planetf1.com

KingVoid wrote:Neither of Hamilton's teammates in this era have been proper top drivers. Rosberg was a tier 1.5 driver and Bottas is a firm tier 2 driver, and Mercedes' advantage from 2014-2017 is bigger than Red Bull's advantage from 2010-2013. There is nothing to complain about for Hamilton fans.

Are Hamilton fans complaining?

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote: Anyway my point being would a better teammate for Hamilton make everything alright, I'm guessing probably not?

Well if Vettel or Alonso or even Max would be in the second Merc I think that could secure my attention yes.

Then you are on the same page as me but you know that both Vettel and Verstappen have decided they don't want to join Mercedes whilst Hamilton is there which is somewhat disappointing to me on one level because I would love to see him against those 2 drivers but on another level it's better because if he has the best car then it makes it easier for him to win the title, and I guess it's this aspect that people don't like?

mds wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:Let’s be fair to Hamilton though, he has had 8 years against 3 WDC material teammates in their prime so far but on the other hand Vettel has had just 1 year against top level teammate.

Both Button and Rosberg were still clearly inferior to Hamilton and I suspect would have been when partnered with Vettel as well.

I mean, Rosberg wins with one of the most dominant cars ever and only because luck/reliability was on his side, and then that counts for Hamilton as "3 years against WDC material driver in his prime"?
Same for Button.

So suppose Webber had won the 2010 WDC championship, then Vettel would now have 6 years on his "against WDC material teammate" tally? Should've let that title go then, and be regarded higher for it? I hope you see the nonsense in all of this?

Button was world champion when he joined McLaren and then in his later years he went on to be Alonso's toughest teammate since 2007, Rosberg after his rookie season was unbeaten against teammates which included Schumacher.

Anyway my general point is that if Rosberg had performed at the same level as Webber 2011-2013 then I don't see that Mercedes would have retained him and Bottas presently is in the same situation, this is the main thing that I found frustrating about the Red Bull years and by the way I had Vettel rated as the best driver in F1 at the end of the 2013 season.

AnRs wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:

mds wrote: Well if Vettel or Alonso or even Max would be in the second Merc I think that could secure my attention yes.

Well the Ferrari being dominant scenario isn't any better.
Imagine if Ferrari are actually head and shoulders the best car this year.
How interesting will it be to watch Seb win every race with Kimi nowhere.
At least Bottas showed in his first year that he could out qualify and win races against Lewis.
I reckon the title fight would be a whole lot more interesting with Mercedes being top dog than if Ferrari are.

In reality I think we'll get 3 cars that are really close this year and multiple winners and a close championship.

The gap between Bottas and Hamilton is not wildly different than the gap between Kimi and Vettel. I think both scenarios are equally tedious.

But I hope you're right with your last sentence.

It's not just the pace gap that I was referring to.
We know that Mercedes will let Bottas and Hamilton race.
I'm not so sure Ferrari feel the same.

I saw no difference between Merc and Ferrari in #1 strategy in 2017, if so Bottas had to move over more times than Kimi?

Strange I seem to recall Hamilton given the place back to Bottas in Hungary, not normal #1 driver behaviour, while Kimi could have won both Monaco and Hungary but that didn't suit what Ferrari wanted.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:Let’s be fair to Hamilton though, he has had 8 years against 3 WDC material teammates in their prime so far but on the other hand Vettel has had just 1 year against top level teammate.

Both Button and Rosberg were still clearly inferior to Hamilton and I suspect would have been when partnered with Vettel as well.

I mean, Rosberg wins with one of the most dominant cars ever and only because luck/reliability was on his side, and then that counts for Hamilton as "3 years against WDC material driver in his prime"?
Same for Button.

So suppose Webber had won the 2010 WDC championship, then Vettel would now have 6 years on his "against WDC material teammate" tally? Should've let that title go then, and be regarded higher for it? I hope you see the nonsense in all of this?

Button was world champion when he joined McLaren and then in his later years he went on to be Alonso's toughest teammate since 2007, Rosberg after his rookie season was unbeaten against teammates which included Schumacher.

Anyway my general point is that if Rosberg had performed at the same level as Webber 2011-2013 then I don't see that Mercedes would have retained him and Bottas presently is in the same situation, this is the main thing that I found frustrating about the Red Bull years and by the way I had Vettel rated as the best driver in F1 at the end of the 2013 season.

