planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:58 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.

I've no idea. Personally I think claiming some kind of scientific validity for any cross-driver comparisons based on who beat who when is dodgy at best. Vandoorne being worse in his 2nd year - I'll take your word for that - while Massa appeared to improve just goes to show that these stats are highly variable and relying on them as proof in this way is anything but scientific

There's variance in drivers much like we see in every race, if a driver is 2 tenths quicker it doesn't mean he is 2 tenths quicker in every race, these are career stats, if a driver's history is to be ignored then how do we judge who are the quickest drivers, I use mathematics which basically have no bias and separate to my own personal bias, if future stats show Verstappen to be quicker than Hamilton, which may well be the case, then so be it.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3490
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

I'm comparing relative performance as opposed to actual results.

Yes, I know that. I think it's easier for Bottas to be close to Hamilton in a quick car that's well set up and stable. Do you disagree? It seems common sense that it's easier to drive one of the best cars in the field compared to one of the worst.


That is not necessarily true. Just because a car is the fastest doesn't mean that it's also the easiest to drive. It may well be the case, but not always. In the case of the mercedes, numerous times the car has visually seemed out of sorts on Fridays and in practice 3 and they still set pole. I think it has a lot to do with the peak downforce levels they are able to achieve, the engine power, combined with driver skill of course. So yeah I disagree. A fast car is definitely not always easiest to drive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
kleefton wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

I'm comparing relative performance as opposed to actual results.

Yes, I know that. I think it's easier for Bottas to be close to Hamilton in a quick car that's well set up and stable. Do you disagree? It seems common sense that it's easier to drive one of the best cars in the field compared to one of the worst.


That is not necessarily true. Just because a car is the fastest doesn't mean that it's also the easiest to drive. It may well be the case, but not always. In the case of the mercedes, numerous times the car has visually seemed out of sorts on Fridays and in practice 3 and they still set pole. I think it has a lot to do with the peak downforce levels they are able to achieve, the engine power, combined with driver skill of course. So yeah I disagree. A fast car is definitely not always easiest to drive.

Indeed the Mercedes car and diva have been words used in recent years.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1945
Location: Miami, Florida
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

I believe he's going on the assumption that the 2007 McLaren and Ferrari were identical because of Spygate (I don't agree) and saying that the pair of them had a Mercedes-like advantage over anyone else.

I know what he's saying but that's not how you perceive someone to have a dominant car, so after all Alonso had dominant cars both in 2005, 2006 and 2007, which would be a far cry from unlike Hamilton and Vettel, Alonso never had a dominant car?

I don’t understand how you can say that 4 cars having only themselves to contend with over a complete season doesn’t make them dominant. And those 4 cars indeed shared a few “characteristics” with the Ferraris.

I have a good friend who was a McLaren engineer for a long time who still has ties with the team who is in the know of how spygate unfolded better than most people, but a bit of proper research will turn up facts that clearly outline how and why the McLarens and Ferrari’s of 2007 were so closely matched.

And that is precisely why McLaren was hit with a $100,000,000.00 fine! That Ron Dennis was unaware of the entire scheme is of no consequence, and the FIA and everyone involved with the investigation all debated far harsher penalties, but ultimately decided that the punishments they saw fit could potentially cause McLaren to shut their doors permanently.

People can insist the cars were completely different and independent of one another if they so wish, but the facts I’ve read say otherwise.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2073
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

I believe he's going on the assumption that the 2007 McLaren and Ferrari were identical because of Spygate (I don't agree) and saying that the pair of them had a Mercedes-like advantage over anyone else.

I know what he's saying but that's not how you perceive someone to have a dominant car, so after all Alonso had dominant cars both in 2005, 2006 and 2007, which would be a far cry from unlike Hamilton and Vettel, Alonso never had a dominant car?

I don’t understand how you can say that 4 cars having only themselves to contend with over a complete season doesn’t make them dominant. And those 4 cars indeed shared a few “characteristics” with the Ferraris.

I have a good friend who was a McLaren engineer for a long time who still has ties with the team who is in the know of how spygate unfolded better than most people, but a bit of proper research will turn up facts that clearly outline how and why the McLarens and Ferrari’s of 2007 were so closely matched.

