Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Fed up

Driver Of The Day British Gp

Driver of the day  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. You decide

    • Kimi
      31
    • Nando
      9
    • Hami
      2
    • Bob
      8
    • Felipe
      18
    • Nick
      0
    • Kovy
      0
    • Fisi
      0


Recommended Posts

Felipe was absolutly awsome. Great to see him fight his way back through the field, fabolous drive.

:clap3:

I think it could have been another ferrari one- two if Massa hadn't had that problem, or at least threatened Hamilton's third.

I've heard that from 10 people on these forums, oh & welcome :thbup: !
I am so fed up with overestimating Hamilton. He has not been best Mclaren driver even so far. Only reason he is leading WCC is because Alonso had great problems in two races, neither of his own creation. Unless you call unavoidable pit stop during Safety car and car problem during Qualification driver related problems?
ITV are professionals at doing that! After the race, Mark Blundell would'nt shut his fat face up about Hamilton, making all these excuses for him but I would'nt say Hamilton's wins were a fluke or it's because Alonso had problems with his car, it's just Hamilton is damn fastbut James Allen loves the chap & Mark Blundell makes the ultimate excuses for him! P11ses me off most of the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimi had the faster car with a heavier fuel load. Alonso must be a very slow driver.

:blink: They were roughly even matched on pace at that stage, I seem to remember. Kimi had a faster car, but a weight penalty, evening things out. I don't see any evidence that Kimi was better than Alonso at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:blink: They were roughly even matched on pace at that stage, I seem to remember. Kimi had a faster car, but a weight penalty, evening things out. I don't see any evidence that Kimi was better than Alonso at all.

But you're not a Ferrari or Kimi fan Murray :P

I think they're both great, and not that much between them, besides the cars they drove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can't believe that people are debating that. I mean, the only part of that that I would debate is that I think Alonso is generally slightly better than Kimi, and was better on Sunday. But clearly we have no way of knowing because the cars obscure the drivers' abilities so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole debate.... Mike is really making the most sense......

Consider this. When Alonso took over the lead with less fuel than Kimi, the key was that Kimi should stay intact with Alonso up to his second pitstop. With six laps more fuel!!!!!!!!! The race was won when Alonso in a lighter car could'nt build up that lead, simply because of Kimi being on the limit the whole flipping time. We all saw Kimi go onto the grass in that middle phase, thats how on it he was. Combine it with the Schumie-like in and out laps and you will find it was more the man than the car!!!!!

Sorry to let you down, Todt called Kimi's race simply majestic, thats how it really was folks.... accept it or not

As i remember it, Alonso did pull away. At on epoint he was six seconds ahead. When the Mclaren suffered more tyre degradation than the Ferrari, Kimi closed in. Todt called Kimi's race majestic? Wow, i can't believe he would be biased so it must be true!

the Ferrari truck drivers had to deliver all the equipment to the track successfully, Kimi's parents had to be feeling horny at the right time to produce Kimi etc. But I think we all agree some variables are more important than others.

:roll:

Kimi had the faster car with a heavier fuel load. Alonso must be a very slow driver.

No, his car was slower than the Ferrari. Why are we still arguing this when Massa is the evidence that Ferrari were superior?

But you're not a Ferrari or Kimi fan Murray :P

No, but he is dependably objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, his car was slower than the Ferrari. Why are we still arguing this when Massa is the evidence that Ferrari were superior?

And even with that superior car he couldn't manage to get round a BMW.

No, but he is dependably objective.

Hardly. His stated POV in other threads is that he's like to eliminate teams and that the cars do almost all the work (forgive my simplistic description of your point, Murray!). His arguments here fall right in line with that. That isn't objective..that's seeing only what he wants to support his previously stated views. If anything, I'm being the only objective person here because I have taken a stand against Kimi many times in the past and am now fighting to give him credit where it's due. I am also dinging Hamilton and Massa for valid mistakes they've made...also going against what I've previously stated in the past about them.

