planetf1.com

moby wrote:(BTW, what is the best thing to do when you hit this 5 reply nest? I always mess up the edit)

pubpokerplayer wrote:

moby wrote:(BTW, what is the best thing to do when you hit this 5 reply nest? I always mess up the edit)

I generally delete all but the response I'm replying too.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote:If FIA gives the teams millions of money depending on "something", then i will use that "something" as a scale.

It's a good measurement but it's more helpful to judge drivers by a variety of statistics, just as a footballer shouldn't be judged only on goals and goalkeepers only on clean sheets. I imagine you would be jumping all over the head to head finishes if it helped you prove that Hamilton was worse/Hulk was better than somebody else.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:That's because you are looking at things too linearly. Kimi can be average when he has a car that doesn't suit him, but can be very quick when he has one that does. So because he was slow in 2014 doesn't mean that he will be slow in any other car, nor that Alonso would be as far ahead of him in all other circumstances.

I find this idea very difficult to accept because there are very few drivers for which this rings true. Name a few more drivers who had similar characteristics.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:The question I guess is "which Kimi drove for Lotus in 2012/2013?" If you think it's the one who's happy with the car, then in terms of raw pace Grosjean wasn't that far off (although racecraft, certainly initially, was another matter). If you think it was the Kimi of 2014 then yes, it would mean Grosjean is not much good.

I feel this will be another of the points we fail to reconcile. I firmly believe that there is only one Kimi Raikkonen: the Finn who was substantially better than Coulthard and Grosjean; the match of Felipe Massa; yet not up there with the best driver of the era in Alonso.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:As far as Grosjean's time against Alonso goes, I think you are being very unfair. He joined the team halfway through a season, which is tough for any driver. In the same period Kimi utterly destroyed Fisi, who'd at least been driving the FI all year. If you follow the above reckoning that should make Fisi one of the worst drivers ever, but I don't think that's true, either. The Ferrari was clearly very different to the FI and Fisi was at a disadvantage. As was Grosjean in the Renault.

If you take just 2009 as the sample you would perhaps expect Grosjean to match Kimi. However, he was significantly worse until late 2013.

moby wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Brundle was a good driver but I don't think any better than Frentzen, Heidfeld and other drivers of that ilk.

As for Blundell I think it would be fair to say that he was very even with Brundle. Certainly in the 1993 season with Ligier.

As I say, and the point I am trying to make with it, is that it is all subjective to the person. There is no way to "prove" in either way.

I may present facts and you say "Ah, yes, that is due to...." You may say "he was beaten by X points" and I reply " Ah, yes, that is because he was taken off by another car in...."


The accident I am trying to recall left him with concussion. It was not the one he broke his feet, which was early-ish in his F1 .

How ever prior to that in the lower series he had good fights with Senna, who many will have is the best ever. I could even say that if Senna did not have a better car Brundle would have beaten him, which is patently not true, but never the less not possible to prove or counter.

I will not make a big thing over it, it is my opinion and was a good example of what was being talked about, that is pesonal opinions of drivers v team boss opinions


(BTW, what is the best thing to do when you hit this 5 reply nest? I always mess up the edit)

Zoue wrote:There are several drivers for which this rings true. Three of the five WDCs on the grid today have shown themselves to be very susceptible to having the right car for them.

Zoue wrote:Button had an identical car to Lewis in 2012 but couldn't drive it properly for several races. There was nothing wrong with the car and it was purely down to how the driver interacted with it.

Zoue wrote:Vettel struggled last year and overnight went from someone who was famed for looking after his tyres to someone who went through them like a hot knife through butter. It's definitely not confined to Kimi.

F1Tyrant wrote:What I find really hard to grasp is that there have been several articles posted on here by me and others (Black_Flag_11 was one IIRC), written by highly experienced and knowledgeable journalists with strong F1 connections, which explain in depth how Kimi's results are very much tied in with his feel for the car, and yet people on here dismiss them out of hand and persist in stating that all performance is linear. I find it utterly bizarre.

F1Tyrant wrote:Part-seasons are almost never representative

pubpokerplayer wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote:

moby wrote:I quite like Hulk. Thought when he came to F1 first he was going to be the one to beat.

But, taking into account all said in the posts above, you have to ask-


If he is that good, why have none of the top teams taken him?