But the Merc was so far ahead of the competition that it gave the drivers a pretty hefty margin of error, which in turn helped disguise driver performance. They had no need to look at other drivers because even on an off day they were hard pressed not to finish 1-2

I agree, BTW, that Red Bull should have replaced Webber earlier. But I don't think the comparison with Merc is apt

pokerman wrote:you know that both Vettel and Verstappen have decided they don't want to join Mercedes whilst Hamilton is there

Do I? Have they actually spoken that out?

I do know that Hamilton has actually spoken out he doesn't want Alonso in there with him. That's the only thing I'm sure of.

but on another level it's better because if he has the best car then it makes it easier for him to win the title, and I guess it's this aspect that people don't like?

Not that it's easier for him, just when there is no actual competition (barring unreliability of sorts) in a highly dominant team.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

bonecrasher wrote:Let’s be fair to Hamilton though, he has had 8 years against 3 WDC material teammates in their prime so far but on the other hand Vettel has had just 1 year against top level teammate.

Both Button and Rosberg were still clearly inferior to Hamilton and I suspect would have been when partnered with Vettel as well.

I mean, Rosberg wins with one of the most dominant cars ever and only because luck/reliability was on his side, and then that counts for Hamilton as "3 years against WDC material driver in his prime"?
Same for Button.

So suppose Webber had won the 2010 WDC championship, then Vettel would now have 6 years on his "against WDC material teammate" tally? Should've let that title go then, and be regarded higher for it? I hope you see the nonsense in all of this?

Button was world champion when he joined McLaren and then in his later years he went on to be Alonso's toughest teammate since 2007, Rosberg after his rookie season was unbeaten against teammates which included Schumacher.

Anyway my general point is that if Rosberg had performed at the same level as Webber 2011-2013 then I don't see that Mercedes would have retained him and Bottas presently is in the same situation, this is the main thing that I found frustrating about the Red Bull years and by the way I had Vettel rated as the best driver in F1 at the end of the 2013 season.

But the Merc was so far ahead of the competition that it gave the drivers a pretty hefty margin of error, which in turn helped disguise driver performance. They had no need to look at other drivers because even on an off day they were hard pressed not to finish 1-2

I agree, BTW, that Red Bull should have replaced Webber earlier. But I don't think the comparison with Merc is apt

Scroll back to what I said previously, despite the dominant car Rosberg was only offered a 1 year contract in 2016 to take him to 2017, no coincidence that this was when Vettel's contract ran out at Ferrari.

In regards to Webber it's like I said the reason why I didn't like the Red Bull years.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:you know that both Vettel and Verstappen have decided they don't want to join Mercedes whilst Hamilton is there

Do I? Have they actually spoken that out?

I do know that Hamilton has actually spoken out he doesn't want Alonso in there with him. That's the only thing I'm sure of.

but on another level it's better because if he has the best car then it makes it easier for him to win the title, and I guess it's this aspect that people don't like?

Not that it's easier for him, just when there is no actual competition (barring unreliability of sorts) in a highly dominant team.

You remember some things but not others, Verstappen specifically gave his reason for not being interested in the Mercedes seat, Hamilton said that Vettel was speaking to Toto after Rosberg announced his retirement.

I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In 2016 Mercedes initially only offered Rosberg a 1 year contract so I think it's fair to say they were looking at someone else, a certain Sebastian Vettel was going to be out of contract for 2018 and there were rumours of talks at the end of 2016 after Rosberg retired but then Ferrari came good last year so that went away.

In regards to Bottas for this year there was only Alonso better than him but Alonso does have a certain reputation, I think he is the only top driver that Mercedes have no interest in plus I've also heard there is a back story of Mercedes not being very impressed with what happened in 2007.

Then looking at 2019 when Bottas contract runs out Mercedes know they then maybe have the option of Ricciardo and Ocon.

But anyway my point was that if Vettel was going to have the best car then I just wanted him to have a stronger teammate.

Alonso and Vettel.

My point was that you can't accuse Red Bull of not signing a driver to challenge Vettel without laying the same charge at Mercedes' door.

I guess you missed what I said about they were looking to replace Rosberg whilst Bottas' tenure at the team doesn't look that secure, Red Bull never had any interest in replacing Webber, also at least Rosberg was able to make things competitive.

Also I believe Mercedes would have been quite happy to sign Vettel but not Alonso and you can put that on to Alonso himself.

I don't think Rosberg did much better than Webber TBH. Rosberg's situation made him look a good deal better than he was.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Best not dominant. And that was narrow.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Hamilton and Vettels situations were quite similar for racking up wins. 40 to 34 over their 4 dominant years and 41 to 38 over there 5 race winning years at their respective teams.

