planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I still think it would send out the wrong message in terms of loyalty after the success he's had and especially as he already said he's going to sign a new contract over the winter, like he's lost faith in the team.

Regarding his contract that would be Mercedes' thinking as they have no contract with F1 beyond 2020, they may decide to pull out, who knows?

Hm, I just don't think anyone inside the team would care but maybe he'd get some stick on forums from those that sensitive at a push but who cares?. Its fine if he does either from where I'm standing but I just don't see the harm in having a look but we'll find out soon enough I guess.

I think it'll be a good sign of their intentions if we know Lewis was open to longer, for sure.

I ask you this, what other options does Hamilton have?

I assume you mean team wise but its not something I can answer as there's too many variables driver wise that we wont know until the summer but there are 5 well funded teams and they'll all have engines within a couple of percent next year and getting closer all the time so the landscape could be very different next summer.

Who knows, maybe Enstone will be the place to be in 2019. Point is there's no real need to cement now.

I believe the only other team that would interest him would be Ferrari and he's already said that door was closed to him with Vettel's 3 year contract.

I think winning interests him plenty which is why having a wait and see what the competitive order is wouldn't hurt anyone but we're going in circles here, we'll find out soon enough.

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Ham has no other quality options but waiting to see more clearly the lay of the land could impact the contract duration?

I can't see waiting 6 months makes a difference on the length of contract which I believe will end in 2020 because for the reason I already gave, the end of the present Concorde agreement.

The idea that there are no other options is mostly baseless. For all we know McLaren, Renault or some other team might have the best package next season. If Renault have the best car and lose the championship through not having a strong enough driver line-up; you don't think they would sign Lewis Hamilton if he wanted to race for them?

Also the assumption that Ferrari would be unwilling to team Hamilton with Vettel (or that Vettel has some kind of veto power) is one that I've not seen concrete evidence of (although it has never been Ferrari's policy to team two top guys together). Ferrari seem to be willing to put anyone's job under threat these days so I wouldn't put it past them to sign him if they feel like the driver line-up is where they are losing out (although that would be freakishly expensive to pay both Hamilton and Vettel).

The main thing is that Mercedes will re-sign him now or next season. He has nothing to lose with regards to Mercedes by waiting but he does stand to potentially lose out by acting too hastily.

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Well I never said the WDC isn't the most important. I obviously believe it's the most important accolade. Also #1 in golf is perhaps less important (I don't really know) but in tennis it's a huge deal. There's no tournament equivalent in tennis to a GP - Masters would fit best. The only point I'm making is that race wins is a very significant stat. Winning one GP is hard enough alone.

Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Ham has no other quality options but waiting to see more clearly the lay of the land could impact the contract duration?

I can't see waiting 6 months makes a difference on the length of contract which I believe will end in 2020 because for the reason I already gave, the end of the present Concorde agreement.

The idea that there are no other options is mostly baseless. For all we know McLaren, Renault or some other team might have the best package next season. If Renault have the best car and lose the championship through not having a strong enough driver line-up; you don't think they would sign Lewis Hamilton if he wanted to race for them?

Also the assumption that Ferrari would be unwilling to team Hamilton with Vettel (or that Vettel has some kind of veto power) is one that I've not seen concrete evidence of (although it has never been Ferrari's policy to team two top guys together). Ferrari seem to be willing to put anyone's job under threat these days so I wouldn't put it past them to sign him if they feel like the driver line-up is where they are losing out (although that would be freakishly expensive to pay both Hamilton and Vettel).

The main thing is that Mercedes will re-sign him now or next season. He has nothing to lose with regards to Mercedes by waiting but he does stand to potentially lose out by acting too hastily.

I just believe his mindset is to re-sign with Mercedes, also I don't believe that Hamilton has simply the luxury of walking into any team, he wasn't able to walk into either the Ferrari and Red Bull teams in the past because of the reluctance to pair him with their #1 drivers and I can't see what really changes on that score?