There have been windows in most of the top 4 where he could have been picked.
D discount obvious grabs like Hamilton or Alonso, and he should have been there, but for some reason was not.

Money? I don't think so. He is at least a step above that consideration. There must be a reason they think he is not quite the biz.

P.O.L.I.T.I.C.S.

1993-1994 and 2006-2007 were the "behind the scenes" years. For 93-94; Mansell, Prost, Senna left, Schumi came. For 06-07; Montoya, Schumi, Villeneuve left, The Golden Rookie arrived with title capable car and became a legend suddenly. Hulkenberg can not be given a chance with the talent he has. He is too dangerous to be given a top-quality car EVEN ONCE. But another one should be given title capable car from get-go, so that we can see how unreachable that godly-talent is, every season. But Hulkenberg? NO, no, no. A million times no. he is a meh driver already. He doesn't deserve a race-winning car EVEN ONCE. He is that bad.

Those are my opinions and i saw many places that people are sentenced to death by voicing their opinions only. Because another type of opinion believes that some voices should be silenced at all costs.

I'm sorry but you talk fairy cakes.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:There are several drivers for which this rings true. Three of the five WDCs on the grid today have shown themselves to be very susceptible to having the right car for them.

It seems to be exaggerated to ridiculous lengths for Kimi. Some people believe that Kimi (with special front suspension like at McLaren etc.) could challenge Alonso in the same car, are you one of them? That sort of fluctuation is from the level of an all-time great to an also-ran. Personally, I rate Jenson Button marginally higher than Kimi Raikkonen because there was always a fightback.

Zoue wrote:Button had an identical car to Lewis in 2012 but couldn't drive it properly for several races. There was nothing wrong with the car and it was purely down to how the driver interacted with it.

Yet, he adapted and managed to finish 2 points behind Lewis. Under 2003-2009 point system, Button would have beaten Hamilton by 2 points.

Zoue wrote:Vettel struggled last year and overnight went from someone who was famed for looking after his tyres to someone who went through them like a hot knife through butter. It's definitely not confined to Kimi.

I see 2014 a little differently. I believe that the Williams was the joint-2nd fastest car from Austria onwards unless it was wet. Had Webber continued for 2014, Vettel would still have beaten him. However, Dan was so utterly brilliant that he hauled Red Bull to 2nd in the WCC. I rate Dan Ricciardo as the best non-champion on the grid after 2014.

His 2015 so far has confirmed his credentials even if the car restricts him to the unspectacular. 19/35 (54%) of Renault's points is impressive even with a reliability lottery.

F1Tyrant wrote:What I find really hard to grasp is that there have been several articles posted on here by me and others (Black_Flag_11 was one IIRC), written by highly experienced and knowledgeable journalists with strong F1 connections, which explain in depth how Kimi's results are very much tied in with his feel for the car, and yet people on here dismiss them out of hand and persist in stating that all performance is linear. I find it utterly bizarre.

My bugbear are the people that insist that Raikkonen is one of the best drivers on the grid if only he has a car that suits him. I put him at a consistent 6th behind (Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Button and Ricciardo) There is wiggle room to bring him level with Vettel if he matches or beats him this year as Vettel and Ricciardo are the most unstable of my top 5.

I would like to have seen Button in Montoya's place in 2005 because I reckon he would have pushed Raikkonen very hard.

F1Tyrant wrote:Part-seasons are almost never representative

Even if you exclude 2009, Raikkonen's domination of Grosjean is enough for me not to rate him just as Button's domination of Perez is enough for me to say he's not cut out to be a champion barring a 2009-Brawn-esque situation.

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:There are several drivers for which this rings true. Three of the five WDCs on the grid today have shown themselves to be very susceptible to having the right car for them.

It seems to be exaggerated to ridiculous lengths for Kimi. Some people believe that Kimi (with special front suspension like at McLaren etc.) could challenge Alonso in the same car, are you one of them? That sort of fluctuation is from the level of an all-time great to an also-ran. Personally, I rate Jenson Button marginally higher than Kimi Raikkonen because there was always a fightback.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:Button had an identical car to Lewis in 2012 but couldn't drive it properly for several races. There was nothing wrong with the car and it was purely down to how the driver interacted with it.

