Doesn't 2007 count? That year Mclaren was clearly the fastest and the championship was all but guranteed to either Hamilton or alonso. Just poor team management literally gave it to kimi.TAG wrote:Just read (okay skimmed some) this entire thread and I didn't see anyone mention a simple yet very glaring fact of all. Until least year, Hamilton had never won an F1 race in a WCC winning car.
Mclaren didn't win the WCC though, Ferrari did.Emmcee wrote:Doesn't 2007 count? That year Mclaren was clearly the fastest and the championship was all but guranteed to either Hamilton or alonso. Just poor team management literally gave it to kimi.TAG wrote:Just read (okay skimmed some) this entire thread and I didn't see anyone mention a simple yet very glaring fact of all. Until least year, Hamilton had never won an F1 race in a WCC winning car.
I completely disagree. The Ferrari was the clearly faster car that year, just it didn't have two excellent drivers in it.Emmcee wrote:Doesn't 2007 count? That year Mclaren was clearly the fastest and the championship was all but guranteed to either Hamilton or alonso. Just poor team management literally gave it to kimi.TAG wrote:Just read (okay skimmed some) this entire thread and I didn't see anyone mention a simple yet very glaring fact of all. Until least year, Hamilton had never won an F1 race in a WCC winning car.
What's your method of deciding it was faster? Your post is nothing more than a baseless opinion.Moose wrote:I completely disagree. The Ferrari was the clearly faster car that year, just it didn't have two excellent drivers in it.Emmcee wrote:Doesn't 2007 count? That year Mclaren was clearly the fastest and the championship was all but guranteed to either Hamilton or alonso. Just poor team management literally gave it to kimi.TAG wrote:Just read (okay skimmed some) this entire thread and I didn't see anyone mention a simple yet very glaring fact of all. Until least year, Hamilton had never won an F1 race in a WCC winning car.
this would be a good start.flynfrog wrote: What's your method of deciding it was faster? Your post is nothing more than a baseless opinion.
I know its hard for you to understand but we are not talking about the drivers we are comparing cars. The relative speed of the drivers really counts for very little when car speed has so much of an influence on the Constructors championship.PlatinumZealot wrote:This weekend James Allison, technical director at Ferrari said that this year, Kimi has the same speed as Vettel, only that Kimi is more error prone. This is enough damning evidence to support the theories that in outright speed, Massa = Kimi = Vettel <<< Hamilton. Therefore the argument can be closed with the conclusion that Vettel had the better cars.
Now we are getting somewhere. I would argue that the fastest laps don't really matter. Wins and WCC mean much more. The fastest F1 car isn't necessarily the best. F1 cars by design are meant to win the race going as slow as possible. All out one lap pace doesn't mean it can do it all race without breaking down. So if we are trying to establish dominance points scored probably means the most we don't really care how the car did it.dans79 wrote:this would be a good start.flynfrog wrote: What's your method of deciding it was faster? Your post is nothing more than a baseless opinion.
1) Ferrari won the WCC
2) Ferrari won more races, despite qualifying 1 place lower on average.
2) Ferrari had over twice as many fast laps.
Well that's rather the point that everyone's gone over and over and over in this discussion...flynfrog wrote:What's your method of deciding it was faster? Your post is nothing more than a baseless opinion.
Sure we do - because "how it did it" is exactly one of the things we're trying to separate here. The driver sat in the seat is an important part of how it did it.flynfrog wrote:So if we are trying to establish dominance points scored probably means the most we don't really care how the car did it.
Alonso and Hamilton got more points than Raikonnen and Massa, there was one race (won by Mclaren) that didn't count points for the team just for the drivers, i'm not sure wether it was Hungary or Monza.dans79 wrote:this would be a good start.flynfrog wrote: What's your method of deciding it was faster? Your post is nothing more than a baseless opinion.
1) Ferrari won the WCC
2) Ferrari won more races, despite qualifying 1 place lower on average.
2) Ferrari had over twice as many fast laps.
Do you really think there is that much of difference in the combined points of two drivers on a top F1 team? The car is such a larger factor that any of the top drivers can win the WDC in the top car. The fact we have 4 WDC currently in F1 and a few drivers that were within a handful of points of winning can attest to this. Six of the last Ten WDC went to the last race to be decided there isn't much difference across drivers over a season let alone 2 drivers combined.Moose wrote: Sure we do - because "how it did it" is exactly one of the things we're trying to separate here. The driver sat in the seat is an important part of how it did it.
When you're talking about 2007, yes, I do. We've seen that Alonso can kerb stomp both Massa and Kimi in the same car. That alone suggests that there's an enormous driver factor between the two cars in 2007.flynfrog wrote:Do you really think there is that much of difference in the combined points of two drivers on a top F1 team?Moose wrote: Sure we do - because "how it did it" is exactly one of the things we're trying to separate here. The driver sat in the seat is an important part of how it did it.
Except again - Massa and Kimi couldn't come close to Alonso. Effectively your assertion is "the driver doesn't mean anything in F1".The car is such a larger factor that any of the top drivers can win the WDC in the top car.
That's fair - I'm fine with it being locked simply because I think it's a hugely unproductive topic. Unless someone can come up with a method of actually separating driver performance from car performance, then everyone in this thread is effectively pissing in the wind.My reasoning for continuing to push this thread back to the cars is that its only way this thread will stay open. Once it devolves into a driver fan boy fest it's getting locked.
It started as a driver thread and hasn't changed from post no.1 to now. The subtext of the thread title and opening post is obvious and why I suggested early on that the thread title should be changed to reflect your assertion that it's a car thread. But...flynfrog wrote: My reasoning for continuing to push this thread back to the cars is that its only way this thread will stay open. Once it devolves into a driver fan boy fest it's getting locked.