Then further down the grid McLaren have Alonso and the problems that might cause including an astronomical wage bill.

As for Renault is that really a team he sees as worth waiting for, I don't see it, and then I go back to his statement about the Ferrari door being closed with the signing of Vettel making his next contract decision obvious.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Ham has no other quality options but waiting to see more clearly the lay of the land could impact the contract duration?

I can't see waiting 6 months makes a difference on the length of contract which I believe will end in 2020 because for the reason I already gave, the end of the present Concorde agreement.

The idea that there are no other options is mostly baseless. For all we know McLaren, Renault or some other team might have the best package next season. If Renault have the best car and lose the championship through not having a strong enough driver line-up; you don't think they would sign Lewis Hamilton if he wanted to race for them?

Also the assumption that Ferrari would be unwilling to team Hamilton with Vettel (or that Vettel has some kind of veto power) is one that I've not seen concrete evidence of (although it has never been Ferrari's policy to team two top guys together). Ferrari seem to be willing to put anyone's job under threat these days so I wouldn't put it past them to sign him if they feel like the driver line-up is where they are losing out (although that would be freakishly expensive to pay both Hamilton and Vettel).

The main thing is that Mercedes will re-sign him now or next season. He has nothing to lose with regards to Mercedes by waiting but he does stand to potentially lose out by acting too hastily.

I just believe his mindset is to re-sign with Mercedes, also I don't believe that Hamilton has simply the luxury of walking into any team, he wasn't able to walk into either the Ferrari and Red Bull teams in the past because of the reluctance to pair him with their #1 drivers and I can't see what really changes on that score?

Then further down the grid McLaren have Alonso and the problems that might cause including an astronomical wage bill.

As for Renault is that really a team he sees as worth waiting for, I don't see it, and then I go back to his statement about the Ferrari door being closed with the signing of Vettel making his next contract decision obvious.

As far as I know he never made any attempt to go to Ferrari in the past. Red Bull chose not to sign him at the time because they were already winning everything and had no need to rock the boat (also they basically don't sign outsiders from their program). I think the situation now is very different. Whether or not Renault (or any other team) is worth waiting for is something that will only be clear next season. For me, there is no compelling reason to rush to sign with Mercedes.

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Well I never said the WDC isn't the most important. I obviously believe it's the most important accolade. Also #1 in golf is perhaps less important (I don't really know) but in tennis it's a huge deal. There's no tournament equivalent in tennis to a GP - Masters would fit best. The only point I'm making is that race wins is a very significant stat. Winning one GP is hard enough alone.

Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?

Sergio Perez and his 7 podiums; 0 poles
or
Nico Hulkenberg with his 0 podiums; 1 pole

No competition


How big is the trophy they hand out for pole every Saturday?

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Ham has no other quality options but waiting to see more clearly the lay of the land could impact the contract duration?

I can't see waiting 6 months makes a difference on the length of contract which I believe will end in 2020 because for the reason I already gave, the end of the present Concorde agreement.

The idea that there are no other options is mostly baseless. For all we know McLaren, Renault or some other team might have the best package next season. If Renault have the best car and lose the championship through not having a strong enough driver line-up; you don't think they would sign Lewis Hamilton if he wanted to race for them?

Also the assumption that Ferrari would be unwilling to team Hamilton with Vettel (or that Vettel has some kind of veto power) is one that I've not seen concrete evidence of (although it has never been Ferrari's policy to team two top guys together). Ferrari seem to be willing to put anyone's job under threat these days so I wouldn't put it past them to sign him if they feel like the driver line-up is where they are losing out (although that would be freakishly expensive to pay both Hamilton and Vettel).

The main thing is that Mercedes will re-sign him now or next season. He has nothing to lose with regards to Mercedes by waiting but he does stand to potentially lose out by acting too hastily.

I just believe his mindset is to re-sign with Mercedes, also I don't believe that Hamilton has simply the luxury of walking into any team, he wasn't able to walk into either the Ferrari and Red Bull teams in the past because of the reluctance to pair him with their #1 drivers and I can't see what really changes on that score?

