planetf1.com

I said this right in the beginning. My first post in this discussion. And you are coming to this conclusion now? Do you think it might be advisable in future to, you know, actually read posts before going off half cocked?

And even now you still manage to twist things and try to make out they mean things the original poster never said. I can't make out if it's simply beyond your comprehension or whether you are really that malicious that you just get a kick out of trying to warp things for your own ends

That one sentence shows just how absolutely idiotic your conclusions are. I said there's no evidence Vettel improved in the second half of that year (because he was a high standard all year). I also said Alonso / Ferrari messed up at the last race. Both true. I didn't say that them messing up was proof that Vettel didn't improve. That link is something you make in your own mind because you are either incapable of understanding or are so busy trying to find ammunition to attack someone with that you don't really care what you use.

All this "discussion" could probably have been avoided if you'd actually taken the time to read the posts properly. You didn't just do it with me. You also did it with purchville when you assumed the reasons he listed were actually all his opinion, which anybody reading that post should have understood was not the case. And when you don't understand you don't bother asking but just go straight on the attack and then end up looking the fool because you are arguing against something that doesn't exist in the first place. What a waste of time.

For me it looks like a question of how well Seb handles an unstable car. We haven't seen that have we? My guess is just based on how fast he is in the first two laps of the race, and that does look like talent to me, but let's see.

If it's true that Red Bull are looking to dump Renault that's great anyway, for us fans of other drivers. They'll have the same disadvantage as McLaren, and next year the other engine suppliers have vested interests in rival teams so it looks like Honda at best, who'll be a year behind.

I believe he will adapt just as well as any of the other drivers & probably better than some.

_________________
Champions are made from something they have deep inside of them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have the skill & the will but the will must be stronger than the skill. Muhammad Ali

That is fine if you think so, but I also disagree . The point differentials between Vettel's 1st and 2nd half of any given season are not necessarily big, but they do exist, and they get asymptotically larger as you get closer to the end of the year when decisive GP's take place. A year like 2011 has no relevance here because Vettel worked up such an advantage that nobody could realistically mount a challenge against him in the latter part of the season. In all other seasons there is a perceivable late season surge, to the tune of winning ~65% of all races.



The most important measure is the opposition. Nobody has been able to keep pace with RBR throughout the season for quite a while, but it hasn't been a slam dunk from start to finish every time. They always evolve to become the best and it takes a good team + driver combo to accomplish that. I think that Vettel could not achieve what he did without RBR, but that RBR also could not achieve what they did without Vettel.



The drivers have to come to grips with their equipment, which is different every year, and only affords them a limited time to study. One example, is the approach to qualifying. A driver cannot be relaxed and smooth because in most cases the approach will result in low tire temperatures, and no grip, while on a hot lap.



My point of contention is that Vettel usually doesn't look like an early, outright favorite to win the title. It's possibly because he isn't more talented than the likes of Alonso, Hamilton, and Raikonnen, and maybe less so. However, he has no equal in chomping at the bit and fighting for the last few ounces of performance that elude his opponents. He won two out of four titles by making near miraculous comebacks at the very end, and two titles by stomping the opposition. Not sure what mode of winning is left for him to bring anything new into the equation.

Zoue.

The "missing link":

"there have been other, to my mind more plausible, reasons for these improvements. Even in 2010 when he came from way behind to clinch the title, when you look beyond the stats you will see that he didn't improve so much as his main rivals dropped off:"

You are clearly stating there up that there are, to your mind more plausible other reasons for those (perceived) improvements of Vettel, and you specifically used 2010 as the example of those reasons for Vettel's improvement: "his main rivals dropped off".

You spelled out such an absolutely clear link in between the very subject of discussion (Vettel's improvement through out the year) and the mentioned dropping off by the side of Vettel's rivals: the later one being the REASON for the former one, in 2010. And you said that at the very same breath even, not across different posts perhaps. Then you specifically clarified to us what exactly "dropping off" did you really mean with. Yes: Alonso and his team messing it up in that last race.