And that is precisely why McLaren was hit with a $100,000,000.00 fine! That Ron Dennis was unaware of the entire scheme is of no consequence, and the FIA and everyone involved with the investigation all debated far harsher penalties, but ultimately decided that the punishments they saw fit could potentially cause McLaren to shut their doors permanently.

People can insist the cars were completely different and independent of one another if they so wish, but the facts I’ve read say otherwise.


Since Stepney-gate only started at the beginning of the 2007 season, culminating in early summer, the facts indeed suggest that the 2007 McLaren and the 2007 Ferrari were indepedent designs (in sharp contrast to the 1978 Arrows and Shadow).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

I believe he's going on the assumption that the 2007 McLaren and Ferrari were identical because of Spygate (I don't agree) and saying that the pair of them had a Mercedes-like advantage over anyone else.

I know what he's saying but that's not how you perceive someone to have a dominant car, so after all Alonso had dominant cars both in 2005, 2006 and 2007, which would be a far cry from unlike Hamilton and Vettel, Alonso never had a dominant car?

I don’t understand how you can say that 4 cars having only themselves to contend with over a complete season doesn’t make them dominant. And those 4 cars indeed shared a few “characteristics” with the Ferraris.

I have a good friend who was a McLaren engineer for a long time who still has ties with the team who is in the know of how spygate unfolded better than most people, but a bit of proper research will turn up facts that clearly outline how and why the McLarens and Ferrari’s of 2007 were so closely matched.

And that is precisely why McLaren was hit with a $100,000,000.00 fine! That Ron Dennis was unaware of the entire scheme is of no consequence, and the FIA and everyone involved with the investigation all debated far harsher penalties, but ultimately decided that the punishments they saw fit could potentially cause McLaren to shut their doors permanently.

People can insist the cars were completely different and independent of one another if they so wish, but the facts I’ve read say otherwise.


Since Stepney-gate only started at the beginning of the 2007 season, culminating in early summer, the facts indeed suggest that the 2007 McLaren and the 2007 Ferrari were indepedent designs (in sharp contrast to the 1978 Arrows and Shadow).

Indeed and the cars performed completely differently, the Ferrari had better aero grip whilst the McLaren had better mechanical grip.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5049
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.

it also mentions why Vandoorne struggled, which is relevant to the issue why he appeared to slow against Alonso in his second year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5049
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.


Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.

it also mentions why Vandoorne struggled, which is relevant to the issue why he appeared to slow against Alonso in his second year

It makes no difference to your claim that drivers improve in their second years and onwards relative to their superior teammate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.


Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2640
KingVoid wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Button is by no measure better than Rosberg.

Button was seriously flattered by Hamilton’s meltdown in 2011. In 2010 and 2012 he was typically further behind Hamilton than Rosberg was.

As a Button fan, it pains me to admit it, but I also believe that Rosberg would outscore him if they were in the same cars.

Back to Bottas - he had what I thought was a significant amount of misfortune in the early part of the season and that essentially put him on the back foot at the point that it became apparent that the ultimate WDC contenders should probably have backup from their team-mates. His head was certainly down in the latter half, though he has admitted that he does need to find more consistency.
Without that misfortune, Bottas could easily have been right in contention midway through the season. With a better start, and addressing his self-confessed consistency issue, he should put himself right in the frame in 2019. I'm assuming that the Merc will still be one of the cars to beat.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.

it also mentions why Vandoorne struggled, which is relevant to the issue why he appeared to slow against Alonso in his second year

It makes no difference to your claim that drivers improve in their second years and onwards relative to their superior teammate.

except I never made such a claim. This your usual strawman thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.


Apparently the MCL33 had a problem with an unstable rear and Stoff couldn't deal with it and Alonso could.

AMuS wrote:
The difficult to drive car played Fernando Alonso in the hands. With the experience of 312 GP starts, the Spaniard has learned to avoid problems. Stella knows Alonso inside out. He was a racing engineer for seven years: "In his entire career, Fernando has always stood out from his teammates when the car was difficult to drive. Like 2012 and 2014 at Ferrari. Vandoorne was much closer last year. Because the car was better. But the current car produced unstable downforce in the rear. Among them, Stoffel suffered more than Fernando.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... en-schief/

I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.


Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.


Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think that perhaps should be a reply to another post, what was said here is that the slower driver always closes the gap to the faster driver.


Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

this is a sweeping statement to you? Seriously?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Its a reply answering why Stoff could be slower in his 2nd year that you asked in that post. Stella says its because of the car issue.