I don't know if it's possible to settle this issue. I think it's one where we just state what we think, agree to disagree, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Yeah, hopefully I'll become known as the guy who hates teams!

I'm happy to move on if you like, I can't see us all agreeing on this, but I think you're confusing objective/subjective with unchanging/changing. It's possible to be either of the first two with either of the second two. :P

Hmm that's not very clear is it? What I meant was that I want to get rid of teams precisely because of races like this, where I have no idea who drove best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My reply "people do" to your actual question "what invented variables?" was an illustration of how language can be ambiguous. By "invent" I clearly meant "exaggerate the importance of". Of course there are many variables involved in winning a GP. For example, the pit crew had to not mess up, the Ferrari truck drivers had to deliver all the equipment to the track successfully, Kimi's parents had to be feeling horny at the right time to produce Kimi etc. But I think we all agree some variables are more important than others.

Now, now, lets not turn this into something ridiculous! The variables that do matter are clear and you include them when you say 'getting to grips with car/team/tyre'. Kimi figured out the right ballance to the car, the right way to drive with the tyres, and the right communication with his team in regards to strategy. He then raced without mistake and put in purple laps right when he needed to in order to counter Alonso's pit-strategy.

In this case, if you gave Kimi's Ferrari to many other drivers they would likely also have won imho because it was the best car by quite some way. Therefore the decisive factor was the car, not the driver.

That's an opinion. Based on what? Based on your view that the car matters more than the driver. Is there any way I can prove you wrong? I'm not sure I can. I would have to take a different driver and put them in exactly the same circumstances as Kimi and see what happens. That is clearly impossible. We're left with simply forming an opinion based on what we have seen, backed up by our knowledge of racing, racing drivers, life experiences, etc. Who's right? I have more experience in all the above that you do, Murray, so on that I might say I was right...however Steve also agrees with you in this and he matches (and exceeds) my experiences. I'm willing to put my opinions about Kimi on hold for a few more races and see what happens. Both you and Steve are highly intelligent people, but Steve is perhaps less-invested in the idea that a driver doesn't make a difference in a race.

Are you seriously saying that if Kimi had been in the McLaren and Alonso in the Ferrari, then Kimi would still have beaten Alonso?

Yes. I don't believe Alonso has the ability to pull of blinding in and out laps. If Kimi were in the McLaren, and they short-fueled him into the lead, I believe that Kimi in the McLaren would have pulled out a lead that Alonso could not have countered. Of course there is the possibility that the McLaren would have been too fragile to take the abuse, but that's a different argument....

No Mike, clearly within a team-mate battle the driver makes a difference (though by no means the only difference) but when competing with other cars, the cars normally dominate. I think your defence of the WDC is circular. You are saying that it is meaningful because the driver who wins it is the "best", but then define "best" to involve "producing a win".

The best is indeed the one that produces the win. When Lewis was winning, people were saying that the McLaren was the best car. Now that Kimi has won, people are saying that Ferrari is the best car. Which is true? If I'm to believe that the best car, irregardless of driver input, will win then how do I explain that in a small handful of races two teams have traded about an equal number of wins? The only explanation I come up with is that those two teams have nearly identical-speed cars. The difference comes down to driver error...and conversely driver excellence. Mechanical and tyre issues come into it as well, but if we look closely at those, how many can be attributed to driver error?

All the independent evidence suggests to me that the car largely determines the results.

What independent evidence have you got, Murray? I would agree that in a season there's usually one team that has the best car, but it's very rare to have a car that is dominant more than a few tenths of a second. Those tenths of a difference are frequently shaved off during a race due to many factors: traffic, driver errors, tyre degradation, etc.

No again. He beat Massa because Massa had a technical problem!

He stalled his car. Driver error. You can also compound his error by taking one of the fastest cars on track and being unable to pass a BMW for 4th. Even if we look at what happened before Massa's error, he was behind Kimi in qualifying. That certainly means Kimi was better....lighter maybe, but in today's F1, if you qualify ahead it's half the race won already. Good strategy on Kimi's part...bad strategy on Massa's part.