Now I turned up to be the one who is making "absolutely idiotic conclusions" here, ain't me? I am the one trying to use the evidence of Alonso/Ferrari messing up that last race in 2010 as bing the reason for Vettel's improvement that year. I am the one that to use the fact that Ferrari/Alonso f…ed up that last race for the sake of illustrating how Vettel "didn't improve so much", ain't me? I am the one to take that wrong strategic call from the side of Ferrari's pit wall and use that as the evidence for… for what exactly, Zoue, again? Ah, yes, Vettel's improvement. Ah, yes, just see. He did not improve so much as…. somebody else turnipped up his title in the last race.

See, some people might naively believe that Vettel improved that year in the second half of it. But see, Prema concluded that that was not rather the actual case as there was the reason to such, to those people apparent improvement of Vettel…. Alonso threw away the title in the last race of the season.

Yes, Zoue, pass that sack of fairy cakes on me. It's mine now. And actually, I perhaps even earned that one since I was foolish enough to touch it in the first place.



Actually, I'll take that home.

I do look the fool for not perceiving right away that you had on your mind "the last race in Abu Dhabi" when referring to Vettel's rivals dropping off in 2010 while arguing that what was to be viewed/judged over the entire year (Vettel's improvement) and not who happened to win/throw away the title in the last race. You did not specify it then, and it honestly did not cross my mind that you, among of all, were capable of something like that. So I accept that. I look foolish. My fault there. But I do not accept looking the fool for supposedly not seeing the link there up between Alonso/Ferrari messing up and mentioned Vettel's improvement (or the luck of) and not asking you for tell me wether such link existed or not.

And, after all, I really do look the fool for arguing this subject matter in that extent. Wether Vettel improves towards the end of the season or not, is an utterly insignificant issue in the real life. It does not matter who thinks what about that. I have been spending so much of my hours and energy there, and the only conclusion I can fairly come up with is that, yes, since it indeed is such an insignificant matter to argue about in that extent, then it must be the case of me arguing for the sake of it. What else. I can't come to an other reasonable explanation, if to be honest to my own self.


Well, that said…. I'll take, say a year of "sabbatical" from this forum and see wether I still got some of that useless taste for foolishly arguing around here, with the only effect of turning up looking the fool.
(and one can still watch the races and enjoy those, get informed about the latest news and so on)


Stay well.

I see what you are saying but I do think 2011 is relevant as the initial point was about how Vettel is perceived as being a second half specialist and so every year needs to be taken into account when analysing whether that is correct. I really don't see that a 5 point variable from one half of a season to another may be taken as evidence of any change in the halves, especially when you consider that if you take the cutoff after Germany instead (9/8 halves, instead of 8/9) it looks like Vettel actually had a worse second half of the season in 2009. He did end strongly but when you analyse the season as a whole there's nothing to suggest he changed in any way.

It's a measure, certainly, but not necessarily the most important one IMO. For me the biggest variable is how his car is and whether anything has changed during a season. If we look at 2013, for example, everyone was predicting that Seb would sail away with it if the tyre construction was changed back to 2012 specs. And sure enough, as soon as that happened he disappeared into the sunset. Now you might take that as evidence that he learned to adapt to the tyres but the fact that even Pirelli admitted that a change would help the RBR tells me that it just meant that it allowed Seb to unlock its full potential. He was already leading the WDC at that point so was already driving well. I respect your position but I just see it differently

Well, yes but I'm not disputing that. I'm talking about whether there's any demonstrable difference between Seb's first and second halves and to my mind there generally isn't: he's pretty solid from start to finish, which in any event is a good thing. And where there have been changes they have usually had a solid technical reason (such as the tyres, for example).

Again, I'm not saying that Vettel doesn't learn anything at all but I don't see that the qualifying approach has changed much, if at all, over the last few years. He's an excellent qualifier, but there again when hasn't he been?

