planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:35 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20560
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
If it's stipulated by the FIA it's hardly a design flaw. I don't see it, sorry

What don't you see? The point he's making is very simple. Given the malfunction with the headrest, the car that Hamilton was driving was always going to have to make that additional stop. Because of that, it was not the better car to be in that day. Is that not painfully obvious?

I see the point he's making, as I already mentioned in previous reply to you. I just don't agree with the definition of better car that is being made. Why can't you see (or accept) that?

There's no denying Vettel got lucky, which he somewhat mitigated by his actions against Lewis. But the original discussion was about which car was better on any given weekend and I don't agree that something like this shows a worse car. I believe it gives a false impression of how it was that weekend. Lewis had a better car, but worse luck. That I can agree with

I think you're missing the point of the exercise to be honest. He's trying to isolate driver performance. He has made corrections for races with mechanical or other car issues. This is such a race.

In the original discussion, everyone had Baku as a Mercedes track. The discussion we're having now is a different one.

In the original discussion, he said "better car." All I'm challenging is the terminology and I was at pains to acknowledge that it was a question of semantics but I felt the distinction was important. To me. Better gives a false impression, is what I'm saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20560
lamo wrote:
That's right, a different discussion here all together and I think a more accurate one.

Similarly, If Vettels steering issue caused him to DNF in Hungary, the fact he had a car advantage that weekend would have be meaningless.

I don't really agree with this logic. The Ferrari was the car to have in Hungary and the fact that having pole meant that he could still win even with a damaged car illustrates how important having the right car on Saturday is. I just can't get my head around saying the Mercedes was the car to have, even with Vettel's damaged steering. That's a separate issue as to which one was better. I accept you may feel i'm being pedantic but I think it's important to get these things right, that's all

I know what you are trying to say but if i ignore the terminology being used i feel it will give rise to different debates further down the line. I don't know why you can't just say that x driver was (un)lucky in whichever race, rather than try to confuse it by describing the cars in what I feel is a misleading (even if not intentionally) way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11980
Zoue wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was perhaps a question of semantics, but it seems you missed that bit. I simply feel that calling a car "better" gives a false impression of the weekend. I've acknowledged Vettel was lucky and Hamilton unlucky, but it appears that's not enough for you?


It's not relevant. I think you're tried to cloud an issue that is quite black and white really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20560
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was perhaps a question of semantics, but it seems you missed that bit. I simply feel that calling a car "better" gives a false impression of the weekend. I've acknowledged Vettel was lucky and Hamilton unlucky, but it appears that's not enough for you?


It's not relevant. I think you're tried to cloud an issue that is quite black and white really.

And that's where I respectfully disagree. I think the terminology being used is clouding the issue. I'm just trying to set that straight..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11980
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was perhaps a question of semantics, but it seems you missed that bit. I simply feel that calling a car "better" gives a false impression of the weekend. I've acknowledged Vettel was lucky and Hamilton unlucky, but it appears that's not enough for you?


It's not relevant. I think you're tried to cloud an issue that is quite black and white really.

And that's where I respectfully disagree. I think the terminology being used is clouding the issue. I'm just trying to set that straight..


Does it matter... We all now what Lamo means even if you might not lie that exact wording.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20560
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was perhaps a question of semantics, but it seems you missed that bit. I simply feel that calling a car "better" gives a false impression of the weekend. I've acknowledged Vettel was lucky and Hamilton unlucky, but it appears that's not enough for you?


It's not relevant. I think you're tried to cloud an issue that is quite black and white really.

And that's where I respectfully disagree. I think the terminology being used is clouding the issue. I'm just trying to set that straight..


Does it matter... We all now what Lamo means even if you might not lie that exact wording.

So you accept it, that's fine. I don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8494
How would Wehrlein be doing? After all he was the guy who nearly got the seat.

Its debatable if he would have won a race, but I don't see him being much more than 20 points off Bottas unless he made rookie errors and had DNFs. Maybe Kimi would have got him at a few more races. I think he has fallen down the pecking order.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11980
lamo wrote:
How would Wehrlein be doing? After all he was the guy who nearly got the seat.

Its debatable if he would have won a race, but I don't see him being much more than 20 points off Bottas unless he made rookie errors and had DNFs. Maybe Kimi would have got him at a few more races. I think he has fallen down the pecking order.


Probably fairly similar on points. He's not crash happy and really even if you drive a poor race you'll probably be fourth at worst in the Merc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2211
KingVoid wrote:
In a worse car, Hamilton would also be more prone to off-weekends which would have given Rosberg a better chance of beating/staying close to him over an entire season. That's exactly what happened in 2013.


Indeed, again 'motivation' comes into play (which so many people fail to take into account on this forum). Look at Vettel in 2013, the first year he was out of the running for the WDC... perhaps that's why people rate Alonso so highly, because even in a useless car he stills keeps his motivation.

Also if Rosberg had stayed he would no doubt feel that as the reigning WDC he would be driving for himself and not for the team so much. I have to say Rosberg did the smartest thing quitting at the top, I just hope he doesn't come back and mess it up.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8494
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1607
ALESI wrote:
I have to say Rosberg did the smartest thing quitting at the top, I just hope he doesn't come back and mess it up.

In my idealistic world I want Nico to come back in the 3rd/4th best car (like the 2003-2004 Renault), beat his teammate, score a handful of podiums and maybe even a race win. I reckon his reputation would actually improve from a season like that.