That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

this is a sweeping statement to you? Seriously?

Using an example of a driver improving against another driver season after season as a defence for Vandoorne?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That in itself wasn't relevant, a sweeping statement was made about the inferior driver improving the more years he is given, that's just one example I gave.

No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

this is a sweeping statement to you? Seriously?

Using an example of a driver improving against another driver season after season as a defence for Vandoorne?

what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No such sweeping statement was made, I' afraid. Read it again.

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

this is a sweeping statement to you? Seriously?

Using an example of a driver improving against another driver season after season as a defence for Vandoorne?

what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.

I would say that you were defining that Vandoorne would have been closer in his third year?

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?


Driver performance does have variance but you were defining that the gap closes, here is another example of variance but no closing gap.

2015: Vettel > Kimi 0.24s
2016: Vettel > Kimi 0.1s
2017: Vettel > Kimi 0.29s
2018: Vettel > Kimi 0.18s

In the third year the gap is actually at it's largest.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.

I would say that you were defining that Vandoorne would have been closer in his third year?

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?


Driver performance does have variance but you were defining that the gap closes, here is another example of variance but no closing gap.

2015: Vettel > Kimi 0.24s
2016: Vettel > Kimi 0.1s
2017: Vettel > Kimi 0.29s
2018: Vettel > Kimi 0.18s

In the third year the gap is actually at it's largest.
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.

I would say that you were defining that Vandoorne would have been closer in his third year?

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?


Driver performance does have variance but you were defining that the gap closes, here is another example of variance but no closing gap.

2015: Vettel > Kimi 0.24s
2016: Vettel > Kimi 0.1s
2017: Vettel > Kimi 0.29s
2018: Vettel > Kimi 0.18s

In the third year the gap is actually at it's largest.
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure

All you can deal with is what actually happens and not use what happened with one driver to suggest it might have happened with Vandoorne as well or why would you say the Massa example has relevance, well it doesn't.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.

I would say that you were defining that Vandoorne would have been closer in his third year?

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?


Driver performance does have variance but you were defining that the gap closes, here is another example of variance but no closing gap.

2015: Vettel > Kimi 0.24s
2016: Vettel > Kimi 0.1s
2017: Vettel > Kimi 0.29s
2018: Vettel > Kimi 0.18s

In the third year the gap is actually at it's largest.
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure

All you can deal with is what actually happens and not use what happened with one driver to suggest it might have happened with Vandoorne as well or why would you say the Massa example has relevance, well it doesn't.

Of course it has relevance. It's relevant in that it demonstrates performance changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what part of anything I wrote was a generalisation? Which it would have to be to be a sweeping statement. You do understand that, don't you?

I gave Massa as an example of how drivers' performance vs team mates may change over the years. I specifically said that we would never know how Vandoorne would have fared in his 3rd year. So how is that possibly a sweeping statement?

It's very hard to have a proper debate with you on anything as you repeatedly insist on throwing in random variables and strawmen at every opportunity, derailing the discussion in the process. Attempting to haul this back on topic, what Lotus49 said was very relevant as you asked the question why Vandoorne's performance appeared to decline against Alonso.

I would say that you were defining that Vandoorne would have been closer in his third year?

Quote:
Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?


Driver performance does have variance but you were defining that the gap closes, here is another example of variance but no closing gap.

2015: Vettel > Kimi 0.24s
2016: Vettel > Kimi 0.1s
2017: Vettel > Kimi 0.29s
2018: Vettel > Kimi 0.18s

In the third year the gap is actually at it's largest.
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure

All you can deal with is what actually happens and not use what happened with one driver to suggest it might have happened with Vandoorne as well or why would you say the Massa example has relevance, well it doesn't.

Of course it has relevance. It's relevant in that it demonstrates performance changes.

Again using an example to credit a driver for something he actually hasn't achieved, your example emphasises an improving performance, my example shows it goes back and forth.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure

All you can deal with is what actually happens and not use what happened with one driver to suggest it might have happened with Vandoorne as well or why would you say the Massa example has relevance, well it doesn't.

Of course it has relevance. It's relevant in that it demonstrates performance changes.

Again using an example to credit a driver for something he actually hasn't achieved, your example emphasises an improving performance, my example shows it goes back and forth.