Yet, he adapted and managed to finish 2 points behind Lewis. Under 2003-2009 point system, Button would have beaten Hamilton by 2 points.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:Vettel struggled last year and overnight went from someone who was famed for looking after his tyres to someone who went through them like a hot knife through butter. It's definitely not confined to Kimi.

I see 2014 a little differently. I believe that the Williams was the joint-2nd fastest car from Austria onwards unless it was wet. Had Webber continued for 2014, Vettel would still have beaten him. However, Dan was so utterly brilliant that he hauled Red Bull to 2nd in the WCC. I rate Dan Ricciardo as the best non-champion on the grid after 2014.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:What I find really hard to grasp is that there have been several articles posted on here by me and others (Black_Flag_11 was one IIRC), written by highly experienced and knowledgeable journalists with strong F1 connections, which explain in depth how Kimi's results are very much tied in with his feel for the car, and yet people on here dismiss them out of hand and persist in stating that all performance is linear. I find it utterly bizarre.

My bugbear are the people that insist that Raikkonen is one of the best drivers on the grid if only he has a car that suits him. I put him at a consistent 6th behind (Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Button and Ricciardo) There is wiggle room to bring him level with Vettel if he matches or beats him this year as Vettel and Ricciardo are the most unstable of my top 5.

F1Tyrant wrote:I would like to have seen Button in Montoya's place in 2005 because I reckon he would have pushed Raikkonen very hard.

F1Tyrant wrote: Even if you exclude 2009, Raikkonen's domination of Grosjean is enough for me not to rate him just as Button's domination of Perez is enough for me to say he's not cut out to be a champion barring a 2009-Brawn-esque situation.

Zoue wrote:Yes, I don't see any reason why he couldn't. He's definitely not as adaptable as Alonso is but that doesn't preclude him being very fast when he does have the suspension set up etc he needs. I really don't see what is hard to believe about that.

Zoue wrote:How is it hard to believe from that that if he could feel the front end he would be significantly quicker? Pat Fry said they had multiple front suspensions at McLaren when Kimi was there, so clearly as a team they understood what they needed to do to get the best out of him as they did with Button. If the right front end wouldn't make a significant difference, why would they go to all that expense and effort?

Zoue wrote:How do you know he adapted? How do you know it wasn't McLaren that managed to sort things out for him? The same McLaren that sorted multiple front suspensions when Kimi was there? You're making an assumption as to how things got sorted, whereas all we can say for definite is that Button's performance deteriorated significantly when the car wasn't to his liking. Same as Kimi.

Zoue wrote:And I'd agree that's a possibility. However, it's also true that Seb struggled last year (he has admitted it himself, as has Marko) and he couldn't get the tyres to work as he wanted, whereas in the years before and immediately after he did again. Therefore he has shown to be sensitive to car setup, too.

Zoue wrote:But I don't understand why as some fairly senior and well respected figures within F1 have all stated that Kimi can be exceptionally fast when conditions suit. So I'm puzzled why people on here think that's an impossibility.

Zoue wrote:As to where he would sit against all the others that's wholly subjective, but I'd say all of the above would be pretty competitive in a top car.

Zoue wrote:Yes, I think he would have pushed him. Button is also excellent on his day. I think Kimi would have won out, but Button would certainly not have been a walkover.

Zoue wrote:I don't quite understand this, sorry.

Zoue wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:Button had an identical car to Lewis in 2012 but couldn't drive it properly for several races. There was nothing wrong with the car and it was purely down to how the driver interacted with it.

Yet, he adapted and managed to finish 2 points behind Lewis. Under 2003-2009 point system, Button would have beaten Hamilton by 2 points.

How do you know he adapted? How do you know it wasn't McLaren that managed to sort things out for him? The same McLaren that sorted multiple front suspensions when Kimi was there? You're making an assumption as to how things got sorted, whereas all we can say for definite is that Button's performance deteriorated significantly when the car wasn't to his liking. Same as Kimi.

"The wear profile on his tyres was extremely different to what Lewis had and there are certain reasons for that which we believe we've understood and can easily put right for Valencia."