And we're fortunate this year that the cars are quite close atm, normally that's not the case.

They are quite close. Close enough that the driver, not the car, makes up the difference.

Nevertheless, I think the gap between the cars at Silverstone was several tenths of a second. Probably at least 0.3s/lap. Imho the difference between two on form, top drivers, in cars run for them specifically, is little more than 0.1s/lap, if that.

Again, your opinion. I agree that the Ferrari, driven mistake-free and at the limit, was 0.3s/lap faster than the McLarens on equal fuel. I disagree with your 0.1s/lap estimation on the driver's contribution to it.

But Kimi had a better car! No wonder Alonso couldn't pull away.

So did Massa. Why couldn't he finish higher than 5th? Because the fastest car doesn't determine the race. The driver does. Massa had a faster car than Kubeetza, but Kubeetza was the better racer...hence he finished higher. You might be tempted to say, "but if Massa hadn't stalled at the start he'd be ahead of Kubeetza"...true enough, but Kubeetza didn't stall and Massa did. Driver error. Kubeetza ran a good, mistake-free race...Massa didn't. The result was determined not by the car, but by the driver. Ditto for Alonso and Hamilton. Hamilton lost a position due to his own mistakes and Alonso took that position by driving better than Hamilton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm happy to move on if you like, I can't see us all agreeing on this, but I think you're confusing objective/subjective with unchanging/changing. It's possible to be either of the first two with either of the second two. :P

Maybe I am confusing it a bit. All I know is that you seem to have a vested interest in advancing the idea that the cars make up too much of the equation...that makes your opinions here a bit suspect to me.

Hmm that's not very clear is it? What I meant was that I want to get rid of teams precisely because of races like this, where I have no idea who drove best.

This is an odd conversation, Murray, because at the heart of it you champion the driver; you want a series where you can see, without a doubt, what driver turns the wheel and mashes the throttle the best. In that, you and I are on the same side of this. I can understand that and I can understand your frustration at wondering if Kimi really is a better driver than Alonso and Hamilton. In the end, I don't see that it can possibly be answered. If Kimi dominates the rest of the season, am I then right about it being due to Kimi? Or are you right about Ferrari building a better car than McLaren? I think Massa proved that Ferrari have the better car is only relevant if the driver makes no mistakes and drives an excellent drive. Perhaps we should be praising Ferrari and Kimi, not just Kimi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I am confusing it a bit. All I know is that you seem to have a vested interest in advancing the idea that the cars make up too much of the equation...that makes your opinions here a bit suspect to me.

This is an odd conversation, Murray, because at the heart of it you champion the driver; you want a series where you can see, without a doubt, what driver turns the wheel and mashes the throttle the best. In that, you and I are on the same side of this. I can understand that and I can understand your frustration at wondering if Kimi really is a better driver than Alonso and Hamilton. In the end, I don't see that it can possibly be answered. If Kimi dominates the rest of the season, am I then right about it being due to Kimi? Or are you right about Ferrari building a better car than McLaren? I think Massa proved that Ferrari have the better car is only relevant if the driver makes no mistakes and drives an excellent drive. Perhaps we should be praising Ferrari and Kimi, not just Kimi.

Thanks, I was mentally composing a reply to MW in those same lines.

Murray, your frustration comes for not being able to answer this: "who is the best driver"?" Like Mike said, that cannot be answered even in a spec series. The best driver is something so subjective that even if they raced the same car nobody will agree. You can see that now: everybody sees the same thing under a different light. Michael was either a cheater or a "win at all costs" hero. Kimi is a speed king or a guy that has no regards for what his car can give. And so on, and so on. Sorry, your scientific education is getting in the way on this :P

Now we have two options: turn F1 into a spec series, to minimize some of the biasing factors (but never taking them out completely) or leave it as a formula series and endure the fact that sometimes, a mediocre racer in a great car can beat a great driver in a mediocre car.