Hamilton had 4 dominant years with a car that would win 90% of the races but had a 1.5 alongside him taking wins from him.

Vettel had 4 years with a car that could win around 60% of the races but a number 2 alongside him taking very few wins from him.

2010: VET 5 WEB 4 (this was similar to Hamiltons 2016, all the luck went one way making it close)
2011: VET 11 WEB 1
2012: VET 5 WEB 2
2013: VET 13 WEB 0

TOTAL: VET 34 WEB 7

2014: HAM 11 ROS 4
2015: HAM 10 ROS 6
2016: HAM 10 ROS 9 (same thing occurred that happened to Vettel in 2010)

2017: HAM 9 BOT 3

TOTAL: HAM 40 ROS/BOT 22

Hamilton's 2017 is similar to Vettels 2010-2013. A car capable of winning only 60% of the races now, but crucially a slower team mate now. If Hamilton had had a number 2 for 2014-2016 he would have been posting 15 wins per year at least. However, even with a much slower car than 2014-2016 he still posted a similar number of wins due to the weaker team mate.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In 2016 Mercedes initially only offered Rosberg a 1 year contract so I think it's fair to say they were looking at someone else, a certain Sebastian Vettel was going to be out of contract for 2018 and there were rumours of talks at the end of 2016 after Rosberg retired but then Ferrari came good last year so that went away.

In regards to Bottas for this year there was only Alonso better than him but Alonso does have a certain reputation, I think he is the only top driver that Mercedes have no interest in plus I've also heard there is a back story of Mercedes not being very impressed with what happened in 2007.

Then looking at 2019 when Bottas contract runs out Mercedes know they then maybe have the option of Ricciardo and Ocon.

But anyway my point was that if Vettel was going to have the best car then I just wanted him to have a stronger teammate.

Alonso and Vettel.

My point was that you can't accuse Red Bull of not signing a driver to challenge Vettel without laying the same charge at Mercedes' door.

I guess you missed what I said about they were looking to replace Rosberg whilst Bottas' tenure at the team doesn't look that secure, Red Bull never had any interest in replacing Webber, also at least Rosberg was able to make things competitive.

Also I believe Mercedes would have been quite happy to sign Vettel but not Alonso and you can put that on to Alonso himself.

I don't think Rosberg did much better than Webber TBH. Rosberg's situation made him look a good deal better than he was.

Rosberg had a good (unique) situation whereby he just needed to be in the lead at turn 1 to win the race. It was a very very simple fight the Mercedes one. We have never seen this before in F1.

Laz_T800 wrote:

mds wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:

mds wrote: Both Button and Rosberg were still clearly inferior to Hamilton and I suspect would have been when partnered with Vettel as well.

I mean, Rosberg wins with one of the most dominant cars ever and only because luck/reliability was on his side, and then that counts for Hamilton as "3 years against WDC material driver in his prime"?
Same for Button.

So suppose Webber had won the 2010 WDC championship, then Vettel would now have 6 years on his "against WDC material teammate" tally? Should've let that title go then, and be regarded higher for it? I hope you see the nonsense in all of this?

Rosberg and Hamilton had 4 years as team mates. In 3 of those years Rosberg absolutely pushed Hamilton and was a match for him in many races.
I'm not sure how that equates to him not being WDC material.

I'd dispute the match for Hamilton in many races. Hamilton was clearly superior. Rosberg only got close because there were no other cars to interfere with their private battle and reliability made it look a lot closer than it actually was on track. I'm skeptical that Rosberg would have had a sniff of the WDC if he hadn't had such a superior car to the rest of the field.

I wanted to reply but you've said everything I wanted to.

The revisionist history being put forward about Rosbergs driving abilities has no real basis in fact.
He was able to win 1 WDC and very nearly won in 2014.
Lewis is the No1 pole man in F1 history and Rosberg proved a match for him in qualifying on many occasions.
He was highly rated in 2010 when he signed for Mercedes and he was able to deal with Michael really well.
Take Lewis out the the Mercedes picture and I think he'd be a 4 X WDC now.
I know why people talk Rosberg down and I don't think it's anything to do with his ability.

I think the revisionism can be a two-way street for obvious reasons.