I strongly disagree about the talent side. He's not my favourite driver but there's no doubting he's very talented. I don't think you can dominate any sport for several years without having a great deal of talent. I agree that his mental strength and tenacity is second to none but there again I've always said that anyway. I pointed out that his 2010 title was in large part due to his resolve under pressure - although I would dispute it was a comeback for reasons already given - and was reminiscent of Kimi's fight in 2007 at the end. I just don't agree that he is a particularly slow starter and kicks in later in the year. The two years with the biggest variables were 2012 and 2013 and both years were heavily influenced by the tyres.

You still don't get it. The fact his rivals messed up was a factor in him winning the WDC that year. The proof of him not improving is in the points he won which were consistent from one half of the year to another. Once again, for you 2+2=5. You've shown you can't or won't understand this simple distinction. I see no reason to continue discussing with someone who insists on twisting everything like this even when it's been explained to them time and time again.

Zoue. I understand the distinction since I did not say that you said how Alonso's messing up his title was the "proof" of Vettel not improving. But that you used that very fact as the supporting evidence that to show us how Vettel actually "did not improve" that year. You specifically linked that failure of Alonso to win the title in that last race to Vettel's improvements as being the reason for those.

When I am being repeatedly told how I don't get it, that you were not making such a link between Alonso's screwing up his title and Vettel's improvements (or the luck off, for that matter), that you are not using that in your argumentation how Vettel did not make improvements, and that I am perhaps imaging it all in my head… I may start considering wether I am perhaps actually illusional or not.… then it is the sign for me to definitely leave such a place. I am getting too old for this fairy cakes.

Look at these two statements -from the same post above - and then tell me how I'm supposed to make head or tail of your position. How is anyone supposed to debate with you when you've denied you've said something even though you've quoted it in your very denial? What am I supposed to do with that?

And you look at those statements and tell me where do you see me saying "proof that Vettel didn't improve"? And just for your information, so that you hopefully might lower a little bit down that "sword" of yours:

"Most people think that proof and evidence are the same concepts, but they are not."
http://forensicandinvestigativeauditing ... dence.html

But you wondered what to make of my position on this one. I'll give it a try.

You took the clear position, contrary to what some people might had been thinking and claiming, that Vettel did not really improve. You spelled it clearly out. "he didn't improve". And in support to it, you stated that there were some other, to your mind more plausible reasons for those perceived improvements (not Vettel's own improvements). Yes, you could chose to say, for example, that "he didn't improve so much as his his car was better than all those other cars". Or, "he didn't improve so much as his teammate was not that good". Or something else as that reason. But you particularly went for that reason in 2010: "he didn't improve so much as his main rivals dropped off".

So you used that occurrence, that fact that his main rivals dropped off (or, as it would more precisely turn out: Alonso/Ferrari screwing up the title in that last race) as your empirical evidence that to support your said position how Vettel didn't improve (in spite what people may think and say that he did). And that was exactly what I said above.

It is your position/statement that Vettel did not improve, and it is your evidence that you use to convince us how you are right in what you are claiming to be the case. The proof? No, Zoue, you don't have any proof.

----------

Zoue, I am not wishing to have a quarrel with you here. There is just nothing real to fight and argue over anyway and I don't want to keep some bad feelings between us. I find it silly how much I can get lost in arguing for hours and days about nothing really. My fault. And I feel a shame for that weakness of mine that takes the control over my mind. That is why I want to take a break from it... Wish me good luck.

The Oxford Dictionary says differently:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proof?q=proof

No matter. It's word games. We could talk synonyms endlessly but what would it achieve? What do you really think is gained here?

I even re-quoted my original post to you but you still don't seem to get it, I'm afraid. I said Vettel didn't improve and gave evidence for that as the fact that he didn't get markedly more points in the second half of the season. I said it looked like he improved by the fact that his opponents were all over the place, whereas his own performance remained consistent, and elaborated on that in a reply to SmoothRide detailing all the points from a couple of main players. I don't know why you keep insisting that I claimed his opponents performance is proof of Vettel's own lack thereof, since that is never a claim I made. Even when I explain it to you you still keep repeating it, so I think we are really talking two different languages here. I don't think anything I say will actually get through to you and I don't even mean that from a point of view of convincing you of my argument. If we can't even agree on the meaning of the words I say then there's really no chance to move forward at all. From my perspective I want to focus on the bigger picture but you appear to want to analyse every single word seemingly irrespective of context. It makes for a very frustrating, not to mention pedantic, discussion and I just don't think we will ever resolve this. The word games of proof versus evidence is, no pun intended, evidence of that