I'd rather stick with the last option, because I like the uncertainity it gives, and because I (used to) love the new developements the teams made to their cars, as well as the varied strategies (something you don't usually get in spec series) and countless different factors in an eternal, ever-changing dance.

I strive in chaos ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey! So much to reply to, so little time. I'll pick your shorter post and try to address the other issues as I go.

Maybe I am confusing it a bit. All I know is that you seem to have a vested interest in advancing the idea that the cars make up too much of the equation...that makes your opinions here a bit suspect to me.

You can't hold the fact that my views fit together against me Mike. All I'm saying is that we have no real idea why Kimi won the race (see later, or above), and that I don't like this, given there's supposed to be a drivers championship. If you can prove that Kimi was better and deserved to win then I wouldn't need my spec series. There's no bias here - I wish I were wrong and the cars didn't matter, but at the very least we can't prove that (and I think they actually do matter a great deal, alas).

This is an odd conversation, Murray, because at the heart of it you champion the driver; you want a series where you can see, without a doubt, what driver turns the wheel and mashes the throttle the best. In that, you and I are on the same side of this. I can understand that and I can understand your frustration at wondering if Kimi really is a better driver than Alonso and Hamilton. In the end, I don't see that it can possibly be answered. If Kimi dominates the rest of the season, am I then right about it being due to Kimi? Or are you right about Ferrari building a better car than McLaren? I think Massa proved that Ferrari have the better car is only relevant if the driver makes no mistakes and drives an excellent drive. Perhaps we should be praising Ferrari and Kimi, not just Kimi.

Yes this is the problem. This is my main objection to the current system we have. We have a World Drivers' Championship despite the fact that no one knows who was the best driver over the year. Such a championship is pretty meaningless to my mind.

Now the other issues. Firstly I don't even understand this idea about doing great in-/out-laps. I mean why didn't Kimi just drive fast all the way through? I think that's what Michael did (although that's only a guess) and that is what makes sense. I don't see any advantage in doing a few hot laps when you could have been faster at other times. Furthermore I don't see how these laps could have made much difference. Lets say the Ferrari was 0.3s/lap faster on equal fuel etc (though I think it was more). Then over a 60 lap race, Kimi should have been 18s ahead at the finish. Suppose he was an absolutely gobsmacking 1s/lap faster on his in-/out-laps, then he would have made up an extra 4s in that time. It doesn't make any difference when you should already be 18s ahead. Now obviously when you doing a Michael and beating a faster car through strategy and skill, being able to get right on the limit on in-/out-laps is a great skill and can make all the difference. But that should be irrelevant when you have an 18s gap in your pocket.

Secondly Massa had a technical problem at the start, so Kimi had the undisputed best car overall. Having said that I do agree that driver mistakes can be decisive, but as long as drivers do a decent enough job, most of the time difference at the end of a race will be down to the car imho.

Different cars are better on different tracks, and at every race teams bring new parts. These are well known facts and largely explain why we see different winners from time to time. In most of the races this year, there has been a strong correlation between the team-mates' speeds, which suggests to me that the differences in results on different tracks are mainly down to the car. Not only that, but our commentators here have been able to predict in advance what will happen in the race based on practice times, even to the extent that they can tell us when one team will do better in qualifying than the race.

I still think your justification of the WDC is totally circular. "The WDC is meaningful because the best driver wins and the driver that is the best is the one who wins". Sorry to be so blunt about it, but I think we need some independent evidence. If you like we can discuss this properly, but this is already a long post and I'm getting tired! The main point is that the burden of proof rest with you imho, since you claim the WDC is meaningful. But as for reasons to think it's not, I'll have a go.

To be brief, lets take Kimi over the last few seasons. In the last five seasons Kimi has finished (2003 til the current season inclusive) 2nd, 7th, 2nd, 5th and 3rd (imho this would be 4th if we include MS for comparison with the other figures). I really don't think that's a fair reflection of how well he's been driving. The fact that his team-mates' performances correlate quite well with his results further suggests it's down to the car. Do you really disagree with this?