Then further down the grid McLaren have Alonso and the problems that might cause including an astronomical wage bill.

As for Renault is that really a team he sees as worth waiting for, I don't see it, and then I go back to his statement about the Ferrari door being closed with the signing of Vettel making his next contract decision obvious.

As far as I know he never made any attempt to go to Ferrari in the past. Red Bull chose not to sign him at the time because they were already winning everything and had no need to rock the boat (also they basically don't sign outsiders from their program). I think the situation now is very different. Whether or not Renault (or any other team) is worth waiting for is something that will only be clear next season. For me, there is no compelling reason to rush to sign with Mercedes.

Well I heard he got turned away by both Red Bull and Ferrari before Mercedes were able to convince him to sign for them.

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Well I never said the WDC isn't the most important. I obviously believe it's the most important accolade. Also #1 in golf is perhaps less important (I don't really know) but in tennis it's a huge deal. There's no tournament equivalent in tennis to a GP - Masters would fit best. The only point I'm making is that race wins is a very significant stat. Winning one GP is hard enough alone.

Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?

Sergio Perez and his 7 podiums; 0 poles
or
Nico Hulkenberg with his 0 podiums; 1 pole

No competition


How big is the trophy they hand out for pole every Saturday?

For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

Yeah yours was a much better way of explaining it.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I dunno, I think it would be a bit of a debate that basically boiled down to One lap specialist Vs Better racer on Sunday and they'd both get a bit of stick and a bit of praise.

I'm not sure one would be shining brighter but points win prizes and I think it could be argued the podiums would be thought of higher myself.

What would you rate higher if you were a team mate boss and had to pick one in that situation. (7 poles Vs 7 Podiums)

(Sorry for O/T but it's interesting)

https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

Lotus49 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I dunno, I think it would be a bit of a debate that basically boiled down to One lap specialist Vs Better racer on Sunday and they'd both get a bit of stick and a bit of praise.

I'm not sure one would be shining brighter but points win prizes and I think it could be argued the podiums would be thought of higher myself.

What would you rate higher if you were a team mate boss and had to pick one in that situation. (7 poles Vs 7 Podiums)

(Sorry for O/T but it's interesting)

I guess it would depend on the on the manor of races.

I would definitely say that the 7 [poles would be harder to achieve than 7 podiums.

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

Makes you wonder just how much they hold back better modes from the customer cars and highlights just how important being a manufacturer can be

Zoue wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

Makes you wonder just how much they hold back better modes from the customer cars and highlights just how important being a manufacturer can be

Just shows how hard it is to compete if you aren't Mercedes or Ferrari.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

Makes you wonder just how much they hold back better modes from the customer cars and highlights just how important being a manufacturer can be

Just shows how hard it is to compete if you aren't Mercedes or Ferrari.

True. That is an inordinate amount of power and influence IMO. I hope people in the "Ferrari quit threat" thread see this quote when considering whether or not Liberty should cave in to pressure from the big manufacturers.

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

How could Grosjean's average have been 1:54.8 when his fastest lap was 1:54.779 the only lap he did in the 1:54's, also Kvyat was catching him dipping into the 1:53's.

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

How could Grosjean's average have been 1:54.8 when his fastest lap was 1:54.779 the only lap he did in the 1:54's, also Kvyat was catching him dipping into the 1:53's.

Very easily in the 1:54.8s if he is lapping consistently.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I dunno, I think it would be a bit of a debate that basically boiled down to One lap specialist Vs Better racer on Sunday and they'd both get a bit of stick and a bit of praise.

I'm not sure one would be shining brighter but points win prizes and I think it could be argued the podiums would be thought of higher myself.

What would you rate higher if you were a team mate boss and had to pick one in that situation. (7 poles Vs 7 Podiums)

(Sorry for O/T but it's interesting)

I guess it would depend on the on the manor of races.

I would definitely say that the 7 [poles would be harder to achieve than 7 podiums.