I wish you luck

I don't think Vettel will struggle at all: he has enough talent to get the most out of any car. Top drivers are usually very consistent; it is the cars which are unknown each season.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

Without struggling, how can Vettel find his optimal setup with new regulations? Being a 4 times Formula 1 Drivers' World Champion does not give you to the permission to show miracles.

_________________
109_6 For you is your faith, and for me, my faith.

You asked me to explain my position on what I said, and I did it. And you do not give me even for the right what exact post and exact statement of yours I was referring even when was quoting your words several time by now. No. You want to go re-quoting me whatever else you chose.

Please pay some more close attention this time.

"When he has improved in the second half - to my mind only 2012 and 2013 qualify - it's not necessarily because he has learned better than his opponents: there have been other, to my mind more plausible, reasons for these improvements. Even in 2010 when he came from way behind to clinch the title, when you look beyond the stats you will see that he didn't improve so much as his main rivals dropped off: Seb stayed consistent all year long. So in the end I'm saying that his success has been down to strong all-year performance, not due to adapting part way through the year".

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9680&start=40#p401247

There, not only that you are not arguing that other line of your evidence "that he didn't get markedly more points in the second half of the season", but you are even asking us to look beyond those stats there where the same do not support your above expressed position that Vettel did not really learn/improve better than his opponents even in those years where the stats would suggest that he was. There, you are reaching for another kind of evidence, beyond those stats, that would establish your claim that Vettel did not really learn/improve more than others. There, you even include 2010 with your particular evidence why we should understand that Vettel did not learn/improve.
(as far as that "strong all-year performance" last line, it is not even related to Vettel's learning/improving but: success)




And no, I definitely never said that you claimed that Vettels' opponents' performance was the proof of Vettel's own lack thereof.
(here, you even use the completely wrong word 'performance' that is not at all same what 'learning' or 'improving' is to mean, but I'll assume it was not meant)

What I am saying is, you used Alonso and Webber failing to win that title in Abu Dhabi) as your evidence to support your above expressed position how Vettel did not learn/improve (even no matter what the stats/points might say to us otherwise; we should look beyond those). You are wanting us to understand how Vettel did not learn/improve, and that is what you are using that fact of Alonso failing. Call it "fact" or "evidence" or "proof" of whatever, I don't even care. Go sticking to one word and refusing to se the real context and the meaning. Be my guest.



Well, maybe for a change you might try to understand what exactly post of yours I am discussing here instead of respiting something else. Then you will surely succeed to get through.



Agreeing on the meaning of the words…? How about starting agreeing on what post/statement of yours I have been referring to with that my comment?

Never mind. So, you say that it is about your "bigger picture".

Well, there it is. Right there in that same above quoted post of yours that I have been referring to all the time, and that you have been attempting to replace with some other, so called "OP" of yours. There, where you are asking us to look beyond those stats. That would be the bigger picture, wouldn't it, looking beyond the stats? You use the stats when they are in your favor to support your position that Vettel did not learn/improve any better than his opponents. But that would cover only a couple of years at the best, no? Then, to get that bigger picture of yours, you are asking us to look beyond those stats.

Your "small picture": People, look at the stats, and you will see that Vettel did not learn/improve any better than his rivals in year 2010 and 2011.

Your "bigger picture": People, look beyond those stats, and you will see that Vettel did not learn/improve any better than his rivals in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

And you accuse me for not seeing that bigger picture of yours, and how frustrating that must be for you?