Unfortunately I can't see it happen. From all the interviews I've seen, he really does seem done with F1. :-|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 910
lamo wrote:
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s

I didn't just mean this race which I clearly was wrong. But you rarely try to find reasons for Bottas being slow at times and then one time you forgot about Bottas's problem in Bahrain until I mentioned it. Before that you just seemed to say his pace was poor the entire race without considering his issues. I accept I was wrong here with Hamilton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1848
KingVoid wrote:
ALESI wrote:
I have to say Rosberg did the smartest thing quitting at the top, I just hope he doesn't come back and mess it up.

In my idealistic world I want Nico to come back in the 3rd/4th best car (like the 2003-2004 Renault), beat his teammate, score a handful of podiums and maybe even a race win. I reckon his reputation would actually improve from a season like that.

Unfortunately I can't see it happen. From all the interviews I've seen, he really does seem done with F1. :-|

So what you want is basically a rerun of Rosberg's Williams career ;).

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 1607
Nostalgia is powerful :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8494
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
lamo wrote:
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s

I didn't just mean this race which I clearly was wrong. But you rarely try to find reasons for Bottas being slow at times and then one time you forgot about Bottas's problem in Bahrain until I mentioned it. Before that you just seemed to say his pace was poor the entire race without considering his issues. I accept I was wrong here with Hamilton.


If you are slow and have issues, you are just even slower. That is what happened in Bahrain.

Bahrain he had a tyre issue in the first stint, but then they put on another set of the same tyre without the pressure issue for the 2nd stint and he was still slow. So the fact he had a tyre pressure issue in the first stint is kind of irrelevant if we are discussing Bottas' race pace.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 910
lamo wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
lamo wrote:
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s

I didn't just mean this race which I clearly was wrong. But you rarely try to find reasons for Bottas being slow at times and then one time you forgot about Bottas's problem in Bahrain until I mentioned it. Before that you just seemed to say his pace was poor the entire race without considering his issues. I accept I was wrong here with Hamilton.


If you are slow and have issues, you are just even slower. That is what happened in Bahrain.

Bahrain he had a tyre issue in the first stint, but then they put on another set of the same tyre without the pressure issue for the 2nd stint and he was still slow. So the fact he had a tyre pressure issue in the first stint is kind of irrelevant if we are discussing Bottas' race pace.


OK, I'm sorry about saying you make excuses. That was a little unreasonable of me. But I still don't think Bottas will have actually been slow in the first stint in Bahrain if it wasn't for his issues. You can say his overall pace was slow as that was true. But if he was slow and had issues that made him even slower, how on earth could the drivers not overtake him in the first stint? I am pretty certain he'll have either matched them in the 1st stint or possibly been marginally better considering they couldn't overtake a car with tyre issues. If they couldn't get past when Bottas had issues as well as having slow pace, then that is rather strange. I think Bottas did very well in the first bit to keep them behind considering his circumstances.

After their pit stops, Bottas actually looked very strong on the first lap. He very nearly got past Vettel. It was after that his pace seemed off. The commentators on Channel 4 did praise Bottas for his attempt this and said it reminded them of the scrap Hamilton and Rosberg had in 2014. I think That Bottas's move will have worked out if Vettel hadn't pushed him off but he had the right to do what he did. Bottas overall wasn't very strong, but I don't think he was the whole time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 910
lamo wrote:
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s


Just to add to this, maybe Bottas actually did struggle a little towards the end because of his drinks problem? https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... ilure.html

"Valtteri Bottas has revealed that his eyesight began to suffer in the closing stages of Sunday’s Singapore Grand Prix as a result of dehydration."

"Even with the night-time start, the temperature was just below 30 degrees Celsius when the race got underway, and with cockpit temperatures known to hover around the 60-degree mark and drivers capable of sweating out up to 3kg of bodyweight, it's little wonder that Bottas began to struggle."


Maybe he could have done a little better towards the end if it wasn't for this. We just don't know. When Hamilton is slow, it often is assumed by many that there is a reason behind it. There often is. But this also could often be the case for Bottas at certain stages of some races as reports like this have come out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8494
How would Bottas have been quick in the first stint in Bahrain if not for his tyre pressure issue? He put the same tyre on in the 2nd stint with correct tyre pressures and was slow? Your view of that race is very warped. They coudn't pass him because you needed to be 1.0+ second plus a lap to pass. The fact that he made a good SC restart is rather meaningless when he was discussing his race pace. He was 12.5 seconds behind Vettel after 13 racing laps, then Bottas pitted again.

I think the expectation of Bottas is to be poor in at least 1 stint per race and ok/quick in the other. Even in his 2 wins this was evident.

I don't think Hamilton needs excuses for his race pace, he has had 1 poor race pace in Russia and works both tyres fine.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Last edited by lamo on Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2762
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
lamo wrote:
Giant>

This explains why Bottas was as quick as Hamilton for large parts of the dry part of the race. I know you said I was "making excuses" for Hamilton saying he was managing the race, but here it is from the head of strategy.

https://youtu.be/5gPNgszQKnI?t=5m18s


Just to add to this, maybe Bottas actually did struggle a little towards the end because of his drinks problem? https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... ilure.html

"Valtteri Bottas has revealed that his eyesight began to suffer in the closing stages of Sunday’s Singapore Grand Prix as a result of dehydration."

"Even with the night-time start, the temperature was just below 30 degrees Celsius when the race got underway, and with cockpit temperatures known to hover around the 60-degree mark and drivers capable of sweating out up to 3kg of bodyweight, it's little wonder that Bottas began to struggle."


Maybe he could have done a little better towards the end if it wasn't for this. We just don't know. When Hamilton is slow, it often is assumed by many that there is a reason behind it. There often is. But this also could often be the case for Bottas at certain stages of some races as reports like this have come out.


But his pace was better at the end of the race. In the early stages of the race he was struggling to pull away from a Renault!


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: motorfinger 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