planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:11 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic

Hamilton/Ferrari vs Hamilton Merc
Hamilton/Ferrari concedes WDC earlier than Vettel/Ferrari 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Hamilton/Ferrari concedes WDC at the same time as Vettel/Ferrari 8%  8%  [ 4 ]
Hamilton/Ferrari concedes WDC later than Vettel/Ferrari 21%  21%  [ 10 ]
Hamilton/Ferrari takes WDC to final race, but too close to call 35%  35%  [ 17 ]
Hamilton/Ferrari wins WDC 31%  31%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 48
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I'm scratching my head at the bolded part. Hamilton's bad start at Silverstone cost him 2 positions. Did you miss the part where Raikkonen crashed into him and sent him to the back? He still finished the race in second so to suggest that his start is what cost him the race is dubious. He could still have won that race up to the point where Raikkonen hit him.

And what mistake did he make at Spa? He didn't make a mistake at the start there. He got away just as quickly as Vettel there but he was a sitting duck on the straight. Vettel was by him very early there and with ease. It seems you're embellishing quite a bit here Zoue while making excuses for Vettel.

I think what Zoue means that if he didn't lose the two positions at the start in GB then he wouldn't have been hit by Raikkonen in the first place. His recovery showed that he had the speed to win, so a decent getaway would have won him the race.

Yeah he had a poor start which cost him a couple of places, whereas he should have led from pole and remained untouchable and won the race. It's a pretty small mistake overall and I wouldn't normally bring it up but just highlighting that it's rare for anyone to have a perfect season

On that we agree. In fact it's more than rare. It has never actually happened. Every driver makes some errors every season. Some errors are small and some are big. The closest to perfection I've seen in recent years would be Schumacher in 2002. He was on the podium in every race that year and won 11 out of 17. He still made mistakes though. You'll never see a human being go a whole season literally without getting anything wrong.

I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:48 pm
Posts: 584
Zoue wrote:
It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Have to agree with that. Just because the mistake wasn't big, doesn't mean the consequences won't be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2961
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I'm scratching my head at the bolded part. Hamilton's bad start at Silverstone cost him 2 positions. Did you miss the part where Raikkonen crashed into him and sent him to the back? He still finished the race in second so to suggest that his start is what cost him the race is dubious. He could still have won that race up to the point where Raikkonen hit him.

And what mistake did he make at Spa? He didn't make a mistake at the start there. He got away just as quickly as Vettel there but he was a sitting duck on the straight. Vettel was by him very early there and with ease. It seems you're embellishing quite a bit here Zoue while making excuses for Vettel.

I think what Zoue means that if he didn't lose the two positions at the start in GB then he wouldn't have been hit by Raikkonen in the first place. His recovery showed that he had the speed to win, so a decent getaway would have won him the race.

Yeah he had a poor start which cost him a couple of places, whereas he should have led from pole and remained untouchable and won the race. It's a pretty small mistake overall and I wouldn't normally bring it up but just highlighting that it's rare for anyone to have a perfect season

On that we agree. In fact it's more than rare. It has never actually happened. Every driver makes some errors every season. Some errors are small and some are big. The closest to perfection I've seen in recent years would be Schumacher in 2002. He was on the podium in every race that year and won 11 out of 17. He still made mistakes though. You'll never see a human being go a whole season literally without getting anything wrong.

I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2961
pokerman wrote:
Baku was a swing of 20 points given that Vettel wins the race and Hamilton finishes second after Bottas' puncture as opposed to Hamilton winning and Vettel finishing 4th.


In Austria Vettel lost the race win due to his penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I think what Zoue means that if he didn't lose the two positions at the start in GB then he wouldn't have been hit by Raikkonen in the first place. His recovery showed that he had the speed to win, so a decent getaway would have won him the race.

Yeah he had a poor start which cost him a couple of places, whereas he should have led from pole and remained untouchable and won the race. It's a pretty small mistake overall and I wouldn't normally bring it up but just highlighting that it's rare for anyone to have a perfect season

On that we agree. In fact it's more than rare. It has never actually happened. Every driver makes some errors every season. Some errors are small and some are big. The closest to perfection I've seen in recent years would be Schumacher in 2002. He was on the podium in every race that year and won 11 out of 17. He still made mistakes though. You'll never see a human being go a whole season literally without getting anything wrong.

I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5480
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.

Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2961
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.

Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.

Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

I maintain that saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing and I just can't agree with that. Happy to put it down to a misunderstanding.