Aye, true enough.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

How could Grosjean's average have been 1:54.8 when his fastest lap was 1:54.779 the only lap he did in the 1:54's, also Kvyat was catching him dipping into the 1:53's.

Very easily in the 1:54.8s if he is lapping consistently.

He did one lap in the 1:54's so it's not physically possible, whilst Kvyat was catching him at 1 second a lap dipping regularly into the 1:53's.

Grosjean lead Kvyat throughout the race yet with the Merc in warp factor 10 mode, Kvyat with the much inferior Renault engine was catching him hand over fist, the facts don't match the hysteria.

Lotus49 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I dunno, I think it would be a bit of a debate that basically boiled down to One lap specialist Vs Better racer on Sunday and they'd both get a bit of stick and a bit of praise.

I'm not sure one would be shining brighter but points win prizes and I think it could be argued the podiums would be thought of higher myself.

What would you rate higher if you were a team mate boss and had to pick one in that situation. (7 poles Vs 7 Podiums)

(Sorry for O/T but it's interesting)

I guess it would depend on the on the manor of races.

I would definitely say that the 7 [poles would be harder to achieve than 7 podiums.

Aye, true enough.

Also it's a highly theoretical situation were a car quick enough for pole 7 times consistently fails to get on the podium.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I think someone who got 7 poles and 0 podiums would become a Formula 1 joke

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I think someone who got 7 poles and 0 podiums would become a Formula 1 joke

It's much harder to get 7 poles than 7 podiums. Certainly in the cars Hulkenberg has driven. That's why 7 poles without a podium sounds a hell of a lot weirder than 7 podiums without a pole.

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I think someone who got 7 poles and 0 podiums would become a Formula 1 joke

It's much harder to get 7 poles than 7 podiums. Certainly in the cars Hulkenberg has driven. That's why 7 poles without a podium sounds a hell of a lot weirder than 7 podiums without a pole.

Well yeah, poles are much more car-dependent than podiums. That's the only reason it's harder. 7 poles in the cars Hulkenberg has driven is dreamland talk - it's impossible

A guy clocking up poles has a car good enough for podiums. If he wasn't getting podiums then his reputation would take an almighty battering

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: For Perez personally but for everyone else not so much, do you think that Hamilton will get a special presentation for breaking the podium record?

I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I think someone who got 7 poles and 0 podiums would become a Formula 1 joke

It's much harder to get 7 poles than 7 podiums. Certainly in the cars Hulkenberg has driven. That's why 7 poles without a podium sounds a hell of a lot weirder than 7 podiums without a pole.

Well yeah, poles are much more car-dependent than podiums. That's the only reason it's harder. 7 poles in the cars Hulkenberg has driven is dreamland talk - it's impossible

A guy clocking up poles has a car good enough for podiums. If he wasn't getting podiums then his reputation would take an almighty battering

Yes, for this reason I would say it's a more coveted Stat?

mcdo wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:

pokerman wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote: That's exactly what I thought when he said that. Which is why I'm eager to see how it pans out in 2018. If they miss the mark, Ferrari would easily win the title. I don't foresee Red Bull challenging them with the anchor they have for an engine.

I think clearly the Mercedes was starting to tread water, how often was it second/third fastest car in the second half of the season, none of the updates seem to bring a big increase in performance like we saw with Ferrari and even more so with Red Bull, I think the writing was going to be on the wall if they had continued with their concept?

You'd expect next year's Ferrari to be at least 0.5 secs faster than this year. I think Mercedes didn't think it was possible to eke out his much performance from their car's low rake, long wheelbase philosophy.

If Ferrari fails to win next year, I'd say they should just pack up the team and go home.

What if it's Red Bull they lose out to?

Same. Ferrari started well ahead of RBR in 2017. That'd mean RBR out-developed Ferrari by quite a margin to win 2018.

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I think poles are valued higher but 7 podiums beats 1 pole.

