much legendary action. Indeed the 2010's has IMHO been the worst decade - and by quite a margin.

TBH, a bit like the money has ruined football, and the internet has taken away any wonder. Maybe I am just becoming old, but I generally do think the fun has been sapped out things in general and things were more enjoyable in the pre-internet (or rather smart phone) era.


2010 we had four drivers going into the final race able to win, 2012 was exciting generally and a thrilling decider between Alonso and Vettel in Brazil, a couple of great battles between Hamilton and Rosberg in 2014 and 2016. It's a shame that the 2017/18 battles didn't play out over a full season as they looked like they could be crackers going into the summer break.

I don't think it's been that bad has it? I get that we've only had three world champions and two constructors champions but I don't quite get all the negativity.


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: F1 MERCENARY, RaggedMan 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