For the high tire wear on the rear axle in Canada Michael makes the brakes responsible: "Jenson had to change for this one race on slices of Carbon Industries Normally he drives Brembo discs The new material he was not accustomed, and they have his driving style.. Then, when the brakes become too hot not harmonizes., it may happen that the transfers to the tires. "

Button’s post Canada debrief will have analysed why he had the problems with tyre degradation and will then look at solutions for Valencia which he can then try out in McLaren’s high-tech simulator at Woking before travelling out to Spain. Button confirmed that the start point for this effort will be to work from Lewis Hamilton’s set up and then evolve from there, “The first thing you do is set the car up like the other one and that’s how we’ll do it initially,” he said. “I won’t be as quick as him on those settings but then we can work from there and find a set up that works for me.”

F1Tyrant wrote: My bugbear are the people that insist that Raikkonen is one of the best drivers on the grid if only he has a car that suits him. I put him at a consistent 6th behind (Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Button and Ricciardo) There is wiggle room to bring him level with Vettel if he matches or beats him this year as Vettel and Ricciardo are the most unstable of my top 5.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:Yes, I don't see any reason why he couldn't. He's definitely not as adaptable as Alonso is but that doesn't preclude him being very fast when he does have the suspension set up etc he needs. I really don't see what is hard to believe about that.

I hate to ask this, are you a Raikkonen fan? I feel that Kimi seems to be the tipping point at which our many aligned view seem to diverge. I apologise for my accusation of bias if it isn't the case. You gave the ability of drivers far more benefit of the doubt than I could even manage. I'm a stats man for all my flaws.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:How is it hard to believe from that that if he could feel the front end he would be significantly quicker? Pat Fry said they had multiple front suspensions at McLaren when Kimi was there, so clearly as a team they understood what they needed to do to get the best out of him as they did with Button. If the right front end wouldn't make a significant difference, why would they go to all that expense and effort?

I have no doubt he would be significantly quicker but I refuse to accept that he could defeat Alonso on pure pace. Especially that he struggled to beat Massa at Ferrari. I just can't ignore 2007, 2008 and 2009.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:How do you know he adapted? How do you know it wasn't McLaren that managed to sort things out for him? The same McLaren that sorted multiple front suspensions when Kimi was there? You're making an assumption as to how things got sorted, whereas all we can say for definite is that Button's performance deteriorated significantly when the car wasn't to his liking. Same as Kimi.

They are similar drivers except Button is the greatest wet weather driver since Senna and that's what tips that balance for me putting Button slightly ahead of Raikkonen.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:And I'd agree that's a possibility. However, it's also true that Seb struggled last year (he has admitted it himself, as has Marko) and he couldn't get the tyres to work as he wanted, whereas in the years before and immediately after he did again. Therefore he has shown to be sensitive to car setup, too.

I'd agree but it can't all be down to the car. The fact he now has the 2nd best car on the grid may prove he's back to his best or it may be an illusion.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:But I don't understand why as some fairly senior and well respected figures within F1 have all stated that Kimi can be exceptionally fast when conditions suit. So I'm puzzled why people on here think that's an impossibility.

Oh please, "[insert driver] is faster than everybody else on their day or if the car suits them" is a bit of a cliché. Most of the time it's referring to the period they actually had the quickest car.

F1Tyrant wrote:

Zoue wrote:As to where he would sit against all the others that's wholly subjective, but I'd say all of the above would be pretty competitive in a top car.

Wholly subjective is unfair. There are plenty of objective measures that can give us plausible hypotheses supported by evidence. I don't claim that the methods I subscribe to are 100% objective truths but they are plausible hypotheses with numerical evidence. I'd like you to recognise that at least.

F1Tyrant wrote:Do you think Kimi would have won out if paired with Hamilton or Alonso in 2007? Answer honestly. If you believe so with confidence then we can mutually agree to disagree on this subject.

mas wrote:It is no accident though that even in Kimi's youthful Michelin McLaren peak Alonso still took his 1st world title from him.

Zoue wrote:There's no problem asking the question! Yes, I follow Kimi, but I'm not blind to his faults. He's been an absolutely atrocious qualifier recently, not just 2015 but in the last few years, too. He's way too inconsistent and makes too many mistakes over a single lap, which is pretty much at odds with his Iceman monniker. And it's impossible to ignore the fact that he is far, far too sensitive to car setup to ever truly be considered the best driver of his generation.

Zoue wrote:But having said all that, it doesn't mean that when things do go his way he can't be blindingly fast and up there with the best of them. He just has a far too narrow operating window but when he's in it I think he can take anyone on. This is backed up by people like Fry and Mark Hughes who have given fairly decent analyses of his strengths and weaknesses. I understand if you don't agree with it but I am a little puzzled that you don't allow for the possibility.

