So If Lewis Hamilton Does Become Wdc...

[Sato 0]

'Purely result based'? Of course it's purely result based! How else are we to judge the worth of a driver? Everything is about results and F1 is no different. Hamilton was 3rd best at Silverstone. 'Would have' and 'if only' are worth about as much as any other excuse.

Ok, so lets say Lewis DNF's next race due to an engine blow up on lap 2, and he is the first out. He is therefore the WORST driver in germany? I can't judge it like that, it just seems so silly.

[Eric 0]

Autumnpuma, have you ever voted from a driver who didn't win the race in the Driver of the Day votes? Because under your logic, the winner is always the best driver in that race, and therefore would be Driver of the Day. If I recall correctly, you voted Alonso for England. Wasn't he second best in Silverstone?

-Eric

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yeah but Massa finished fifth but was more than fifth best, so you can't always decide on results alone. Button qualified 17th but he's a lot further up the field in his ability than that.

Explain how he is 'more than fifth best' when he failed to finish higher than four other drivers.

Sorry, I don't give a crap what you guys are arguing about

It just seemed that this phrase can be misleading, Mike. After all, Gilles was never a WDC, yet you do not need to be an F1 expert to notice that he was much better than other drivers (even considering drivers that earned at least as much points as GV in the same quantity of races). In the long run, yes, results tend to reflect the drivers greatness. But results alone say only one part of the story.

Much as I hate to speak bad about Gilles, a driver I dearly loved, I will say that his choice to let Scheckter have the WDC meant that Gilles cannot be considered 'the best'. Results matter and Scheckter was the best....by Gilles own choice. If we go from the correct premise that all the drivers on the grid are giving their maximum, and have made choices to be in the car they are in, then we can certainly point to final results determining who the 'best' is for any given race.

Ok, so lets say Lewis DNF's next race due to an engine blow up on lap 2, and he is the first out. He is therefore the WORST driver in germany? I can't judge it like that, it just seems so silly.

You bring out one, and only one, possibly exception. A mechanical DNF that isn't somehow associated with a driver or team wouldn't be considered. However, can you say for a certainty that Lewis didn't do something that might have caused that DNF? If so, then he rightly would not be considered better than the other drivers on that day who treated their car better. It's all a matter of how you choose to look at it. Will you narrow your focus and look at only what you want, or will you take a broader perspective...looking at all possible variables?

Autumnpuma, have you ever voted from a driver who didn't win the race in the Driver of the Day votes? Because under your logic, the winner is always the best driver in that race, and therefore would be Driver of the Day. If I recall correctly, you voted Alonso for England. Wasn't he second best in Silverstone?

-Eric

Driver of the day and 'best' are two different things. Best is an absolute. Driver of the Day is a call for an opinion. I gave my opinion. Kimi was the best because he won. That's an absolute.

[Quiet One 15]

Much as I hate to speak bad about Gilles, a driver I dearly loved, I will say that his choice to let Scheckter have the WDC meant that Gilles cannot be considered 'the best'. Results matter and Scheckter was the best....by Gilles own choice. If we go from the correct premise that all the drivers on the grid are giving their maximum, and have made choices to be in the car they are in, then we can certainly point to final results determining who the 'best' is for any given race.

Fair enough. I know what you mean. I just thought it was misleading (and it seems I was right because we all jumped on yoyur throat on that one)

Yes, to be the best overall, winning is a must. Moral victories don't count.

Yet, best does not necesarily mean the most skilfull, the fastest, the cutest. It means achieving perfect balance in all areas.

That is what I think and that is what I understood you meant, too, right?

[Fed up 0]

'Purely result based'? Of course it's purely result based! How else are we to judge the worth of a driver? Everything is about results and F1 is no different. Hamilton was 3rd best at Silverstone. 'Would have' and 'if only' are worth about as much as any other excuse.

You contradict yourself sir. First you say Kimi is your man of the season and now say a driver's 'worth' is judged purely on results. So what is it to be and where does lewis rank in your skewed logic.

[Eric 0]

I think I was using a different definition of being the best in a given race than you. Yes, thee best is the winner. However, I use best more as best driver of the day. Misunderstanding.

-Eric

[Autumnpuma 0]

Fair enough. I know what you mean. I just thought it was misleading (and it seems I was right because we all jumped on yoyur throat on that one)

Yes, to be the best overall, winning is a must. Moral victories don't count.

Yet, best does not necesarily mean the most skilfull, the fastest, the cutest. It means achieving perfect balance in all areas.

That is what I think and that is what I understood you meant, too, right?

Indeed. Best to me means using all the variables given to you to win the race (or Championship).

You contradict yourself sir. First you say Kimi is your man of the season and now say a driver's 'worth' is judged purely on results. So what is it to be and where does lewis rank in your skewed logic.

