Hamilton Vs Rosberg 2014

[Montyinct]

http://goo.gl/ronqwg
Wonder what we can read into this, and what can we expect.
I don't think he will say this unless there is more shenanigans that is going to go unpunished!

[Phil]

Why does pole conversion matter? A pole position means you have a fast - perhaps dominant - car, in principle capable of getting around faster than anyone else. So you should be able to convert that into a lot of wins, assuming all the usual stuff about reliability, crashing etc, but that is the same for everybody. If your conversion ratio of poles with a dominant car is weak, you will not win or score enough points to win championships even though you are in the best possible position to do so.

There's one huge hole in this theory: The FIA has been hard at work to make the sport a business and spectacle, finding ways to enhance the show on sundays by adding tyres that degrade faster, forcing to use two quite different tyre compounds and most importantly, DRS and KERS, to increase the possibility of an exciting race, where the given qualified order on Saturday is less important. These things exist for the sole reason, to not make it a train where the fastest car starting on pole doesn't necessarely finish first at the checkered flag.

So, everytime you bring up drivers of different eras, don't forget that they all raced under very different circumstances and the sport as a whole was quite different too (for better or worse). We don't need to go very far to see how some of these changes, especially tyres, caused a bit of freak show when in 2012, we had 7 different winners in the 7 first races, because tyre degredation and performance varied from race to race, creating a sport more akin to winning a lottery.

I will admit, I do prefer to compare drivers by how they qualify, as qualifying introduces the least amount of factors that could influence the outcome, but to solely mix qualifying stats with winning stats goes a bit far. It also does not take into consideration the countless factors that can influence win results that are outside of a drivers ability: rain, safety-cars, mechanical (non driver related) DNFs, pitstops screwups and other things.

Unfortunately, your theory of yours and the mentality that goes with it portrays quite nicely how we as human beings tend to apply selective memory. By next year, irregardless who wins the WDC, most will have forgotten that by this stage, Lewis suffered two DNFs to Nico's none and that this in itself will have an influence on the overal outcome of this season (especially the mental aspect). It's really identical to all the comparison that pit Hamilton / Buttons 3 season together to come up with some number that shows that Button accumulated more points over those 3 season - but few seem to recall how many points were lost in that 2012 season that could (should) have been the title for Lewis, if not for all those costly DNFs.

[SectorOne]

If Hamilton wins the title.

He won't. But I still like him.

So we have a deal? If he wins, you bury that theory forever. No third limited edition in six months or any of that ok?
It was interesting the first time but now it´s obvious you don´t care about if the theory is right or wrong.

[Miguel]

You know what? I don't care. After 3 years of Vettel being essentially alone, the fact that you're having this conversation, in a civilised manner, is nothing short of fantastic.

[Pierce89]

Lewis may in fact be the "quicker" driver but to win a Championship, a driver must be smart, too. A little luck doesn't hurt either. Nico is definitely the "smarter" driver. If Lewis had maintained a 2-3 second gap in Canada until closer to the end, he probably wouldn't have cooked his rear brakes and might have been able to overtake Nico and won. Lewis has had a bit of bad luck this year as well.

His team of Engineer's were not smart enough to detect that the KERS will fail. I guess F1 drivers should have 1st class degrees in engineering and 5 years experience now? haha

Hey Smikle, I thought you gave up on Hamilton and became a Vettel guy. I distinctly remember that.

[Pierce89]

The premise of Lewis being the quicker driver has also no basis, just wishful thinking

It´s funny because your data proved Hamilton has been the quicker driver so far.
Then you decided to split qualis in wet and dry (like some other guy did) and then make excuses of "he sucks in the wet"

And proceeded to only count laptime delta in dry conditions.
What sort of delta do you get if you....you know....count ALL the quali sessions?


Even if data isn´t your thing, Lauda has said that from his point of view Lewis is 1-2 tenths quicker.
Which funnily enough fits the 2 tenths on average advantage he´s had over Rosberg this year.

And again just to reiterate, the average gap in qualifying between Ham and Ros has increased from last year.

Just out of curiosity, when and where did Laudmouth say that?

[the user]

And again just to reiterate, the average gap in qualifying between Ham and Ros has increased from last year.

Actually no. When you compare race-to-race to last year - the time difference between them is smaller than in last year's qualifyings. China was the only anomaly with a 1.283s gap, but in exact same races this year the gap is smaller. And I am talking only about the gap between thier best qualifying times, and not about who outqualified who in any given race.

[SectorOne]

Just out of curiosity, when and where did Laudmouth say that?

He never said that, there´s a gap between the two sentences and they are not related.
If you are talking about the bold part that is.

[the user]

The premise of Lewis being the quicker driver has also no basis, just wishful thinking

It´s funny because your data proved Hamilton has been the quicker driver so far.
Then you decided to split qualis in wet and dry (like some other guy did) and then make excuses of "he sucks in the wet"

And proceeded to only count laptime delta in dry conditions.
What sort of delta do you get if you....you know....count ALL the quali sessions?


Even if data isn´t your thing, Lauda has said that from his point of view Lewis is 1-2 tenths quicker.
Which funnily enough fits the 2 tenths on average advantage he´s had over Rosberg this year.