If Hulkenberg had got 7 poles driving the same cars as Perez got his 7 podiums then it would be rated higher as an achievement.

I think someone who got 7 poles and 0 podiums would become a Formula 1 joke

It's much harder to get 7 poles than 7 podiums. Certainly in the cars Hulkenberg has driven. That's why 7 poles without a podium sounds a hell of a lot weirder than 7 podiums without a pole.

Well yeah, poles are much more car-dependent than podiums. That's the only reason it's harder. 7 poles in the cars Hulkenberg has driven is dreamland talk - it's impossible

A guy clocking up poles has a car good enough for podiums. If he wasn't getting podiums then his reputation would take an almighty battering

Yes, for this reason I would say it's a more coveted Stat?

Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002

mcdo wrote: Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002

A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

How could Grosjean's average have been 1:54.8 when his fastest lap was 1:54.779 the only lap he did in the 1:54's, also Kvyat was catching him dipping into the 1:53's.

Very easily in the 1:54.8s if he is lapping consistently.

He did one lap in the 1:54's so it's not physically possible, whilst Kvyat was catching him at 1 second a lap dipping regularly into the 1:53's.

Grosjean lead Kvyat throughout the race yet with the Merc in warp factor 10 mode, Kvyat with the much inferior Renault engine was catching him hand over fist, the facts don't match the hysteria.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

People should really check what they post. Absolute nonsense lol.

Comparing drivers Romain Grosjean VS Sebastian Vettel at Belgian GP 2015


RG SV
1 2:02.796[8] 2:01.920[6] +0.876 +0.876 1
2 1:57.588[7] 1:57.106[5] +0.482 +1.358 2
3 1:56.854[7] 1:56.388[5] +0.466 +1.824 3
4 1:57.237[7] 1:56.867[5] +0.370 +2.194 4
5 1:57.497[7] 1:56.676[5] +0.821 +3.015 5
6 1:57.478[7] 1:56.737[5] +0.741 +3.756 6
7 1:58.374[7] 1:56.652[4] +1.722 +5.478 7
8 1:57.878[5] 1:57.346[3] +0.532 +6.010 8
9 2:02.271[4] PIT 23.7 1:57.179[3] +5.092 +11.102 9
10 2:09.016[7] 1:57.459[3] +11.557 +22.659 10
11 1:56.250[7] 1:57.478[3] -1.228 +21.431 1
12 1:55.666[6] 1:58.217[3] -2.551 +18.880 2
13 1:56.190[6] 1:57.926[2] -1.736 +17.144 3
14 1:56.167[6] 2:02.971[2] PIT 22.7 -6.804 +10.340 4
15 1:55.981[5] 2:08.622[6] -12.641 -2.301 5
16 1:55.513[5] 1:56.128[6] -0.615 -2.916 6
17 1:55.391[5] 1:56.184[6] -0.793 -3.709 7
18 1:55.818[4] 1:56.008[6] -0.190 -3.899 8
19 1:56.311[4] 1:56.115[6] +0.196 -3.703 11
20 1:55.769[3] 1:56.348[4] -0.579 -4.282 9
21 2:23.889[3] PIT 23.5 2:22.634[4] +1.255 -3.027 12
22 2:12.318[4] 2:04.049[3] +8.269 +5.242 13
23 1:54.957[4] 1:55.397[3] -0.440 +4.802 10
24 1:55.076[4] 1:55.386[3] -0.310 +4.492 11
25 1:55.414[4] 1:55.808[3] -0.394 +4.098 12
26 1:55.731[4] 1:55.765[3] -0.034 +4.064 13
27 1:55.311[4] 1:55.856[3] -0.545 +3.519 14
28 1:55.628[4] 1:55.551[3] +0.077 +3.596 14
29 1:55.617[4] 1:55.316[3] +0.301 +3.897 15
30 1:56.019[4] 1:55.523[3] +0.496 +4.393 16
31 1:55.194[4] 1:55.432[3] -0.238 +4.155 15
32 1:55.043[4] 1:55.443[3] -0.400 +3.755 16
33 1:55.299[4] 1:55.497[3] -0.198 +3.557 17
34 1:55.004[4] 1:55.761[3] -0.757 +2.800 18
35 1:55.333[4] 1:55.884[3] -0.551 +2.249 19
36 1:55.311[4] 1:55.711[3] -0.400 +1.849 20
37 1:54.779[4] 1:55.520[3] -0.741 +1.108 21
38 1:55.397[4] 1:55.696[3] -0.299 +0.809 22
39 1:56.189[4] 1:56.407[3] -0.218 +0.591 23
40 1:55.915[4] 1:55.949[3] -0.034 +0.557 24
41 1:56.311[4] 1:56.116[3] +0.195 +0.752 17
42 1:56.254[3] 3:03.554[12] PIT 0 -67.300 -66.548 25