Re: the comparison: the argument has never been that Hamilton has made comparable mistakes to Vettel this season, so unclear what you are trying to say here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I think what Zoue means that if he didn't lose the two positions at the start in GB then he wouldn't have been hit by Raikkonen in the first place. His recovery showed that he had the speed to win, so a decent getaway would have won him the race.

That's a stretch. You can't blame a driver for being hit by another driver where the other guy is completely at fault. What Zoue seems to be trying to do is make it seem like Hamilton has made the same kinds of mistakes that Vettel has this year (which is patently absurd).

Indeed like we have to keep hearing that Vettel crashing out while leading in Germany was just a small mistake, it cost him 32 points.

It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Baku was a swing of 20 points given that Vettel wins the race and Hamilton finishes second after Bottas' puncture as opposed to Hamilton winning and Vettel finishing 4th.

He did say "ignoring the freak error"

Indeed but then again how can you ignore what actually happened and is the actual points lost because of Vettel's mistake?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
F1_Ernie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Baku was a swing of 20 points given that Vettel wins the race and Hamilton finishes second after Bottas' puncture as opposed to Hamilton winning and Vettel finishing 4th.


In Austria Vettel lost the race win due to his penalty.

Yeah I know, I thought that was a bit unfortunate for Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Yeah he had a poor start which cost him a couple of places, whereas he should have led from pole and remained untouchable and won the race. It's a pretty small mistake overall and I wouldn't normally bring it up but just highlighting that it's rare for anyone to have a perfect season

On that we agree. In fact it's more than rare. It has never actually happened. Every driver makes some errors every season. Some errors are small and some are big. The closest to perfection I've seen in recent years would be Schumacher in 2002. He was on the podium in every race that year and won 11 out of 17. He still made mistakes though. You'll never see a human being go a whole season literally without getting anything wrong.

I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

The majority of people think that it was.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I think what Zoue means that if he didn't lose the two positions at the start in GB then he wouldn't have been hit by Raikkonen in the first place. His recovery showed that he had the speed to win, so a decent getaway would have won him the race.

That's a stretch. You can't blame a driver for being hit by another driver where the other guy is completely at fault. What Zoue seems to be trying to do is make it seem like Hamilton has made the same kinds of mistakes that Vettel has this year (which is patently absurd).

Indeed like we have to keep hearing that Vettel crashing out while leading in Germany was just a small mistake, it cost him 32 points.

It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity


Last edited by Zoue on Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
On that we agree. In fact it's more than rare. It has never actually happened. Every driver makes some errors every season. Some errors are small and some are big. The closest to perfection I've seen in recent years would be Schumacher in 2002. He was on the podium in every race that year and won 11 out of 17. He still made mistakes though. You'll never see a human being go a whole season literally without getting anything wrong.

I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

The majority of people think that it was.

Missing the point


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.

Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

I maintain that saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing and I just can't agree with that. Happy to put it down to a misunderstanding.

Re: the comparison: the argument has never been that Hamilton has made comparable mistakes to Vettel this season, so unclear what you are trying to say here.

Whoever said that it was a static thing?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't disagree. And yet the premise here seems to be what would the situation be like if another Hamilton came in instead of Vettel and made no errors.


Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

The majority of people think that it was.

Missing the point

Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
It wasn't faster in every race but it was faster in most of the races and it hasn't failed mechanically even once while the Mercedes has. So assuming we have literally the same driver in both cars, the guy with the faster more reliable car collectively speaking would be ahead. That's simple logic.

Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

I maintain that saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing and I just can't agree with that. Happy to put it down to a misunderstanding.

Re: the comparison: the argument has never been that Hamilton has made comparable mistakes to Vettel this season, so unclear what you are trying to say here.

Whoever said that it was a static thing?

It would help matters greatly in these discussions if you would at least try to read the posts you are replying to before composing your reply. It would avoid much unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing.

I said "saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Has Hamilton made any driving errors this year? Driving a car which was faster until Singapore would mean Hamilton is even less likely to make errors, based on his performances this season Hamilton would take full advantage of having the better car when it mattered.

He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

The majority of people think that it was.

Missing the point

Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2961
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Sure, but it gets complicated when trying to agree which car was faster when, which is a whole other can of worms as I know we don't agree on that and likely never will. My point in answering the previous post was to contend the blanket assertion that the Ferrari was the faster car until Singapore, which is a little too simplistic and misleading in my view and distorts the true picture


It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

I maintain that saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing and I just can't agree with that. Happy to put it down to a misunderstanding.