Finally, I don't think "experience" is a very good "argument". For a start we have two equally experienced posters (you and Steve) who disagree from time to time. I think you've even had the temerity to disagree with the far older and wiser Bruce on rare occasions! If you like experience you might like to know that Fangio, who clearly had more racing experience than the whole forum put together, said in 1983 that "In my day it was 75 percent car and mechanics, 25 percent driver and luck. Today it is 95 percent car. A driver can emerge in a good new car, become world champion, and a year later disappear to the back of the queue. Driving skill hardly counts anymore".

Thanks, I was mentally composing a reply to MW in those same lines.

Murray, your frustration comes for not being able to answer this: "who is the best driver"?" Like Mike said, that cannot be answered even in a spec series. The best driver is something so subjective that even if they raced the same car nobody will agree. You can see that now: everybody sees the same thing under a different light. Michael was either a cheater or a "win at all costs" hero. Kimi is a speed king or a guy that has no regards for what his car can give. And so on, and so on. Sorry, your scientific education is getting in the way on this :P

Now we have two options: turn F1 into a spec series, to minimize some of the biasing factors (but never taking them out completely) or leave it as a formula series and endure the fact that sometimes, a mediocre racer in a great car can beat a great driver in a mediocre car.

I'd rather stick with the last option, because I like the uncertainity it gives, and because I (used to) love the new developements the teams made to their cars, as well as the varied strategies (something you don't usually get in spec series) and countless different factors in an eternal, ever-changing dance.

I strive in chaos ;)

I think you would get a meaningful answer to the question "who is the best driver". Yes, some people might disagree, but I don't mind that. I mean one's view on Michael's ethics is a matter of personal taste.

Basically I think we would have as meaningful an answer as tennis fans have in their sport as to who the best tennis player is. Clearly that depends on the surface used, the weather, the country hosting the tournament, the racket and ball technology used, the size and shape of the courts allowed, the number of sets played etc etc. But in tennis you can fairly accurately compare all the different players' abilities at whatever skill you want. No tennis fan in their right mind would deliberately mimic the F1 system, by for example, adding a 10kg weight to Nadal's racket every time he plays Federer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly I don't even understand this idea about doing great in-/out-laps.

Understanding this is the key to everything. How can you take part is this discussion and not understand this? How can anyone take your opinions here seriously when you don't understand how a fast in/out lap won so many races for Michael?

EDIT: Alas, Murray, the burden of proof often rests with me. That's because I'm the rare person who floats ideas that, at the time floated, aren't provable, but are mostly correct nonetheless. I invite you to sit back and see how my theory will unfold into fact. Consider it an education. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if drivers were assigned to their teams in a lottery at the beginning of every year?

:D

That would be hilariously entertaining

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if drivers were assigned to their teams in a lottery at the beginning of every year?

:D

That would be hilariously entertaining

Why not before each race? Yes, we are deep into dellusion land here...but I find the idea attractive! (Of course, I find watching a dead squirrel attractive too, so don't take me to seriously)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the other issues. Firstly I don't even understand this idea about doing great in-/out-laps. I mean why didn't Kimi just drive fast all the way through? I think that's what Michael did (although that's only a guess) and that is what makes sense. I don't see any advantage in doing a few hot laps when you could have been faster at other times. Furthermore I don't see how these laps could have made much difference. Lets say the Ferrari was 0.3s/lap faster on equal fuel etc (though I think it was more). Then over a 60 lap race, Kimi should have been 18s ahead at the finish. Suppose he was an absolutely gobsmacking 1s/lap faster on his in-/out-laps, then he would have made up an extra 4s in that time. It doesn't make any difference when you should already be 18s ahead. Now obviously when you doing a Michael and beating a faster car through strategy and skill, being able to get right on the limit on in-/out-laps is a great skill and can make all the difference. But that should be irrelevant when you have an 18s gap in your pocket.