mikeyg123 wrote:

mcdo wrote: Simply because it's proof you're in a front running car?

Podiums give points, trophies and the driver has more of an influence. A consistent run of podiums will extremely likely keep you in the title hunt
Pole positions offer no points, no trophies and are predominantly car-dependent. A consistent run of poles doesn't guarantee any title run, case in point: Montoya 2002

A run of poles will just as likely keep you in the championship hunt. I can think of a lot more situations where a driver has 8+ podiums but didn't compete for the championship but can't think of any off hand where 8+ poles didn't.

Montoya got 7 poles in 2002 almost every season there is a driver with 7+ podiums but not challenging for the championship

2017 - Ricciardo
2016 - Ricciardo/Verstappen/Vettel
2015 - Vettel
2014 - Ricciardo
2013 - Alonso/Webber/Raikkonen
2012 - Raikkonen/Hamilton
2011 - Button/Webber/Alonso

It happens almost ever year. You had to go back 15 years to find an example of that happening with poles.

There are also plenty of occasions where lots of podiums without a huge amont of wins has been enough to fight for the title. In the last decade there has been Alonso in 2010 and 2012, Hamilton in 07, Barrichello in 09. I won't bore everyone by going back further.

Equally, more often than not, the man with most poles will win the title. Qualifying performance is far from 100 percent accurate as a barometer for race pace but it is prwtty decent generally.

I know that Montoya in 02, Trulli in 05, Hamilton in 2013 and Rosberg in 2014 are clear examples of qualy performance heavily exceeding race performance, but those last two especially are more down to tyre intricacies I feel.

In short... I don't know who's right

BMWSauber84 wrote:There are also plenty of occasions where lots of podiums without a huge amont of wins has been enough to fight for the title. In the last decade there has been Alonso in 2010 and 2012, Hamilton in 07, Barrichello in 09. I won't bore everyone by going back further.

It depends on what you mean by "not a huge amount of wins". Alonso won 5 in 2010, equal with Vettel as the most wins that season. Hamilton won 4 in 2007, equal with Alonso and less than only Raikkonen. I question just how much Barrichello was really in the fight in 2009. Alonso in 2012 and Raikkonen in 2003 are valid picks though.

Laz_T800 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/11/09/ ... -puncture/

“[Mercedes] didn’t want Sebastian Vettel particularly to get a podium in Spa,” Carter told Missed Apex, “and they could see that Romain, on newer tyres, was catching.”

“So they gave him a different engine mode to go into.”

The car’s sudden gain in performance can be seen in the lap times from the race. Between laps 25 and 30 Grosjean’s average lap time was 1’55.6. Over the next eight laps it fell to 1’54.8, a gain of eight-tenths of a second. He set his fastest lap of the race on lap 37 which brought him within striking distance.

Grosjean told Carter the increase in performance transformed the handling of his car. “Romain came in at the end of that race and said the car had never driven the way it had in the last laps of the race,” said the former Lotus boss.

“It makes sense. The minute your car is going faster your aero is working better, your tyres are better, you don’t have to brake as late. Every part of the car works better because he was in this mode.”