And again just to reiterate, the average gap in qualifying between Ham and Ros has increased from last year.

Just out of curiosity, when and where did Laudmouth say that?

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorspor ... 60185.html Lauda's quote is here.

[sennafan24]

As for DNFs of Button and Lewis, we have discussed this a few times before but again the difference in number was coming from the number of accidents of Lewis orherwise the mechanical issues was 6-5 as fas as I remember.

Lewis retired in more costly positions though.

He was leading the race in both Singapore and Abu Dhabi 2012 when mechanical issues struck

Jenson never retired from the lead during their time as teammates, he did retire from 2nd at Monza 2012, when he was behind Lewis.

I think Rosberg has this one well in hand, and I say this as a Lewis fan. Nico is too quick for Lewis to consistently beat him enough to close the gap in my opinion. Lewis needs Nico to DNF.

Lewis is up 12-10 in 2 car finishes so far, hardly much is it?

[SectorOne]

And again just to reiterate, the average gap in qualifying between Ham and Ros has increased from last year.

Actually no.

Actually yes.
The average qualifying gap between the two in 2013 was -0.158s, in 2014 up to this point it´s -0.237s

And I am talking only about the gap between thier best qualifying times,

Ah yea, we call that cherry picked data. You can probably get any answer you want out of cherry picked data.

I could for example make a claim and say Hamilton has the lowest average grid position after penalties.
But that would be incorrect and could only be done through cherrypicking my data.
Taking all data and the answer is Rosberg. Doesn´t matter what i think or you think, that´s the fact up until this point.

Another example was a guy who split the wet and dry sessions because he felt Rosberg sucked in the wet.
Sky is the limit when it comes to cherrypicking.

[the user]

And again just to reiterate, the average gap in qualifying between Ham and Ros has increased from last year.

Actually no.

Actually yes.
The average qualifying gap between the two in 2013 was -0.158s, in 2014 up to this point it´s -0.237s

And I am talking only about the gap between thier best qualifying times,

Ah yea, we call that cherry picked data. You can probably get any answer you want out of cherry picked data.

I could for example make a claim and say Hamilton has the lowest average grid position after penalties.
But that would be incorrect and could only be done through cherrypicking my data.
Taking all data and the answer is Rosberg.

Another example was a guy who split the wet and dry sessions because he felt Rosberg sucked in the wet.
Sky is the limit when it comes to cherrypicking.

-

What cherry picked data? Since when taking fastest times (same times that you took) from qualifying (that decided their qualifying positions) is chery picking data??? Learn some reading coprehension please. I was comparing them on a race-by-race basis. And the fact is, when compared to last year, in the qualifyings for the same race (e.g. Australia 2013 vs Australia 2014) the gap between them is closer. The only anomaly was China. That's what I was talking about. I can say the same nonsense about you - you're comparing the whole of 2013 to only a part of 2014. That is the same cherry picking you're talking about.

[Shrieker]

Another example was a guy who split the wet and dry sessions because he felt Rosberg sucked in the wet.
Sky is the limit when it comes to cherrypicking.

Why not split the dry and the wet and throw the dry weather data out since it's a damn well known fact that it takes more skill to drive better in the wet, especially with the same car

If one wants to reach a logical conclusion about driver skill, that is. And not just some b0llocks.

[SectorOne]

you're comparing the whole of 2013 to only a part of 2014. That is the same cherry picking you're talking about.

No it´s not, i´m merely taking all the data there is from both seasons.

Learn some reading coprehension please.

When you learn how to write properly.
It´s a big blob of text and i´m glad you at least had the common courtesy to add dots after ever sentence.
(Using multiple question marks does not enhance the effect either)

But let´s get back to the actual discussion, i would have to assume we are both correct, if you have the data please post it up so we can take a look at it.

[the user]

No it´s not, i´m merely taking all the data there is from both seasons.

Which doesn't make your comparison correct.

When you learn how to write properly.
It´s a big blob of text and i´m glad you at least had the common courtesy to add dots after ever sentence.
(Using multiple question marks does not enhance the effect either)

English is not my native language. If there were no dots - there would be no sentences. So I don't see what the problem was. Anyway, sorry if my post was hard to read.

But let´s get back to the actual discussion, i would have to assume we are both correct, if you have the data please post it up so we can take a look at it.

Ok.
1) Australia. In 2013 the gap was 0.436s in qualifying. In 2014 - 0.364.
2) Malaysia. 2013 - the gap was 0.820s. 2014 - 0.619s.
3) China. 2013 - 0.377s. 2014 - 1.283s. The anomaly that ruined the trend a bit.
4) Bahrain. 2013 - 0.432s. 2014 - 0.279s.
5) Spain. 2013 - 0.254s. 2014 - 0.168s.
6) Monaco. 2013 - 0.091s. 2014 - 0.059s.
7) Canada. 2013 - 0.496s. 2014 - 0.079s.
Austria. Nothing to compare to.

So as you see, I am not getting in to an argument on who is quicker. All I am talking about is the delta.

It's actually quite interesting. Even though the lap times are slower (2014 cars are slower) and this year's cars should be more challenging to drive (less downforce) but the gaps are smaller between them in qualifying.