planetf1.com

F1 MERCENARY wrote: Claire Williams is a Milf. (I have a suspicion that some will agree)
F1 should bare ZERO relevance to Road cars

Agree and agree. Milfy and Zero relevance for sure.

Colesy917 wrote:* Driver performance varies from year to year as drivers are human and have things other than F1 going on in their life.
* Drivers having a life outside of F1 is acceptable if they are meeting the teams expectations, I don't expect every driver to be obsessed with it 24/7. I also don't think being obsessed with it 24/7 is the best approach for some drivers.
* Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso aren't separated by enough to waste time arguing about who is better.
* Teams should have to use all three tyre compounds in a race.

Exediron wrote:* Social Media is a waste of time and energy.

. Im not sure what context you meant this in but I generally agree that its a waste of time in all contexts.

You do realize that this very forum is a form of social media init?

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
How is this relavent? Zoue said two Kimi level drivers, not two average drivers.

Actually he didn't say that at all...

not specifically, but the implication is there.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Assuming it happens, McLaren switching from Honda to Renault engines next year will be looked back on as a mistake.

Only with the potential benefit of hindsight.

The argument that McLaren should stick with Honda is based on the logic that you need a works deal to be competitive. While that is sound logic, it doesn't mean any works deal will do. Honda have shown nothing in 3 years that suggests that they have what it takes to produce an engine that is reliable or competitive. That they might do at some indeterminate point in the future is not an argument for sticking with them.

Ferrari produced a piece of junk in 2014 yet in 2015 turned that around and became a front runner. Renault have had their struggles in the hybrid era yet have still powered Red Bull to 36 podiums, including 6 wins. That is light years ahead of what Honda have done or look like doing.

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:With two drivers like Kimi in the Ferrari, Mercedes would have won 9 races to Ferrari's 3 (I'll be generous and say neither copy of Kimi would have rammed Hamilton behind the safety car, so Baku probably goes their way). Hamilton would have a vast championship lead, and the Ferrari would look no better than it did in 2015.

Kimi is almost half a second slower than Vettel on race pace. That's a lot over the course of a Grand Prix, and it's why Vettel is leading the WDC while Ferrari isn't in contention for the WCC.

Kimi is also one of the worst drivers on the grid today. If you replace Vettal (a top 5 driver) with perhaps an average F1 driver (someone who is 8-12th best on the grid like perhaps Sainz or Perez) we would see the Ferrari in a similar position in the constructor's race. Kimi would have more points than he does (it's amazing how people don't seem to realize how many times his strategy has been sacrificed) and the average F1 driver would have a points haul similar to Bottas.

Let's assume you have a driver who is consistently 2 tenths slower than Vettel, both in qualifying and the race.

Australia: Wouldn't have been close enough to Hamilton to make the overcut work, but still finishes 2nd (barely).
China: No one was anywhere near Vettel, so still finishes 2nd, albeit almost 20 seconds off the lead.
Bahrain: At 2 tenths a lap slower, Hamilton catches him and passes him for the lead; finishes 2nd.
Russia: Finishes 2nd, but instead of hounding Bottas for the lead, both drivers are about 10 seconds off the lead.
Spain: Still 2nd - Ricciardo was over a minute behind.
Monaco: The Vettel substitute would have lost this one to Kimi, but Ferrari still wins.
Canada: Instead of finishing 4th, the substitute is 6th, just ahead of Kimi and behind both Force Indias.
Baku: If you assume the Vettel substitute wouldn't have rammed Lewis and got the penalty, Ferrari probably actually wins this one.
Austria: Not only does the substitute not win, he's jumped by both Ricciardo and Hamilton, finishing 4th ahead of Kimi.
Britain: This was a really bad performance by Vettel, so I'll be nice and say the substitute gets the same result.
Hungary: Without Vettel's pace, Ferrari is forced to swap the drivers and gets a 1-3 instead of a 1-2, with Kimi winning.
Spa: The substitute's slower pace puts him into Ricciardo's grip with about two laps to go, finishing 3rd.

So with a driver consistently 2 tenths a lap slower than Vettel, we get - instead of 220-213, as the points actually stand - 185-236, in favor of Lewis. Lewis has 7 wins to his 1. I don't think anybody would be talking about the cars being equal, or the Ferrari possibly ahead.