Murray, the reason is because it is harder to pass on track, even if you are faster on the limit than the guy leading the race. He's not a backmarker you can blow past, you have to run in dirty air right behind, waiting for an opportunity. This is bad on the car, and makes the car handle differently. Also there is of course the risk of contact when passing. Look at Alonso at the USGP. He was faster than Lewis after the first pitstop, but he wasn't able to pass on track. He could have accomplished it with a superior pitting strat, but he didn't have the fuel on board.

Once your opponent pits ahead of you, you have a great opportunity, you are low weight, clean track, and you pass him by being faster at this key time. Also, every lap you do means less time refueling, and less weight in the car for the rest of the race.

If you look at the final pit stop, when Kimi comes out ahead of Alonso, he was only ahead by a small margin. He made all of that time by being fast at the right moments, and by carrying more weight (which is another reason it was harder for him to pass on track)

If you find yourself in second place, running heavier than the guy in front but setting roughly equal lap times, this is the safest and easiest way to end up in first. Pushing yourself harder and trying to do it on track is bold, but it wastes gas, taxes your car, and puts you at greater risk.. Hang back 1.5 seconds and then destroy him in the pit rotation... it is a mature move, it takes confidence in your execution, because if you fail you'll have little time left to try to push for an on-track pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if drivers were assigned to their teams in a lottery at the beginning of every year?

:D

That would be hilariously entertaining

"Mad Max" Mosley has touted the idea that he would like to see the drivers move from team to team for each GP. But he is a crazy man and people only take him seriously because he makes the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah! Why are you all acting like girls waiting to catch the right guy in front of the pub! :P

Why are you guys complicating this issue. Ferrari knew that only a miracle could make Massa win. They must have focused entirely on Kimi that afternoon. Why credit only Kimi and the car for the victory. Toad was there when Micheal was racing, remember? Surely Toad must have croaked the instructions over the radio to Kimi to drive like how they instructed Micheal in past. Ferrari and Mclaren are the masters of pit strategy, both of them have even proved that they can win a race with an inferior car. Suerly Ferrari have the pace, and a slight upper hand at the moment.

Mike, you know it is really difficult to overtake cars as they move up the grid. Massa easily overtook cars that can be classified as fourth best and below from back. BMW is a difficult car to overtake especially in the hands of Kubica (Though our Godboy has overtaken him like munching peanuts B) though ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's one where we just state what we think, agree to disagree, and move on.

Yup, i can agree with you on that! Time constraints have prevented me from being as active as i wanted to be in this debate but i have thoroughly enjoyed it. It has re-invigorated my enthusiasm for TF1. It's a testament to the intelligence and dogged determination of its participants! (I was involved too).

Proof that divided opinion does not have to decline into petty personal attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I don't believe Alonso has the ability to pull of blinding in and out laps. If Kimi were in the McLaren, and they short-fueled him into the lead, I believe that Kimi in the McLaren would have pulled out a lead that Alonso could not have countered. Of course there is the possibility that the McLaren would have been too fragile to take the abuse, but that's a different argument....

Wow simply stunning ..... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the other issues. Firstly I don't even understand this idea about doing great in-/out-laps. I mean why didn't Kimi just drive fast all the way through? I think that's what Michael did (although that's only a guess) and that is what makes sense. I don't see any advantage in doing a few hot laps when you could have been faster at other times. Furthermore I don't see how these laps could have made much difference. Lets say the Ferrari was 0.3s/lap faster on equal fuel etc (though I think it was more). Then over a 60 lap race, Kimi should have been 18s ahead at the finish. Suppose he was an absolutely gobsmacking 1s/lap faster on his in-/out-laps, then he would have made up an extra 4s in that time. It doesn't make any difference when you should already be 18s ahead. Now obviously when you doing a Michael and beating a faster car through strategy and skill, being able to get right on the limit on in-/out-laps is a great skill and can make all the difference. But that should be irrelevant when you have an 18s gap in your pocket.