I really don't understand how you draw your conclusions I'm afraid. Despite me pointing out to you several times that I said we would never know what Vandoorne might have done, you still insist I'm trying to give him credit for doing what Massa did? I don't know what other language to put it in and I just don't get how you completely ignore what's being said in favour of your own predetermined interpretation of the conversation.

Once again, and please read this slowly so you get the full meaning, the example given showed a change in performance each year. It's irrelevant whether it's up or down, as the point being made is that it fluctuates. Which means that the more years you take into account for a driver, the more fluctuations there are likely to be. Which in turn means that comparing a longer period for one driver against a shorter one for another is not comparing like for like.

And again, since you seem to have completely ignored it, Lotus49's post was in answer to your very own question asking why Vandoorne's performance dropped, which makes the answer completely relevant. How you cannot see this is frankly beyond me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
C'mon, man, please read the posts a bit more carefully before you reply. It would save everyone a lot of time.

I wasn't defining it. I was pointing out that driver performance may fluctuate noticeably year on year. In Massa and Vandoorne we have perfect examples of that. In Massa's case it closed after three years but we would never know if it would be the same for Vandoorne. . The very opposite of generalising, in fact. Or indeed defining specific behaviour. Which makes it much less accurate to take the average of all the Massa-Alonso years instead of the identical time period for the Vandoorne Alonso ones when making any kind of comparison, given you have much greater chance for variance the more years you take into account.

As an aside the fact that your figures vary quite significantly from the article's further demonstrates the pitfalls of reading too much into exact lap time variances. There are just too many variables at play to have a definitive, incontestable, figure

All you can deal with is what actually happens and not use what happened with one driver to suggest it might have happened with Vandoorne as well or why would you say the Massa example has relevance, well it doesn't.

Of course it has relevance. It's relevant in that it demonstrates performance changes.

Again using an example to credit a driver for something he actually hasn't achieved, your example emphasises an improving performance, my example shows it goes back and forth.

I really don't understand how you draw your conclusions I'm afraid. Despite me pointing out to you several times that I said we would never know what Vandoorne might have done, you still insist I'm trying to give him credit for doing what Massa did? I don't know what other language to put it in and I just don't get how you completely ignore what's being said in favour of your own predetermined interpretation of the conversation.

Once again, and please read this slowly so you get the full meaning, the example given showed a change in performance each year. It's irrelevant whether it's up or down, as the point being made is that it fluctuates. Which means that the more years you take into account for a driver, the more fluctuations there are likely to be. Which in turn means that comparing a longer period for one driver against a shorter one for another is not comparing like for like.

And again, since you seem to have completely ignored it, Lotus49's post was in answer to your very own question asking why Vandoorne's performance dropped, which makes the answer completely relevant. How you cannot see this is frankly beyond me

Still it's portraying a possible future that Vandoorne has not actually achieved, in respect to Lotus49 I also heard many stories of how Vandoorne was disadvantaged in respect to Alonso and he himself said that McLaren know his true performance, McLaren chose to sack him and that's very much the bottom line.

All and all it's a shame for Vandoorne, he's a driver I liked before he came into F1 and I very much backed him, but as they say it is what it is.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 765
I am curious, what was the gap between VD and Alonso in each year?

Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2303
Johnson wrote:
Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.

In 2013 Massa was very close to Alonso in qualifying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24080
Johnson wrote:
I am curious, what was the gap between VD and Alonso in each year?

Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.

Link posted earlier gives all but Alonso's 2nd year with Vandoorne. Here it is again:

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/beneath-alonsos-team-mate-dominance

time difference is expressed as a percentage and lists each year of Alonso's team mates. Massa was much closer in years 3 and 4. In the first two years he was pretty far off


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6296
Location: Michigan, USA
KingVoid wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.

In 2013 Massa was very close to Alonso in qualifying.

Usually only in qualifying, mind you.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2303
Anyway, these qualifying cross comparisons are really stupid.

Throughout his career, Button was matched/beaten in qualifying by Ralf Schumacher, Fisichella, Trulli, Sato (2004), Barrichello (over four seasons), Perez and a rookie Magnussen.

Then Button went on to match Alonso in qualifying in 2015.