Zoue wrote:After all, if you accept that he could be significantly quicker then it just becomes a question of degree.

Zoue wrote:This bit I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with. It's not a cliche. Why would McLaren make multiple front suspensions if they didn't think it would make a difference?

Zoue wrote:You've already allowed for the possibility that Kimi would be "significantly quicker" with a car set up to his liking. But the stats don't allow for that. That's why I think it's always dangerous to put too much faith in them

Zoue wrote:I think if Kimi had been in the McLaren then yes, I think he would have matched either Lewis or Alonso. It boils down to the fact that McLaren have demonstrated that they knew exactly what to do in order to get the best out of him. He was familiar with the team and he would have been extremely competitive from the word go.

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote: I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

Pyrotek wrote:Grosejan's potential to be a top driver in the hallowed echelons of F1 will depend largely on Lotus' ability to become more competitive. Look at what happened to Kimi. A write-off after 2009 suddenly found himself back in a Ferrari in 2014. It was simply down to the stellar performances at a rejuvenated Lotus.

I do think Lotus has the ingredients for greatness if they can sort their finances out. But if Lotus fails, I think Grosejan will sink along with it.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

You do acknowledge that, what is being said is the annoyance of the claims that if certain drivers get cars that suit them then they are basically unbeatable

Need4Naiim wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

You do acknowledge that, what is being said is the annoyance of the claims that if certain drivers get cars that suit them then they are basically unbeatable

Is it NORMAL to hear some claims that a "random" driver is usually basically unbeatable? At least in Kimi's case, the claims say that;

if they get a car that suits them.

pokerman wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

You do acknowledge that, what is being said is the annoyance of the claims that if certain drivers get cars that suit them then they are basically unbeatable

Is it NORMAL to hear some claims that a "random" driver is usually basically unbeatable? At least in Kimi's case, the claims say that;

if they get a car that suits them.

Which is a great get out when the driver ever loses

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Acknowledging a driver has strengths and weaknesses is not a special pass. It's just common sense. They're not robots

You do acknowledge that, what is being said is the annoyance of the claims that if certain drivers get cars that suit them then they are basically unbeatable

Is it NORMAL to hear some claims that a "random" driver is usually basically unbeatable? At least in Kimi's case, the claims say that;

if they get a car that suits them.

Which is a great get out when the driver ever loses

I still don't quite understand how that could be seen as a get out or special pass. Just because they might have been better in a car more suited to their driving style, it doesn't change the fact that they lost in one that didn't. They still lost!

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote:

pokerman wrote:You do acknowledge that, what is being said is the annoyance of the claims that if certain drivers get cars that suit them then they are basically unbeatable

Is it NORMAL to hear some claims that a "random" driver is usually basically unbeatable? At least in Kimi's case, the claims say that;

if they get a car that suits them.

Which is a great get out when the driver ever loses

I still don't quite understand how that could be seen as a get out or special pass. Just because they might have been better in a car more suited to their driving style, it doesn't change the fact that they lost in one that didn't. They still lost!

No the argument is that they can't be beat when they have a car that suits them, when they do get beat then that has to be that the car didn't suit them and then we may even look to blame the team.

WHoff78 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1Tyrant wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think Kimi was a monster on Michelin and with the exception of 2008 he has been at the same level since then. Not as good as the elite but better than almost everyone else. A bit like Button.

Kimi has always shown a preference to soft tyres. It was well demonstrated in 2013 as well. I agree with what you are saying, Raikkonen is at Button's level but when people claim Kimi is better than that if the car suits him, it annoys me.

Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

In fairness a free pass to some is a fairly big flaw to others. I’d personally rather believe my favourite driver was adaptable and had an off season than was overly sensitive to the feel of a car. I would say that adaptability isn’t far off ultimate pace in terms of judging the true talent of a driver. That’s a personal preference though so by no means true for all.

Also if two drivers are competing in equal machinery with a car they are both comfortable with it could be a very close match. However, there are going to be several races where conditions change significantly due to weather or other circumstance, and it could well be those situations which determine who comes out on top. It’s not a good thing for a driver to be less adaptable.