I really feel bad pointing this out because I know it must have taken you quite a bit of time to put together this post but this is actually an illogical way of assessing things. If you've heard of the butterfly effect you would understand that assuming that things would play out in an identical fashion despite changing something as substantial as who is driving for Ferrari; is a completely inaccurate way of looking at things. That's not even to mention that some of the points are highly dubious (like the assertion that 2 tenths of a second means he would be caught and overtaken at Bahrain). You've also completely ignored the reality of how Ferrari run their team strategy. Sorry but this is just not a meaningful or accurate model.

Are you suggesting then that with any other driver in that car the results so far would be very similar? The driver difference is negligible?

GingerFurball wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Assuming it happens, McLaren switching from Honda to Renault engines next year will be looked back on as a mistake.

Only with the potential benefit of hindsight.

The argument that McLaren should stick with Honda is based on the logic that you need a works deal to be competitive. While that is sound logic, it doesn't mean any works deal will do. Honda have shown nothing in 3 years that suggests that they have what it takes to produce an engine that is reliable or competitive. That they might do at some indeterminate point in the future is not an argument for sticking with them.

Ferrari produced a piece of junk in 2014 yet in 2015 turned that around and became a front runner. Renault have had their struggles in the hybrid era yet have still powered Red Bull to 36 podiums, including 6 wins. That is light years ahead of what Honda have done or look like doing.

OTOH, it's McLaren's declared intention to win titles, and Renault hasn't been in a position to do that since the beginning of the hybrid era, despite being in on the regulation changes right from the beginning. People seem to be forgetting that it wasn't that long ago that Red Bull were desperate to have a divorce of their own. If Honda hadn't been around to be the whipping boy everybody would be saying what a piece of cr*p the Renault was. Renault must be thanking their lucky stars that Honda are still here

Mine:

Webber would've beaten Vettel if they were the same age.
The V6's have the most interesting sound, You can hear the difference between a Ferrari, Merc, Renault and Honda.
Bruno Senna was a better driver than his time in F1 would suggest.
Hulkenberg isn't a T1 driver, Hence why he isn't in a top team.
Palmer is a better driver than his reputation suggests. He suffers from luck and confidence issues.
Kimi and Bottas are currently at the same talent level and both are treated as such.
Sainz will never drive for a top team.

EDIT: JEV is the best driver to not be in F1 today.

jasonthebadger wrote:Mine:

Webber would've beaten Vettel if they were the same age.
The V6's have the most interesting sound, You can hear the difference between a Ferrari, Merc, Renault and Honda.
Bruno Senna was a better driver than his time in F1 would suggest.
Hulkenberg isn't a T1 driver, Hence why he isn't in a top team.
Palmer is a better driver than his reputation suggests. He suffers from luck and confidence issues.
Kimi and Bottas are currently at the same talent level and both are treated as such.
Sainz will never drive for a top team.

EDIT: JEV is the best driver to not be in F1 today.

I can go along with most of these. And I was rather surprised last week by the sound. I believe it were the Honda and Mercedes engines I found most distinct.

Fiki wrote:

jasonthebadger wrote:Mine:

Webber would've beaten Vettel if they were the same age.
The V6's have the most interesting sound, You can hear the difference between a Ferrari, Merc, Renault and Honda.
Bruno Senna was a better driver than his time in F1 would suggest.
Hulkenberg isn't a T1 driver, Hence why he isn't in a top team.
Palmer is a better driver than his reputation suggests. He suffers from luck and confidence issues.
Kimi and Bottas are currently at the same talent level and both are treated as such.
Sainz will never drive for a top team.

EDIT: JEV is the best driver to not be in F1 today.

I can go along with most of these. And I was rather surprised last week by the sound. I believe it were the Honda and Mercedes engines I found most distinct.

I went to Singapore in 2015, I think viewing on the TV doesn't give these engines justice. They actually sound really cool IRL. Honda in 2015 I thought sounded the most interesting, It was a really ' mechanical ' sound.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

2 races out of 12 so far, not exactly setting the world alight. Point is looking at Kimi's performance you wouldn't say that the Ferrari was on a par with the Mercedes, which illustrates that a top driver can still make a fairly significant difference

Kimi's not even a top 10 driver, also recent history that predates this season would show that Bottas is better than Kimi.

Regarding how inferior you think the Ferrari is, Marchionne has just been interviewed and he believes that Ferrari has the upper hand in the remaining races.

Ok having read this last page or two I've got another.

Kimi is underrated. He's been very disappointing recently no doubt but he's not one of the worst drivers on the grid, as seems to be the opinion on here, he's just suffering from having Alonso/Vettel as benchmarks.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
How is this relavent? Zoue said two Kimi level drivers, not two average drivers.