IMO, he had a great work ethic,mental strength and resilience and great one lap pace on a Saturday but lacked a bit in wheel to wheel racing to the best and was poor in the wet so too often Sunday's weren't as good as Saturday. Could have some howlers like he somehow managed to get beat by Alonso at least once every year of the Turbo's and look at Alonso's cars. Walked away rather than fight more than his team mate again, even referenced it in his retirement speech. But had great determination to work on his shortcomings and could put into practice whatever he was shown to change, like with the infamous 'dossier'. Being shown it is one thing but being able to implement it is a whole different thing and in race pace in particular he was able to implement what he learned to great effect. Worked hard away from the race weekend to achieve his goal but once achieved he was spent.

And that's about it, he's like a reverse Button strength-wise if you know what I mean, so quicker and better over all than a number 2 but not on the very top guys level often enough to be classed at the very top.

Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

Lotus49 wrote:

I think the revisionism can be a two-way street for obvious reasons.

IMO, he had a great work ethic,mental strength and resilience and great one lap pace on a Saturday but lacked a bit in wheel to wheel racing to the best and was poor in the wet so too often Sunday's weren't as good as Saturday. Could have some howlers like he somehow managed to get beat by Alonso at least once every year of the Turbo's and look at Alonso's cars. Walked away rather than fight more than his team mate again, even referenced it in his retirement speech. But had great determination to work on his shortcomings and could put into practice whatever he was shown to change, like with the infamous 'dossier'. Being shown it is one thing but being able to implement it is a whole different thing and in race pace in particular he was able to implement what he learned to great effect. Worked hard away from the race weekend to achieve his goal but once achieved he was spent.

And that's about it, he's like a reverse Button strength-wise if you know what I mean, so quicker and better over all than a number 2 but not on the very top guys level often enough to be classed at the very top.

Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

That about sums up what i'd say.
He was not quite on Hamilton's level but he was good enough to push him and be right there to take the wins when they were available.
Hamilton and Alonso are IMHO the two best drivers of their era.
There is a group just below them that are all fantastic drivers and Rosberg was in that group.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

When did best start to mean "dominant". A car can be better than the others without being dominant.

Lotus49 wrote:
Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

If Rosberg didn’t go alongside Hamilton then his career would look a lot different. Assuming he beat whoever was in Hamilton’s place and still retired in 2016 with 3x WDC’S. There isn’t even a double WDC who isn’t considered tier 1, let alone 3.

He would have a career record of 10-1 against his team mate with the sole loss against an experienced peak Webber who was already embedded into Williams. Rosberg was as quick as him from day 1 too.

No driver in the sports history has anywhere near such a record and not considered tier 1. People would say it was a lot down to the car but there wouldn’t be any evidence to suggest Rosberg wasn’t the best of his generation or at least a top top driver.

That’s why its so telling when top drivers do go against one another in teams. Kimi had his reputation completely destroyed once he went up against top drivers. Webber was found out once going against Vettel, he also had a great record before that.

lamo wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

If Rosberg didn’t go alongside Hamilton then his career would look a lot different. Assuming he beat whoever was in Hamilton’s place and still retired in 2016 with 3x WDC’S. There isn’t even a double WDC who isn’t considered tier 1, let alone 3.

He would have a career record of 10-1 against his team mate with the sole loss against an experienced peak Webber who was already embedded into Williams. Rosberg was as quick as him from day 1 too.

No driver in the sports history has anywhere near such a record and not considered tier 1. People would say it was a lot down to the car but there wouldn’t be any evidence to suggest Rosberg wasn’t the best of his generation or at least a top top driver.

That’s why its so telling when top drivers do go against one another in teams. Kimi had his reputation completely destroyed once he went up against top drivers. Webber was found out once going against Vettel, he also had a great record before that.

I know it's not the main point of your post but perhaps Graham Hill?

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

First of all, that's a bogus stat. Hamilton was certainly driver of the day more than Vettel last year. Secondly, you've provided absolutely nothing to suggest the Mercedes was the dominant car last year.

The fact is that the Ferrari was on par with the Mercedes in terms of performance up until the point when the title was already decided. Vettel crashing on lap 1 in Singapore and then suffering a mechanical failure in qualifying in Malaysia and in the race in Japan was the reason Ferrari fell out of the title picture. They had a faster car than Mercedes easily in two of those three races. You want to suggest that because Mercedes won more races, they were faster but that's actually just an assumption made while ignoring the actual events of last year. There were just as many races where Ferrari were quicker as races where Mercedes were quicker. Hamilton/Mercedes just did a better job overall and the Ferrari suffered reliability issues at a very inopportune time.