Re: the comparison: the argument has never been that Hamilton has made comparable mistakes to Vettel this season, so unclear what you are trying to say here.

Whoever said that it was a static thing?

It would help matters greatly in these discussions if you would at least try to read the posts you are replying to before composing your reply. It would avoid much unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing.

I said "saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing."


You are reading way too much into that, it's pretty obvious what I meant.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
That's a stretch. You can't blame a driver for being hit by another driver where the other guy is completely at fault. What Zoue seems to be trying to do is make it seem like Hamilton has made the same kinds of mistakes that Vettel has this year (which is patently absurd).

Indeed like we have to keep hearing that Vettel crashing out while leading in Germany was just a small mistake, it cost him 32 points.

It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity

If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
F1_Ernie wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Hamilton might have had a few off weekends but who doesn't? I would take that over making errors which send the car to the back of the grid 3 times and a dnf, you simply cant do that in a title race.

I maintain that saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing and I just can't agree with that. Happy to put it down to a misunderstanding.

Re: the comparison: the argument has never been that Hamilton has made comparable mistakes to Vettel this season, so unclear what you are trying to say here.

Whoever said that it was a static thing?

It would help matters greatly in these discussions if you would at least try to read the posts you are replying to before composing your reply. It would avoid much unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing.

I said "saying the Ferrari "was faster until Singapore" gives the impression that it was a static thing."


You are reading way too much into that, it's pretty obvious what I meant.

Well in all fairness I did write earlier that I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding. I would have left it at that and I'm only responding now because pokerman seems intent on making an issue of it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
He's made a couple, yes, see above, but nothing really significant and certainly much less than Vettel. And we'll have to agree to disagree with the idea that Vettel was driving a car which was faster until Singapore. I know there have been a number of discussions on the subject but most agree there has been some level of fluctuation. A blanket Ferrari was faster until Singapore is a little too generalist IMO.

The majority of people think that it was.

Missing the point

Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before

Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Indeed like we have to keep hearing that Vettel crashing out while leading in Germany was just a small mistake, it cost him 32 points.

It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity

If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The majority of people think that it was.

Missing the point

Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before

Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It was a small mistake. You appear to be confusing actions with consequences

Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity

If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion

The size of the mistake is pertinent to what it costs you surely not?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2007
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Crashing out from the lead of a race is not a small mistake, he crashed because it started to rain harder and he misjudged the conditions which no other driver did, this has become a theme of him falling down in tricky conditions were it's not just a small mistake but a pattern.
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity

If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion

The size of the mistake is pertinent to what it costs you surely not?


Not at all.

It was a minor error, just had bigger consequences.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Missing the point

Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before

Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.

Quote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Why would they give that impression given what they said highlighted in blue?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Your point being that unless Ferrari is faster everytime then we can't say it is faster?

I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before

Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.

Quote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Why would they give that impression given what they said highlighted in blue?

Because they'd said that after I'd raised the objection. And when I replied to the above post I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, so why are you insistent on trying to make mileage out of it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Again, you appear confused. Crashing out is the consequence, which was big. Locking the rears was a small mistake but the conditions meant he was unable to recover from it. Mistakes and consequences don't always go hand in hand. In Baku, for example, it could be argued that by overshooting and locking up his mistake was bigger, but the consequences were much smaller.

James Allen called it "the tiniest of rear-wheel lockups." I don't see why he'd say that if it was a big error. And even Verstappen said the conditions were tricky and it could have happened to anyone. I think there's a certain degree of schadenfreude going on here and not a lot of objectivity

If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion

The size of the mistake is pertinent to what it costs you surely not?


Not at all.

It was a minor error, just had bigger consequences.

Well we see things differently, it cost Vettel 32 points, for me big mistake, a mistake that costs you next to nothing is what I would call a minor error.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2007
pokerman wrote:
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
If you make a small mistake at Monaco then you're liable to be into the wall, a mistake is a mistake but we call it a small mistake so as to be almost no mistake.

I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion

The size of the mistake is pertinent to what it costs you surely not?


Not at all.

It was a minor error, just had bigger consequences.

Well we see things differently, it cost Vettel 32 points, for me big mistake, a mistake that costs you next to nothing is what I would call a minor error.


The mistake is the same no matter what it costs.