Thanks, but feeling the effect yet…

This thread is giving me heartburn.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany

It's a bit rich you accusing me of fixating on one word when that's pretty much what you've been doing all along. The above quote does not say that Alonso and Webber failing to win supported the fact that Vettel didn't improve. That's a connection you are making. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't mention any names (apart from Vettel) I qualified what I meant by saying that Seb.remained consistent all year long; i.e. it wasn't 2nd half improvement but consistency which characterised his season. I further qualified it in a later post by listing the points situation for several drivers which showed that Vettel's overall performance level remained constant, in contrast to his rivals where there was a much bigger variance.

In an attempt to explain further, I'll submit the offending statement again with one slight alteration:

Even in 2010 (when he came from way behind to clinch the title), when you look beyond the stats you will see that he didn't improve so much as his main rivals dropped off: Seb stayed consistent all year long.

If you remove the bit in brackets the sentence will say exactly the same thing: the additional qualifier just sets the scene of him winning from behind (at the halfway point) but the point of the sentence is to say that Vettel stayed consistent through the year while his rivals weren't. The rivals' failure to win the title may have been a consequence of their inconsistency, while Seb's consistency was a major factor in him clinching the title, but that's completely different to saying that their inconsistency was the reason why Seb didn't improve. That's one assumption too far.

and a headache.

No, Zoue, it does not say exactly "failing to win", apparently so, but "dropped off". But you explained it more closely in other terms too such as: "Alonso / Ferrari messed up at the last race", and "threw it away at the end". And you are grabbing me for my throat now for taking the liberty to use "failing to win" instead of "throwing away" or "messing up"? Please. What is wrong with you?



Oh, no Zoue, you did't mention any names there in "his main rivals dropped off". But pray, shall we guess whom did you mean, and whom did you referred to in our exchange? Now, shall we not mention any more any names of those Vettel's rivals that "dropped off" in that last race in 2010? No, we shall not. Seriously so.

As far as that sentence of yours that you wish us to focus now on as if that would take anything away from the rest what you said there and what I was referring to, but no again. I even mentioned that one already.

In that sentence you spoke not about consistency as the supposed evidence for Vettel not learning/improving. But about the reason for his success that ought to be seen not in his ability to adapt, but his consistency.

"his success has been down to strong all-year performance, not due to adapting part way through the year"

There, you were not trying to qualify your statement how Vettel did not learn/improve. As you would won't to twist it now. But you used by you said lack of Vettel's learning/improving to explain his success.



Further? Zoue, you have become like a fish on a dry, flipping around in the beach sand. You have dragged yourself down to such extreme level of arguing how you did not use the expression "failing to win" when saying "dropped off". And that you did not specifically mention any names when saying "his main rivals". And I got to explain to you how you used Vettel's lack of improvement to attribute his success to his consistency and not the consistency to explain his lack of improvement.

Please, don't submit me anything further. I really don't care for your explanations further. You asked me to explain my position behind what I said, and I did. If you did not get that by now, never mind. But I am not interested debating with you further whatever other posts or statements of yours, with whatever alternations to those you wish to make. I wouldn't give it a flying fig.

Your eventual further "explanation", I won't even go opening this thread to look at it. And would you wish to go pleasing yourself with submitting your further explanations, you do it for your own self and whomever else here you want.

I did actually say before that we should stop but you continued with your poisonous diatribe and insisted with your lies. You don't just do it with me but others, too. I'll quite happily stop as long as you stop accusing me of saying things I didn't, for which I will defend myself. It's been a deeply unpleasant experience discussing with you and in all the time I've been posting on here I don't think I've come across anybody as breathlessly arrogant and deceitful.

It's beyond me how a perfectly reasonable opinion like "I believe Vettel remains very consistent throughout a season" can cause such a big discussion. Someone believes Vettel's main trait is consistency right from the start of a season instead of adaptability throughout the season. It's a compliment given by someone that isn't even a fan. The amount of venom it has created... I don't understand this at all.

I don't know if I fully agree with it either (I know I do for 2013 though) but it's an opinion, and a substantiated one at that.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Thank you. I wasn't expecting quite so much controversy when I said I thought Vettel was good all year

It boggles the mind how far it's gone here.

_________________