Need4Naiim wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Need4Naiim wrote: Is it NORMAL to hear some claims that a "random" driver is usually basically unbeatable? At least in Kimi's case, the claims say that;

if they get a car that suits them.

Which is a great get out when the driver ever loses

I still don't quite understand how that could be seen as a get out or special pass. Just because they might have been better in a car more suited to their driving style, it doesn't change the fact that they lost in one that didn't. They still lost!

No the argument is that they can't be beat when they have a car that suits them, when they do get beat then that has to be that the car didn't suit them and then we may even look to blame the team.

Why should that type of a possibility not exist? It is not out of question. It can not be ALWAYS the cause, but it is plausible that, sometimes, it can happen. I did not see anyone who claimed that Kimi beat DC, Massa and Alonso in every season he drove alongside them. But it ALSO does not mean Coulthard is more or less a Kimi, or Alonso can always beat Raikkonen. We know that EVEN Alonso has a season that Trulli had upperhand against him. This does not mean that Trulli is a better driver. But it shows that one season is not enough to measure driver levels. Maybe Perez would have equalled Button if he had stayed in 2014, or Jacques would have beat Damon if Hill had stayed one more year at Williams....etc.

I never believed the gap between Alonso-Kimi in 2014 was the exact difference of their overall levels. Heck, even Perez can beat Raikkonen with a SF14-T. Do i believe Raikkonen was THAT better than Fisichella as we saw in 2009?

Of course not.

pokerman wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

In fairness a free pass to some is a fairly big flaw to others. I’d personally rather believe my favourite driver was adaptable and had an off season than was overly sensitive to the feel of a car. I would say that adaptability isn’t far off ultimate pace in terms of judging the true talent of a driver. That’s a personal preference though so by no means true for all.

Also if two drivers are competing in equal machinery with a car they are both comfortable with it could be a very close match. However, there are going to be several races where conditions change significantly due to weather or other circumstance, and it could well be those situations which determine who comes out on top. It’s not a good thing for a driver to be less adaptable.

I agree with the first paragraph, with the second paragraph it sort of presumes that all f1 drivers are basically when at their ultimate very much even to one another.

WHoff78 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Me too, why do some drivers get that special pass?

In fairness a free pass to some is a fairly big flaw to others. I’d personally rather believe my favourite driver was adaptable and had an off season than was overly sensitive to the feel of a car. I would say that adaptability isn’t far off ultimate pace in terms of judging the true talent of a driver. That’s a personal preference though so by no means true for all.

Also if two drivers are competing in equal machinery with a car they are both comfortable with it could be a very close match. However, there are going to be several races where conditions change significantly due to weather or other circumstance, and it could well be those situations which determine who comes out on top. It’s not a good thing for a driver to be less adaptable.

I agree with the first paragraph, with the second paragraph it sort of presumes that all f1 drivers are basically when at their ultimate very much even to one another.

Fair enough. I did mean if the two drivers are fairly close in terms of ability – that’s why I said it could be a close match. I could have been clearer perhaps.

Anyway I was just pointing out the importance of adaptability. I completely agree with you though that is something that can only be used to a certain degree. Whereas I accept that certain drivers can struggle more when a car doesn’t suit them this only counts so much. I personally think that Raikonnen would be much closer to Alonso in this year’s Ferrari, but I think the gap was big enough last year to show who the better driver of two is – with a car that suits them or not.

UnlikeUday wrote:He has proved that if given a competitive car, he can win.

UnlikeUday wrote:Atleast now Hulk has won a race!

This hopefully catches the attention of some top teams as he should be seriously considered. His resume being impressive:

2005 Formula BMW ADAC champion
2007 A1 GP team Germany champion
2008 Formula 3 Euro series champion
2009 GP2 champion
2015 Le Mans Winner

He has proved that if given a competitive car, he can win.

So top teams, WAKE UP!

pokerman wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:Atleast now Hulk has won a race!

This hopefully catches the attention of some top teams as he should be seriously considered. His resume being impressive:

2005 Formula BMW ADAC champion
2007 A1 GP team Germany champion
2008 Formula 3 Euro series champion
2009 GP2 champion
2015 Le Mans Winner

He has proved that if given a competitive car, he can win.

So top teams, WAKE UP!

If WEC is relevant to F1, which I don't think it is, then the actual star of the team Nick Tandy should be given a F1 drive