Actually he didn't say that at all...

So we are saying putting 2 inferior drivers in the car to what Mercedes have would be proof that the Ferrari is an inferior car?

Of course we know this is how some would think like the Ferrari wasn't the best car in 2007 and 2008, both Kimi and Massa were the equal of Alonso and Hamilton despite the fact that in subsequent years Alonso thrashed both Kimi and Massa in the same car.

Of course this theory would come from the poster who believes that Hamilton is the most overrated driver in the history of F1.

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

Oh yeah I agree. But in either scenario Bottas still beats Kimi

Anyway it's all nonsense. Someone else would have to be in the empty Ferrari/Merc competing for race wins

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

I'm sure his DNF's and bad luck in general played a role in the points gap. Over the last 6 race weekends Kimi has actually been quite good. He's 3-3 in quali for example with not a big avg gap. Bottas on the other hand is getting a pasting lately with very large gaps when he loses.

Kimi's form in the first couple of races wasn't good at all but I'm not seeing much wrong since Monaco. He could have the same number of wins as Bottas if pit strategy had been ideal.

What 10 drivers are better out of interest. I'd have Ham,Seb,Alo,Dan and Max for certain. Bottas likely and then some potential with Hulk and Perez but I'm not certain.

I mean no disrespect but to say that Kimi Raikkonen is one of the worst drivers in F1 today, is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not saying he is one of the all time greats or that he is as good as Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, or Verstappen because frankly he is not at his current form. But you are talking about a driver that has won 20 races, scored 88 podiums and 17 pole positions and is a world champion. A driver that came to Formula 1 with only 23 car races under his name and performed amazingly. This is a driver that competed for the championship against one of the greatest drivers in F1 history (Michael Schumacher) in only his 3rd year in F1 and lost out by only 2 points. If you seriously think he is that bad, then are those accomplishments simply just flukes? Kimi is an exceptional talent.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

2 races out of 12 so far, not exactly setting the world alight. Point is looking at Kimi's performance you wouldn't say that the Ferrari was on a par with the Mercedes, which illustrates that a top driver can still make a fairly significant difference

Kimi's not even a top 10 driver, also recent history that predates this season would show that Bottas is better than Kimi.

Regarding how inferior you think the Ferrari is, Marchionne has just been interviewed and he believes that Ferrari has the upper hand in the remaining races.

You're missing the point of my post entirely. It's about how a top driver can alter the perception of a car. If you don't think Vettel has been performing well in the Ferrari then fair enough, but the point I am clearly failing to make properly was in response to a poster about how significant a top driver is. I chose Ferrari as an example because one driver is clearly leaving another in the shade and much of the perception of how good that car is stems from the results of the better driver. You don't have to look ay deeper than the fact that going by Kimi's performances alone few would have claimed that the Ferrari equalled, let alone bettered, the Mercedes. Which means a top driver is significant. That's it

My unpopular opinions:
1. I actually like the car this year and I hope the regulations stay the same so that Red Bull and the other teams can catch up to Ferrari and Mercedes.
2. Lets give Halo a chance. In my opinion those "tower wings" that were in F1 in 1998 looked more out of place then the Halo.
3. We don't need to scrap DRS but the regulations for it needs to be changed.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
How is this relavent? Zoue said two Kimi level drivers, not two average drivers.

Actually he didn't say that at all...

So we are saying putting 2 inferior drivers in the car to what Mercedes have would be proof that the Ferrari is an inferior car?

Of course we know this is how some would think like the Ferrari wasn't the best car in 2007 and 2008, both Kimi and Massa were the equal of Alonso and Hamilton despite the fact that in subsequent years Alonso thrashed both Kimi and Massa in the same car.

Of course this theory would come from the poster who believes that Hamilton is the most overrated driver in the history of F1.

Didn't take you too long to bring Hamilton into it...

I thought the point of this thread was for people to be able to express opinions without being targeted. Seems you didn't get the memo

jasonthebadger wrote:

Fiki wrote:

jasonthebadger wrote:Mine:

Webber would've beaten Vettel if they were the same age.
The V6's have the most interesting sound, You can hear the difference between a Ferrari, Merc, Renault and Honda.
Bruno Senna was a better driver than his time in F1 would suggest.
Hulkenberg isn't a T1 driver, Hence why he isn't in a top team.
Palmer is a better driver than his reputation suggests. He suffers from luck and confidence issues.
Kimi and Bottas are currently at the same talent level and both are treated as such.
Sainz will never drive for a top team.