How could Grosjean's average have been 1:54.8 when his fastest lap was 1:54.779 the only lap he did in the 1:54's, also Kvyat was catching him dipping into the 1:53's.

Very easily in the 1:54.8s if he is lapping consistently.

He did one lap in the 1:54's so it's not physically possible, whilst Kvyat was catching him at 1 second a lap dipping regularly into the 1:53's.

Grosjean lead Kvyat throughout the race yet with the Merc in warp factor 10 mode, Kvyat with the much inferior Renault engine was catching him hand over fist, the facts don't match the hysteria.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... n%20Vettel

People should really check what they post. Absolute nonsense lol.

Comparing drivers Romain Grosjean VS Sebastian Vettel at Belgian GP 2015


RG SV
1 2:02.796[8] 2:01.920[6] +0.876 +0.876 1
2 1:57.588[7] 1:57.106[5] +0.482 +1.358 2
3 1:56.854[7] 1:56.388[5] +0.466 +1.824 3
4 1:57.237[7] 1:56.867[5] +0.370 +2.194 4
5 1:57.497[7] 1:56.676[5] +0.821 +3.015 5
6 1:57.478[7] 1:56.737[5] +0.741 +3.756 6
7 1:58.374[7] 1:56.652[4] +1.722 +5.478 7
8 1:57.878[5] 1:57.346[3] +0.532 +6.010 8
9 2:02.271[4] PIT 23.7 1:57.179[3] +5.092 +11.102 9
10 2:09.016[7] 1:57.459[3] +11.557 +22.659 10
11 1:56.250[7] 1:57.478[3] -1.228 +21.431 1
12 1:55.666[6] 1:58.217[3] -2.551 +18.880 2
13 1:56.190[6] 1:57.926[2] -1.736 +17.144 3
14 1:56.167[6] 2:02.971[2] PIT 22.7 -6.804 +10.340 4
15 1:55.981[5] 2:08.622[6] -12.641 -2.301 5
16 1:55.513[5] 1:56.128[6] -0.615 -2.916 6
17 1:55.391[5] 1:56.184[6] -0.793 -3.709 7
18 1:55.818[4] 1:56.008[6] -0.190 -3.899 8
19 1:56.311[4] 1:56.115[6] +0.196 -3.703 11
20 1:55.769[3] 1:56.348[4] -0.579 -4.282 9
21 2:23.889[3] PIT 23.5 2:22.634[4] +1.255 -3.027 12
22 2:12.318[4] 2:04.049[3] +8.269 +5.242 13
23 1:54.957[4] 1:55.397[3] -0.440 +4.802 10
24 1:55.076[4] 1:55.386[3] -0.310 +4.492 11
25 1:55.414[4] 1:55.808[3] -0.394 +4.098 12
26 1:55.731[4] 1:55.765[3] -0.034 +4.064 13
27 1:55.311[4] 1:55.856[3] -0.545 +3.519 14
28 1:55.628[4] 1:55.551[3] +0.077 +3.596 14
29 1:55.617[4] 1:55.316[3] +0.301 +3.897 15
30 1:56.019[4] 1:55.523[3] +0.496 +4.393 16
31 1:55.194[4] 1:55.432[3] -0.238 +4.155 15
32 1:55.043[4] 1:55.443[3] -0.400 +3.755 16
33 1:55.299[4] 1:55.497[3] -0.198 +3.557 17
34 1:55.004[4] 1:55.761[3] -0.757 +2.800 18
35 1:55.333[4] 1:55.884[3] -0.551 +2.249 19
36 1:55.311[4] 1:55.711[3] -0.400 +1.849 20
37 1:54.779[4] 1:55.520[3] -0.741 +1.108 21
38 1:55.397[4] 1:55.696[3] -0.299 +0.809 22
39 1:56.189[4] 1:56.407[3] -0.218 +0.591 23
40 1:55.915[4] 1:55.949[3] -0.034 +0.557 24
41 1:56.311[4] 1:56.116[3] +0.195 +0.752 17
42 1:56.254[3] 3:03.554[12] PIT 0 -67.300 -66.548 25

Cheers for the leg work.