Semantics, not skewed logic. Kimi is not the best this season. Lewis is because he has more WDC points than Kimi. Now my opinion is that Kimi's ability to run faster just when he needs to (like Michael Schumacher) has now given him the potential to win every race from here on out. Unlocking that potential nudges Kimi up above the other drivers. For now. Unlike you, sir, I think on two planes at once.

EDIT: The point we are stumbling on here is that my definition of 'worth' is separate to my definition of 'best'. I split them up whereas most people don't.

[lukeB 0]

Explain how he is 'more than fifth best' when he failed to finish higher than four other drivers.

Because he started right at the back of the grid and managed to catch and pass another 18 drivers. And had he not stalled his engine he would have most probably been on the podium and possibly on the top of it. Also, I think his fastest lap time was quicker than Hamilton's if I remember correctly.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Because he started right at the back of the grid and managed to catch and pass another 18 drivers. And had he not stalled his engine he would have most probably been on the podium and possibly on the top of it. Also, I think his fastest lap time was quicker than Hamilton's if I remember correctly.

Each car laps at a certain time. A car that laps faster will easily overtake those that lap slower. It's a racing truth. Giving Massa credit for overtaking Hondas, Super Aguris and Spykers isn't alot of credit. I would expect him to quickly dispatch those slower cars. As he rose through the grid and came upon cars with similar lap times to his Ferrari, I would expect that fast progress to slow down.

As you point out, Massa had a quicker lap time than the 3rd place driver. My question is this: why couldn't he manage to pass the drivers he was obviously quicker than? Lack of racecraft. Massa ended the day right where his talent landed him. 5th. Praising a driver for achieving 5th place in a race that he was faster than the 3rd place driver isn't what I would call 'correct'.

[dribbler 6]

As you point out, Massa had a quicker lap time than the 3rd place driver. My question is this: why couldn't he manage to pass the drivers he was obviously quicker than? Lack of racecraft. Massa ended the day right where his talent landed him. 5th. Praising a driver for achieving 5th place in a race that he was faster than the 3rd place driver isn't what I would call 'correct'.

So when Michael couldn't get past Fernando in Imola '05 with an even quicker car than Massa had it was because the seven time world champion lacked race craft?

[pumpdoc 2]

Each car laps at a certain time. A car that laps faster will easily overtake those that lap slower. It's a racing truth. Giving Massa credit for overtaking Hondas, Super Aguris and Spykers isn't alot of credit. I would expect him to quickly dispatch those slower cars. As he rose through the grid and came upon cars with similar lap times to his Ferrari, I would expect that fast progress to slow down.

As you point out, Massa had a quicker lap time than the 3rd place driver. My question is this: why couldn't he manage to pass the drivers he was obviously quicker than? Lack of racecraft. Massa ended the day right where his talent landed him. 5th. Praising a driver for achieving 5th place in a race that he was faster than the 3rd place driver isn't what I would call 'correct'.

I dissagre, it's the inherant lack of passing in modern F1 cars that held him back, once you get to the fast cars it doesn't matter how fast you are on most tracks because you can't pass, unless It's in the pits.

[Autumnpuma 0]

So when Michael couldn't get past Fernando in Imola '05 with an even quicker car than Massa had it was because the seven time world champion lacked race craft?

In that race, yes. Fernando had the better racecraft as I see it because he judged by watching Michael where he applied brake and throttle. With that knowledge, Alonso altered his braking to 'check up' Michael...giving Alonso a better exit and the ability to keep the faster car behind.

I dissagre, it's the inherant lack of passing in modern F1 cars that held him back, once you get to the fast cars it doesn't matter how fast you are on most tracks because you can't pass, unless It's in the pits.

If your car is faster, you can carry more speed on the straight and pass a slower car easily without the aero affecting you much. I judge the Ferrari sufficiently fast enough to have made a pass on the BMW, but Kubeetza was taking a very defensive line. Better racecraft. That's just my take, Bruce, and liable to to wrong. When I'm arguing with you, Murray and Steve it's mighty hard to stick to my guns on this....but I still think I've the right of it.

[dribbler 6]

In that race, yes. Fernando had the better racecraft as I see it because he judged by watching Michael where he applied brake and throttle. With that knowledge, Alonso altered his braking to 'check up' Michael...giving Alonso a better exit and the ability to keep the faster car behind.

Precisely. So if Kubica was doing the same to Massa, can you really be so hard on him for not getting past?

[Kay 0]

*random comic link about Lewis and ITV*

http://www.madowl.co.uk/cartoons/2007/c593.gif

*/random*

[Autumnpuma 0]

Precisely. So if Kubica was doing the same to Massa, can you really be so hard on him for not getting past?

[DOF_power 0]

>

^ I don't belive LH will become WDC. In fact all I really care is that Alonso leaves McLaren.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

i also disagree that if a driver wins a race that means he was the best that day, or if a driver wins the title that means he's the best.