We’ve already gone over this before, and Mercedes was the faster car in the majority of qualifying sessions and the majority of races.

Also, the fact that Ferrari suffered mechanical failures in the crucial part of the season while Mercedes did not suggests that Mercedes didn’t feel the need to push the limit as hard as Ferrari did, that tells you something.

KingVoid wrote:We’ve already gone over this before, and Mercedes was the faster car in the majority of qualifying sessions and the majority of races.

Also, the fact that Ferrari suffered mechanical failures in the crucial part of the season while Mercedes did not suggests that Mercedes didn’t feel the need to push the limit as hard as Ferrari did, that tells you something.

No actually; having gone through this several times last year, Mercedes and Ferrari were neck and neck up to the point when Hamilton sewed up the championship. It wasn't until the final two meaningless races that Mercedes pulled ahead on the season. The efforts you went to to try to paint last season as one where Ferrari were at a disadvantage where admirable but they don't change the underlying reality; which was that Ferrari were competitive throughout the entire championship. Mercedes just did a better job of maximizing what they had.

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

First of all, that's a bogus stat. Hamilton was certainly driver of the day more than Vettel last year. Secondly, you've provided absolutely nothing to suggest the Mercedes was the dominant car last year.

The fact is that the Ferrari was on par with the Mercedes in terms of performance up until the point when the title was already decided. Vettel crashing on lap 1 in Singapore and then suffering a mechanical failure in qualifying in Malaysia and in the race in Japan was the reason Ferrari fell out of the title picture. They had a faster car than Mercedes easily in two of those three races. You want to suggest that because Mercedes won more races, they were faster but that's actually just an assumption made while ignoring the actual events of last year. There were just as many races where Ferrari were quicker as races where Mercedes were quicker. Hamilton/Mercedes just did a better job overall and the Ferrari suffered reliability issues at a very inopportune time.

I don't think it is a fact, though. There's enough evidence to suggest the Mercedes was comfortably the faster car

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

First of all, that's a bogus stat. Hamilton was certainly driver of the day more than Vettel last year. Secondly, you've provided absolutely nothing to suggest the Mercedes was the dominant car last year.

The fact is that the Ferrari was on par with the Mercedes in terms of performance up until the point when the title was already decided. Vettel crashing on lap 1 in Singapore and then suffering a mechanical failure in qualifying in Malaysia and in the race in Japan was the reason Ferrari fell out of the title picture. They had a faster car than Mercedes easily in two of those three races. You want to suggest that because Mercedes won more races, they were faster but that's actually just an assumption made while ignoring the actual events of last year. There were just as many races where Ferrari were quicker as races where Mercedes were quicker. Hamilton/Mercedes just did a better job overall and the Ferrari suffered reliability issues at a very inopportune time.

I count it 7-3 in Vettel´s favor. Also Bottas and Verstappen had 3 DoD wins.

lamo wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

If Rosberg didn’t go alongside Hamilton then his career would look a lot different. Assuming he beat whoever was in Hamilton’s place and still retired in 2016 with 3x WDC’S. There isn’t even a double WDC who isn’t considered tier 1, let alone 3.

He would have a career record of 10-1 against his team mate with the sole loss against an experienced peak Webber who was already embedded into Williams. Rosberg was as quick as him from day 1 too.

No driver in the sports history has anywhere near such a record and not considered tier 1. People would say it was a lot down to the car but there wouldn’t be any evidence to suggest Rosberg wasn’t the best of his generation or at least a top top driver.

That’s why its so telling when top drivers do go against one another in teams. Kimi had his reputation completely destroyed once he went up against top drivers. Webber was found out once going against Vettel, he also had a great record before that.

He'd have been this generations Piquet in that scenario imo, but it obviously depends who was sitting next to him and how convincingly he beat them, assuming he did, fair enough.

No disrespect meant to Piquet but I think he's not as highly thought of as his stats would suggest he should be.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Vettel was leading the WDC two thirds of the way through the season until driver mistakes and reliability issues intervened, clearly Ferrari left some wins on the table and a dominant car doesn't need help from it's competition.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In 2016 Mercedes initially only offered Rosberg a 1 year contract so I think it's fair to say they were looking at someone else, a certain Sebastian Vettel was going to be out of contract for 2018 and there were rumours of talks at the end of 2016 after Rosberg retired but then Ferrari came good last year so that went away.

In regards to Bottas for this year there was only Alonso better than him but Alonso does have a certain reputation, I think he is the only top driver that Mercedes have no interest in plus I've also heard there is a back story of Mercedes not being very impressed with what happened in 2007.