This is the crux of the argument against Mike's assertion that Kimi's drive was like the great Michael. If you already have a speed advantage, all things being equal, you will win the race.

Put Alonso, Lewis or Massa in a similar position and speed advantage and they would have done the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. And quite possibly Button, Heidfeld, Kubica, Rosberg etc too. Giving someone an 18s head start to a race (Mike's figure, not mine) is an enormous advantage.

Now the other issues. Firstly I don't even understand this idea about doing great in-/out-laps.
Understanding this is the key to everything. How can you take part is this discussion and not understand this? How can anyone take your opinions here seriously when you don't understand how a fast in/out lap won so many races for Michael?
It doesn't make any difference when you should already be 18s ahead. Now obviously when you [are] doing a Michael and beating a faster car through strategy and skill, being able to get right on the limit on in-/out-laps is a great skill and can make all the difference. But that should be irrelevant when you have an 18s gap in your pocket.

Your post above is the shoddiest I've seen from you, Mike. :nono1: Maybe you were tired too last night and didn't read all of my post.

EDIT: Alas, Murray, the burden of proof often rests with me. That's because I'm the rare person who floats ideas that, at the time floated, aren't provable

... or indeed justifiable at all, beyond resorting to arguments like "I'm more experienced than you, so there" and "gut-feelings".

I invite you to sit back and see how my theory will unfold into fact. Consider it an education. ;)

If you are suggesting that Kimi will now beat Massa, I predicted that about a year ago too. It's hardly a ground-breaking idea. If you are claiming that we will now see how the driver makes all the difference, I don't see why we can't use previous seasons to assess that.

Why not before each race? Yes, we are deep into dellusion land here...but I find the idea attractive! (Of course, I find watching a dead squirrel attractive too, so don't take me to seriously)

Excellent idea! Maybe this is a compromise that would satisfy me (it would create a more meaningful WDC) and almost everyone else (it would keep the WCC). In fact, it might make the WCC more meaningful too, if you care about such things.

If you find yourself in second place, running heavier than the guy in front but setting roughly equal lap times, this is the safest and easiest way to end up in first.

Yes I appreciate that, but thanks for your kind reply Silas. What I was getting at was a bit more subtle that Mike made out. The point was that Kimi should have been 18s ahead (Mike's figure, not mine) because he had the faster car all weekend. Therefore a couple of seconds here and there shouldn't make any difference. Now, when Michael beat faster cars through strategy, what you're suggesting was exactly how he did it. But that is a totally different situation.

"Mad Max" Mosley has touted the idea that he would like to see the drivers move from team to team for each GP. But he is a crazy man and people only take him seriously because he makes the rules.

Excellent idea again! Max is a terrific guy imho. :D

Mr Murray called Kimi a lazy finn just a few post's ago :P

Yup!

Wow simply stunning ..... :blink:

Yup. It's kinda hard to believe, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok! So let's start switching drivers before each race! Please...please...let Liuzzi get a McLaren for next race and Alonso in a Renault! :prayhands:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok! So let's start switching drivers before each race! Please...please...let Liuzzi get a McLaren for next race and Alonso in a Renault! :prayhands:

Yeah lets just put the drivers with the most points in the worst cars.

Leading WDC = driving a Spyker

That should make things interesting :P

Uhm by the way where is Shane2 ?

I figured he would have responded by now.

Surely enough bait has been thrown around. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's what Michael did (although that's only a guess) and that is what makes sense. I don't see any advantage in doing a few hot laps when you could have been faster at other times.

Producing hot in laps is easy. You are driving a car, which by virtue of it being nearly empty, is going to be fast. The magic comes from delivering a mighty out lap when you are on cold, unknown rubber. It's about having the confidence to be on the limit immediately. You can only do that if you have superior feel to your opponents.

Not trying to agree or disagree here. Just random thoughts coming out which may take the discussion somewhere similar but a little different!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...