At which point we must conclude that Alonso has the qualifying pace of a midfield driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4552
Merecedes looks very regretful in signing Bottas for 2019 with their latest statements. Expecting him to match Hamilton, or the seat is gone. So, he needs to be close to top 5 best ever F1 driver in history to keep his seat. What an insane pressure is that.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 268
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Merecedes looks very regretful in signing Bottas for 2019 with their latest statements. Expecting him to match Hamilton, or the seat is gone. So, he needs to be close to top 5 best ever F1 driver in history to keep his seat. What an insane pressure is that.

But isn't that was F1 should be all about, to be the best?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Merecedes looks very regretful in signing Bottas for 2019 with their latest statements. Expecting him to match Hamilton, or the seat is gone. So, he needs to be close to top 5 best ever F1 driver in history to keep his seat. What an insane pressure is that.

They need to find a seat for Ocon, if Bottas is 2 tenths slower than Hamilton well that's a gap achievable by Ocon.

If Bottas can't close the gap then I would say 3 years at a top team is not a bad run, some drivers are kept on too long, I'm looking at the likes of Webber, Massa and Kimi in recent years, and that's not good for the sport.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29016
Johnson wrote:
I am curious, what was the gap between VD and Alonso in each year?

Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.

My own figures:-

Alonso > Vandoorne
2017 - 0.3s
2018 - 0.38s

Alonso > Massa
2010 - 0.23s
2011 - 0.37s
2012 - 0.26s
2013 - 0.17s

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14304
I think Merc are definitely regretful of resigning Bottas. When they did the deal he was in great form and Ocon was headed for a drive at Renault. Since then Bottas' form has deserted him and Ocon has been left high and dry.

Part of me feels really sorry for Bottas having to try and match one of the GOAT's in with his replacement hanging round like a bad smell but hardly any drivers get 3 years in a top F1 car so he can't complain too much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1532
I wouldn't have been as sorry for Bottas if it wasn't for the fact that he signed this deal for the following year with an option to extend on top of that. That basically made it sound much more likely he would get more than 1 years extension with the team than when he first signed a new deal in 2017. The fact that is looking less likely given the sort of deal he signed is what I think is unfair. What is the meaning of signing a contract for a 1 year deal "with an option to extend" ? Even if it is the teams option, it showed they had far more trust in him the middle of last season then then they did in 2017. It wouldn't have bothered me as much if he just had a 1 year extension with nothing implying he would get a good chance of getting another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4552
But, who guarantees that Ocon will not be even worse than Bottas itself? If that is not the case, Mercedes will be in trouble finding someone who will in a few years replace Hamilton.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1503
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Lt. Drebin wrote:
But, who guarantees that Ocon will not be even worse than Bottas itself? If that is not the case, Mercedes will be in trouble finding someone who will in a few years replace Hamilton.


There's someone at RB who'd jump in to replace Hamilton in 2021 (that's indeed if Hamilton does retire at the end of 2020, which I think is likely) if Honda can't deliver the championship he feels entitled to & Ocon is struggling at Merc.

I can see where Wolff is coming from. Ferrari were as close to Merc last year as they'd been in this Hybrid era. It was really the first year where there'd been debate over what was the best car. It's getting more & more crucial for the WCC that Merc have the drivers to maximise the results in the machinery they've been provided. Last year Bottas didn't do that. He finished 6th in the WDC in a car he really should've finished 2nd or 3rd.

With Leclerc joining Marenello for this season and if Vettel can cut out the few silly mistakes he made last season, it's not a stretch to think that Ferrari could well win the WCC if Bottas can't lift his game.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 765
pokerman wrote:
Johnson wrote:
I am curious, what was the gap between VD and Alonso in each year?

Also, did Massa even close the gap to Alonso? The closet he got to Alonso was the first year I always thought which makes sense as Alonso was new.

My own figures:-

Alonso > Vandoorne
2017 - 0.3s
2018 - 0.38s

Alonso > Massa
2010 - 0.23s
2011 - 0.37s
2012 - 0.26s
2013 - 0.17s


Thanks to you and others that answered.

1) It shows how different head to head and averages can be. On head to head, I think Massa had a strong 2013 but the gap was still pretty much there. Alonso appears to have gone off form in the period he signed for Mclaren. I think its pretty fair to say Massa was basically 0.250 behind on average with about a +/- 0.100 either side of that for some seasonal variation.

2) This is kind of what I suspected, there variation between 2017 and 2018 for Alonso and VD is negliable at 0.080. My gut feeling was there wasn't much difference in those two years.


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: Siao7 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