I've dropped my phone several times. The first 3 times it was fine, there was no damage. The 4th time I broke my screen. The same mistake cost me so much more the last time I did it.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1886
Herb wrote:

The mistake is the same no matter what it costs.

I've dropped my phone several times. The first 3 times it was fine, there was no damage. The 4th time I broke my screen. The same mistake cost me so much more the last time I did it.


On any of those occasions did you drop your phone into the bath.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Invade wrote:
Herb wrote:

The mistake is the same no matter what it costs.

I've dropped my phone several times. The first 3 times it was fine, there was no damage. The 4th time I broke my screen. The same mistake cost me so much more the last time I did it.


On any of those occasions did you drop your phone into the bath.

This won't be a problem with newer phones!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I've explained the point. Multiple times. I don't think I can add anything else if you ignore what's gone before

Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.

Quote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Why would they give that impression given what they said highlighted in blue?

Because they'd said that after I'd raised the objection. And when I replied to the above post I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, so why are you insistent on trying to make mileage out of it?

I'm surprised by the misunderstanding and got caught out, who would seriously venture that the Ferrari had been the fastest car in every race up to Singapore?

I read it as it was meant to be read and then couldn't understand what your problem was, another misunderstanding it seems?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Ignore what, am I just being a bit dense here, static means one car being faster all the time, who said this, F1_Ernie didn't?

I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.

Quote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Why would they give that impression given what they said highlighted in blue?

Because they'd said that after I'd raised the objection. And when I replied to the above post I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, so why are you insistent on trying to make mileage out of it?

I'm surprised by the misunderstanding and got caught out, who would seriously venture that the Ferrari had been the fastest car in every race up to Singapore?

I read it as it was meant to be read and then couldn't understand what your problem was, another misunderstanding it seems?

you are determined to flog this horse to death, it seems?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think even you believes that when discussing a driver's performance we shouldn't differentiate between small and large mistakes. Clearly when talking about how well or poorly they've done the size of error is relevant to the discussion

The size of the mistake is pertinent to what it costs you surely not?


Not at all.

It was a minor error, just had bigger consequences.

Well we see things differently, it cost Vettel 32 points, for me big mistake, a mistake that costs you next to nothing is what I would call a minor error.


The mistake is the same no matter what it costs.

I've dropped my phone several times. The first 3 times it was fine, there was no damage. The 4th time I broke my screen. The same mistake cost me so much more the last time I did it.

Not in the context of trying to win a WDC title though, as for your phone now you have the damage maybe you might buy a case for it? :)

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 27960
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I just don't think you're reading it properly, sorry. Saying somebody gives the impression something is static is not the same as claiming they said something was static. I have explained this.

Quote:
It's not simplistic at all, Ferrari was the overall fastest car up until Singapore, not in each grand prix but collectively over the 14 races. A view shared by many and was still talked about at the last grand prix. The same view is Vettel didnt take advantage.

Why would they give that impression given what they said highlighted in blue?

Because they'd said that after I'd raised the objection. And when I replied to the above post I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, so why are you insistent on trying to make mileage out of it?

I'm surprised by the misunderstanding and got caught out, who would seriously venture that the Ferrari had been the fastest car in every race up to Singapore?

I read it as it was meant to be read and then couldn't understand what your problem was, another misunderstanding it seems?

you are determined to flog this horse to death, it seems?

No I thought that came across as being my last word on the matter, you saw something in a post nobody else saw, then I couldn't understand why you kept talking about things not being static.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Because they'd said that after I'd raised the objection. And when I replied to the above post I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, so why are you insistent on trying to make mileage out of it?

I'm surprised by the misunderstanding and got caught out, who would seriously venture that the Ferrari had been the fastest car in every race up to Singapore?

I read it as it was meant to be read and then couldn't understand what your problem was, another misunderstanding it seems?

you are determined to flog this horse to death, it seems?

No I thought that came across as being my last word on the matter, you saw something in a post nobody else saw, then I couldn't understand why you kept talking about things not being static.

Actually, the one who keeps talking about it is you. The actual exchange was a lot briefer than the issue you appear determined to make out of it. It should have died the moment I said I was happy to put it down to a misunderstanding, but it seems it's not something you're prepared or able to let go


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:13 pm
Posts: 294
Please, gentlemen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 4:05 am
Posts: 316
Better question - Will Hamilton ever drive for Ferrari in F1?


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: Alienturnedhuman, BMWSauber84, kleefton, UnlikeUday and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group