Then looking at 2019 when Bottas contract runs out Mercedes know they then maybe have the option of Ricciardo and Ocon.

But anyway my point was that if Vettel was going to have the best car then I just wanted him to have a stronger teammate.

Alonso and Vettel.

My point was that you can't accuse Red Bull of not signing a driver to challenge Vettel without laying the same charge at Mercedes' door.

I guess you missed what I said about they were looking to replace Rosberg whilst Bottas' tenure at the team doesn't look that secure, Red Bull never had any interest in replacing Webber, also at least Rosberg was able to make things competitive.

Also I believe Mercedes would have been quite happy to sign Vettel but not Alonso and you can put that on to Alonso himself.

I don't think Rosberg did much better than Webber TBH. Rosberg's situation made him look a good deal better than he was.

That's a possibility but still 2 of the 3 titles went down to the wire.

lamo wrote:Hamilton and Vettels situations were quite similar for racking up wins. 40 to 34 over their 4 dominant years and 41 to 38 over there 5 race winning years at their respective teams.

Hamilton had 4 dominant years with a car that would win 90% of the races but had a 1.5 alongside him taking wins from him.

Vettel had 4 years with a car that could win around 60% of the races but a number 2 alongside him taking very few wins from him.

2010: VET 5 WEB 4 (this was similar to Hamiltons 2016, all the luck went one way making it close)
2011: VET 11 WEB 1
2012: VET 5 WEB 2
2013: VET 13 WEB 0

TOTAL: VET 34 WEB 7

2014: HAM 11 ROS 4
2015: HAM 10 ROS 6
2016: HAM 10 ROS 9 (same thing occurred that happened to Vettel in 2010)

2017: HAM 9 BOT 3

TOTAL: HAM 40 ROS/BOT 22

Hamilton's 2017 is similar to Vettels 2010-2013. A car capable of winning only 60% of the races now, but crucially a slower team mate now. If Hamilton had had a number 2 for 2014-2016 he would have been posting 15 wins per year at least. However, even with a much slower car than 2014-2016 he still posted a similar number of wins due to the weaker team mate.

Do you not mean 2010 and 2012 for Vettel?

Laz_T800 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

I think the revisionism can be a two-way street for obvious reasons.

IMO, he had a great work ethic,mental strength and resilience and great one lap pace on a Saturday but lacked a bit in wheel to wheel racing to the best and was poor in the wet so too often Sunday's weren't as good as Saturday. Could have some howlers like he somehow managed to get beat by Alonso at least once every year of the Turbo's and look at Alonso's cars. Walked away rather than fight more than his team mate again, even referenced it in his retirement speech. But had great determination to work on his shortcomings and could put into practice whatever he was shown to change, like with the infamous 'dossier'. Being shown it is one thing but being able to implement it is a whole different thing and in race pace in particular he was able to implement what he learned to great effect. Worked hard away from the race weekend to achieve his goal but once achieved he was spent.

And that's about it, he's like a reverse Button strength-wise if you know what I mean, so quicker and better over all than a number 2 but not on the very top guys level often enough to be classed at the very top.

Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

That about sums up what i'd say.
He was not quite on Hamilton's level but he was good enough to push him and be right there to take the wins when they were available.
Hamilton and Alonso are IMHO the two best drivers of their era.
There is a group just below them that are all fantastic drivers and Rosberg was in that group.

I think when people look back in time they might see this as a golden era of F1 when you realise the quality of today's drivers.

mikeyg123 wrote:When did best start to mean "dominant". A car can be better than the others without being dominant.

Yes it's sad when such an epic season is dismissed in such a manner because the wrong driver won.

lamo wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
Taking Lewis out and bumping his stats through a lack of competition would change what exactly? Nice stats but it wouldn't fool anyone.

If Rosberg didn’t go alongside Hamilton then his career would look a lot different. Assuming he beat whoever was in Hamilton’s place and still retired in 2016 with 3x WDC’S. There isn’t even a double WDC who isn’t considered tier 1, let alone 3.

He would have a career record of 10-1 against his team mate with the sole loss against an experienced peak Webber who was already embedded into Williams. Rosberg was as quick as him from day 1 too.

No driver in the sports history has anywhere near such a record and not considered tier 1. People would say it was a lot down to the car but there wouldn’t be any evidence to suggest Rosberg wasn’t the best of his generation or at least a top top driver.