Schumacher was widely regarded as being the best driver in F1 from 1994 to 2006, despite other drivers winning championships in that time. And you can put the best driver in the 4th best car and he'll never win a race, but he's still the best driver out there.

Its true that Massa should be expected to dispatch lesser cars, as he did, but if he had started near the front he may well have ended up 1st or 2nd, would that have meant that he was the best/2nd best that day?

Back on topic, i'd be happy to have 2 races in the UK, but i'll be grateful just to have 1 after 2009

[schumigo2hell 0]

Overall, i believe bridgetone is the main determinant of F1 this year.

Argubly, Ferrari is good on harder tyres as one of the reasons why teams switched to michelin in the past and notably toyota requested bridgetone softer tyres in the begining of 2006 as they couldn't cope with ferrari-spec harder tyres.

Most notably for 2007, mclaren won races on softs (except Malaysia) while ferrari won on hards.

Please comment, thanks!

[pabloh20 1]

In that race, yes. Fernando had the better racecraft as I see it because he judged by watching Michael where he applied brake and throttle. With that knowledge, Alonso altered his braking to 'check up' Michael...giving Alonso a better exit and the ability to keep the faster car behind.

Just my humble opinion, Mike, undoubtably Alonso showed great racecraft to keep Schumi behind him that day, but I do also believe he was in the best car to do it in. That Renault was widely regarded as having the best traction not only off the line, but out of corners too. So, if the corner was a fast one then you lose aero following and if it is a slow corner then the Renault had superior traction out of the corner, which does it make it slightly easier to defend from the car behind, even if the car behind is considerably quicker. If you know that you only have to defend at the end of a straight, rather than from the middle, for example, due to your car's better traction, then you have a much better chance of defending due to the decreased amount of time you have to spend defending.

Now, I don't think Alonso's racecraft in defending has diminished at all, but I think it would be fair to say he hasn't been quite so successful defending even so far this year, as he was when he was in the Renault of the previous years.

[dribbler 6]

Just my humble opinion, Mike, undoubtably Alonso showed great racecraft to keep Schumi behind him that day, but I do also believe he was in the best car to do it in. That Renault was widely regarded as having the best traction not only off the line, but out of corners too. So, if the corner was a fast one then you lose aero following and if it is a slow corner then the Renault had superior traction out of the corner, which does it make it slightly easier to defend from the car behind, even if the car behind is considerably quicker. If you know that you only have to defend at the end of a straight, rather than from the middle, for example, due to your car's better traction, then you have a much better chance of defending due to the decreased amount of time you have to spend defending.

Now, I don't think Alonso's racecraft in defending has diminished at all, but I think it would be fair to say he hasn't been quite so successful defending even so far this year, as he was when he was in the Renault of the previous years.

I like that theory. You should be part of one of those Formula One website forum thingy's.

[Jean Todt 4]

Answering the real question!

I will build a church named after him!

[Wez 0]

I dissagre, it's the inherant lack of passing in modern F1 cars that held him back, once you get to the fast cars it doesn't matter how fast you are on most tracks because you can't pass, unless It's in the pits.

This is the sad truth in formula 1 at the moment... We saw it with Alonso in France then Massa at Silverstone... Both drivers had one of the quickest cars on the track and yet still weren't able to pass the likes of Bmw & Renault on the track.

To show you what a joke the passing situation has become, Inspite of Ferrari & Mclaren's dual this season, not at any point in the season has a Mclaren overtaken a Ferrari and visa versa!!!

[Jean Todt 4]

This is the sad truth in formula 1 at the moment... We saw it with Alonso in France then Massa at Silverstone... Both drivers had one of the quickest cars on the track and yet still weren't able to pass the likes of Bmw & Renault on the track.

To show you what a joke the passing situation has become, Inspite of Ferrari & Mclaren's dual this season, not at any point in the season has a Mclaren overtaken a Ferrari and visa versa!!!

You forgot Hamilton's move on Massa, I think it was during the second race (?).

But that is what big heads (Max and Berine) have been trying to find out, to make f1 cars more overtaking friendly. Alonso being held by Hamilton, Kimi being held by Massa in US GP was another example.

[pumpdoc 2]

This is the sad truth in formula 1 at the moment... We saw it with Alonso in France then Massa at Silverstone... Both drivers had one of the quickest cars on the track and yet still weren't able to pass the likes of Bmw & Renault on the track.

To show you what a joke the passing situation has become, Inspite of Ferrari & Mclaren's dual this season, not at any point in the season has a Mclaren overtaken a Ferrari and visa versa!!!

Except on the start of the race, but after the 1st corner all the passing for lead has been in the pits, and that is the pits

[SuperKimi 0]

Steve Rider wouldn't shut his gob talking about it!! He wouldn't even draw breath, which, could be a good thing!

He does do quite a good job, but i'm fed-up of him sucking up to LH every flippin' race!

I agree he may get a corner named after to him if he is really sucsessful.