While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

mds wrote:While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.

Maybe - and I realise I'm stabbing in the dark here - it's because the initial quote from Carter talked about lap 25 onwards...

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.

Maybe - and I realise I'm stabbing in the dark here - it's because the initial quote from Carter talked about lap 25 onwards...

Indeed.

Including lap 23 and 24, difference is 1:55.47 vs 1:55.17. So three tenths.

mds wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.

Maybe - and I realise I'm stabbing in the dark here - it's because the initial quote from Carter talked about lap 25 onwards...

Indeed.

Including lap 23 and 24, difference is 1:55.47 vs 1:55.17. So three tenths.

They turned Grosjean's engine up on lap 25?

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Well I never said the WDC isn't the most important. I obviously believe it's the most important accolade. Also #1 in golf is perhaps less important (I don't really know) but in tennis it's a huge deal. There's no tournament equivalent in tennis to a GP - Masters would fit best. The only point I'm making is that race wins is a very significant stat. Winning one GP is hard enough alone.

Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?

Poles are meaningless unless they are converted to podiums and wins. They are just a worthless stat that gives fans something to "crow" about otherwise. And YES, I would argue that 10th is much better than a pole that doesn't result in a point scoring finish. I have long maintained that the Pole record is among the least significant of records and stats... going beck to the days of Senna.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:While that average quoted might not be correct, the overall message remains the same though: lap 25-30 by very rough calculations gave an average of 1:55.6 while laps 31-38 he averaged 1:55.1. So that's half a second right there.

Using what Kvyat did to invalidate this theory is flawed reasoning. For one, because that half a second gain was effectively there. Secondly, Kvyat was on newer AND softer tyres, so it stands to reason he could come closer to Grosjean.

I'm curious why you left off laps 23 and 24, too fast maybe?

Also maybe the mode Grosjean was given was the same mode he was given to qualify in 4th place whilst Vettel qualified 9th, Grosjean had a 5 place grid penalty which then put him one place behind Vettel.

5 lap sample is plenty to make the point the Lotus guy was making and that's the sample he gave (25-30) so why change it?. Going further back from the point he got the mode isn't going to make the situation any clearer for anyone and we could be here all day.

Yes its the oil burn quali mode that's allegedly worth 15-30bhp extra so he'd have had it for 1 run in Q3 I'd imagine.

The problem is its not very good that the manufacturer can withhold performance from a customer until if or when it suits them to give them a little extra. So Ferrari's could end up fighting different Williams than the Mercedes do and so on.

There's nothing wrong with Manufacturers withholding something for themselves in my book, that's just perks of being the works team for me, but that should be a permanent situation rather than "Ooh you can have it when it suits us to mess with our competitors but you'll never have it normally or especially against us".

That's too far for me and another example of the power certain Manufacturers are wielding and the monopoly over performance that they have and the influence over results it brings. Getting stuck behind a Williams or FI should be as tricky for Mercedes as it is anyone else.

(This example is Mercedes but I'd be shocked if Ferrari didn't do it with their customers too)

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:Well I never said the WDC isn't the most important. I obviously believe it's the most important accolade. Also #1 in golf is perhaps less important (I don't really know) but in tennis it's a huge deal. There's no tournament equivalent in tennis to a GP - Masters would fit best. The only point I'm making is that race wins is a very significant stat. Winning one GP is hard enough alone.

Well in F1 it's clearly WDC's > Wins > Poles.

I'd put podiums ahead of poles. Podiums are actually worth something

A podium is just 1st or 2nd loser, you could argue finishing 10th is more important than a Pole then?

Poles are meaningless unless they are converted to podiums and wins. They are just a worthless stat that gives fans something to "crow" about otherwise. And YES, I would argue that 10th is much better than a pole that doesn't result in a point scoring finish. I have long maintained that the Pole record is among the least significant of records and stats... going beck to the days of Senna.