That’s why its so telling when top drivers do go against one another in teams. Kimi had his reputation completely destroyed once he went up against top drivers. Webber was found out once going against Vettel, he also had a great record before that.

Going on from this even though you have to think Vettel is up there with the best, he needs to be tested again, wins against Webber and Kimi but a loss against Ricciardo who we have to think is the best teammate he's ever had.

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote: By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

First of all, that's a bogus stat. Hamilton was certainly driver of the day more than Vettel last year. Secondly, you've provided absolutely nothing to suggest the Mercedes was the dominant car last year.

The fact is that the Ferrari was on par with the Mercedes in terms of performance up until the point when the title was already decided. Vettel crashing on lap 1 in Singapore and then suffering a mechanical failure in qualifying in Malaysia and in the race in Japan was the reason Ferrari fell out of the title picture. They had a faster car than Mercedes easily in two of those three races. You want to suggest that because Mercedes won more races, they were faster but that's actually just an assumption made while ignoring the actual events of last year. There were just as many races where Ferrari were quicker as races where Mercedes were quicker. Hamilton/Mercedes just did a better job overall and the Ferrari suffered reliability issues at a very inopportune time.

I don't think it is a fact, though. There's enough evidence to suggest the Mercedes was comfortably the faster car

It was the faster car in qualifying but not the race itself were it was nip and tuck, Bottas himself stole 2 wins off Vettel's faster Ferrari through having better track position, it's hardly the resume of a dominant car which is what was put forward afterall.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Vettel was leading the WDC two thirds of the way through the season until driver mistakes and reliability issues intervened, clearly Ferrari left some wins on the table and a dominant car doesn't need help from it's competition.

Right. If you take into account that Vettel alone threw away three wins, that alone would mean Mercedes 11 - Ferrari 8. Quite close - even without factoring Ferrari's reliability woes in.

Covalent wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

AnRs wrote: By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Those are just the statistics that the team and drivers produced with their cars. Those stats don't tell you anything about whether one of the cars was dominant in performance. The real difference last year was driver errors and reliability problems. In terms of performance, the Mercedes and Ferrari were closely matched in 2017. To suggest that Mercedes had a dominant car last year is just flat out inaccurate.

Most Driver of the Day wins: 7 - Sebastian Vettel, thats the only stat in Ferrari favor. It was a Merc dominant car again.

First of all, that's a bogus stat. Hamilton was certainly driver of the day more than Vettel last year. Secondly, you've provided absolutely nothing to suggest the Mercedes was the dominant car last year.

The fact is that the Ferrari was on par with the Mercedes in terms of performance up until the point when the title was already decided. Vettel crashing on lap 1 in Singapore and then suffering a mechanical failure in qualifying in Malaysia and in the race in Japan was the reason Ferrari fell out of the title picture. They had a faster car than Mercedes easily in two of those three races. You want to suggest that because Mercedes won more races, they were faster but that's actually just an assumption made while ignoring the actual events of last year. There were just as many races where Ferrari were quicker as races where Mercedes were quicker. Hamilton/Mercedes just did a better job overall and the Ferrari suffered reliability issues at a very inopportune time.

I count it 7-3 in Vettel´s favor. Also Bottas and Verstappen had 3 DoD wins.

Who won Driver of the Weekend?

pokerman wrote:It was the faster car in qualifying but not the race itself were it was nip and tuck, Bottas himself stole 2 wins off Vettel's faster Ferrari through having better track position, it's hardly the resume of a dominant car which is what was put forward afterall.

Mercedes was clearly the fastest car in Austria. Bottas pulled away 8 seconds in the first stint before struggling on the prime tyres (as was tradition in 2017). Hamilton didn’t struggle on either tyre and was the fastest car on race day. In Russia, it was the same story. Mercedes faster on options, Ferrari faster on primes.

Also, the fact that Mercedes was faster in qualifying is kind of crucial, because track position wins races. Spa was the most obvious example of that.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
I don't understand your last sentence that just confirms what I said, and let's just get things straight that last year was not a dominant car.

By what measure? Reliability? Poles? Wins? Off course it was dominant, not like earlier but I'll bet there isn't a driver who would have choosen any other car if they had a chance

Most wins: 12 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari; 3 - Red Bull
Most poles: 15 - Mercedes; 5 - Ferrari
Most podiums: 26 - Mercedes*; 20 - Ferrari; 13 - Red Bull; 1 - Williams
Most fastest laps: 9 - Mercedes; 7 - Ferrari; 2 - Red Bull; 1 - Force India, McLaren
Laps led: 714 - Mercedes; 326 - Ferrari; 156 - Red Bull

Vettel was leading the WDC two thirds of the way through the season until driver mistakes and reliability issues intervened, clearly Ferrari left some wins on the table and a dominant car doesn't need help from it's competition.

That’s because in the first half of the season, Vettel simply drove better than Hamilton did. Hamilton had several very mediocre drives in Russia and Monaco where he finished 4th and 7th in races where Mercedes was capable of he win (Russia) or at least a podium (Monaco).

sandman1347 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:We’ve already gone over this before, and Mercedes was the faster car in the majority of qualifying sessions and the majority of races.

Also, the fact that Ferrari suffered mechanical failures in the crucial part of the season while Mercedes did not suggests that Mercedes didn’t feel the need to push the limit as hard as Ferrari did, that tells you something.

No actually; having gone through this several times last year, Mercedes and Ferrari were neck and neck up to the point when Hamilton sewed up the championship. It wasn't until the final two meaningless races that Mercedes pulled ahead on the season. The efforts you went to to try to paint last season as one where Ferrari were at a disadvantage where admirable but they don't change the underlying reality; which was that Ferrari were competitive throughout the entire championship. Mercedes just did a better job of maximizing what they had.

Nah, if the roles were reversed there is no way you would argue that Mercedes were on par with Ferrari.

Even if Ferrari was on par in race pace (which it was not), Mercedes had better qualifying pace, which gives you track position, and track position is an advantage that you carry into the race.

You are probably keen to say Ferrari was better in Belgium for instance, while completely ignoring that Mercedes was quicker in qualifying and that better top speed made it impossible for Vettel to overtake. In Belgium, Mercedes was clearly the car to have for the weekend even if Ferrari matched it on race pace.

Mercedes won 12 races, Ferrari 5.

However,
1_ Mercedes won all the marginal races (Spain, Spa, Russia and China) three of which a SC changed the result possibly and Vettel could have won those 3 if the SC didn’t come out at that moment.

2_ Mercedes inherited the Singapore win. Again very lucky.

3_ Vettel didn’t win one lucky race, his sole bit of luck was Hamilton crashing out in qualifying in Brazil once the title was over. He lost all the marginal races (Spain, Spa, China) due to SC timing. As well as collisions cost him likely wins in Mexico and Singapore.

The 12-5 score flatters Mercedes. 10-7 would be more fitting for the cars actual performances just by making the marginal races 2-2 rather than 4-0 to Mercedes. If the Ferrari was reliable then that would likely be 10-8. If Vettel wasn’t so bullish into turn 1 then potentially he could have won the same amount of races, especially if you include his Baku error.

In terms of wins, hamilton and vettel both lost just one each due to mechanical/team issue. Hamilton in Baku and Vettel in Malaysia. So reliailbity doesn’t skew the wins total at all really.

Vettel lost wins-
China - SC timing, he was taking the lead otherwise
Spain - SC timing, gained Hamilton 10 seconds on him
Russia - Bad start
Spa - SC apparently saved Hamilton who likely had to pit again
Singapore - first lap pile up
Mexico - first lap crash
Malaysia - engine problems
Baku - lost his head, without the nudge into Hamilton he wins the race.

When you look at it like that, he had a great year, but wow did Ferrari blow a lot of a race wins. 5 wins is actually an awful return for the car they had. Although a lot of that was just down to bad luck.

Ferrari won 5 of the 13 races they had a genuine shot of winning.
Mercedes won 12 of the approximately 15 races they had a genuine shot of winning.

Vettel won marginal in Australia, Bahrain and Brazil.

Australia - Hamilton gets held up by Verstappen after his pit stop. He did the fastest final sector on his out lap, this suggests that if Max was not in the way, Lewis would have retaken the lead and won that race.

Bahrain - Mercedes was dominant in qualifying and roughly on par with Ferrari in the race. Lewis lost pole to Bottas because he opened his DRS too early. Then he got a bad start and a penalty in the race.

Brazil - Mercedes was the fastest car this weekend. Vettel wins by passing Bottas at the start. Hamilton lost the race by crashing out in qualifying.

The only races Ferrari won convincingly all season were Monaco and Hungary. Singapore could have been a part of that, but Red Bull was strong in qualifying, and the race was wet.

Mercedes had more weekends where they were dominant on pace. Canada, Baku, Silverstone, Monza and Abu Dhabi. Mercedes had about 5 dominant weekends while Ferrari only had 2.