EDIT: JEV is the best driver to not be in F1 today.

I can go along with most of these. And I was rather surprised last week by the sound. I believe it were the Honda and Mercedes engines I found most distinct.

I went to Singapore in 2015, I think viewing on the TV doesn't give these engines justice. They actually sound really cool IRL. Honda in 2015 I thought sounded the most interesting, It was a really ' mechanical ' sound.

I always wear earplugs, so I only heard the engines from a distance when "unplugged", but even so I find you're right.
TV sound is always a problem, though I'm surprised the digital era hasn't found a way round unwanted commentary yet. In the 1980s, we could watch a film on a German channel, with the option of German or original sound tracks via the stereo channels. I don't see what is so difficult now about offering sound with or without commentary. Not that I dislike commentary, mind you. I like what our French-speaking Belgians have offered since the 80s.

Zoue wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:Thing is, it wasn't many races ago this season where Hamilton had a bit of an off weekend. All the talk was that they hadn't quite gone the right way with the car since FP1. This kind of shows the significance of the car when we are talking about a few hundredths of a second making the difference between a good or bad weekend.

There are clearly better drivers, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they are as significant as some people think. Certainly not like the difference between the humans in some other sports. Federer is a great tennis player and no tennis equipment has made any discernable difference there.

I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

If Ricciardo and Verstappen had been Ferrari drivers this season, we would have been talking about a dominant Ferrari.

Quite possibly, yes. That's the point. I think top drivers can make quite a substantial difference

Fiki wrote:

jasonthebadger wrote:

Fiki wrote:

jasonthebadger wrote:Mine:

Webber would've beaten Vettel if they were the same age.
The V6's have the most interesting sound, You can hear the difference between a Ferrari, Merc, Renault and Honda.
Bruno Senna was a better driver than his time in F1 would suggest.
Hulkenberg isn't a T1 driver, Hence why he isn't in a top team.
Palmer is a better driver than his reputation suggests. He suffers from luck and confidence issues.
Kimi and Bottas are currently at the same talent level and both are treated as such.
Sainz will never drive for a top team.

EDIT: JEV is the best driver to not be in F1 today.

I can go along with most of these. And I was rather surprised last week by the sound. I believe it were the Honda and Mercedes engines I found most distinct.

I went to Singapore in 2015, I think viewing on the TV doesn't give these engines justice. They actually sound really cool IRL. Honda in 2015 I thought sounded the most interesting, It was a really ' mechanical ' sound.

I always wear earplugs, so I only heard the engines from a distance when "unplugged", but even so I find you're right.
TV sound is always a problem, though I'm surprised the digital era hasn't found a way round unwanted commentary yet. In the 1980s, we could watch a film on a German channel, with the option of German or original sound tracks via the stereo channels. I don't see what is so difficult now about offering sound with or without commentary. Not that I dislike commentary, mind you. I like what our French-speaking Belgians have offered since the 80s.

That would be a good option to have! During the V8 and V10 era, On TV or on Track, I've never been able to tell the difference between the engines. The V6's I can.

EDIT: I should point out I could tell between a V8 and V10, just not between the manufacturers.

Alonso and Hamilton are the worst people on the grid. Karma has caught up with one but not (yet) the other. It's also probably not a coincidence both are top drivers.

Giancarlo Fisichella was one of the very best drivers of his era and would have given Alonso a real run for his money at Renault had he been given equal treatment by the team.

As much as I loved Fisi, no.

I'd have loved him in a Ferrari when Irvine left though.

GingerFurball wrote:As much as I loved Fisi, no.

I'd have loved him in a Ferrari when Irvine left though.

Well he did some pretty special things in a succession of rubbish cars over a number of years, and beat some pretty handy team mates too. The heavily Alonso-centric nature of that Renault team is well documented and I don't think he had anything near a fair opportunity.

F1 cars should be able to drive in the rain. [The current cars are not suitable, but they could be made adaptable. Circuits could be modified to cope with rain too. The racing on a wet track can often be better than on a dry track.]

Zoue wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:With two drivers like Kimi in the Ferrari, Mercedes would have won 9 races to Ferrari's 3 (I'll be generous and say neither copy of Kimi would have rammed Hamilton behind the safety car, so Baku probably goes their way). Hamilton would have a vast championship lead, and the Ferrari would look no better than it did in 2015.

Kimi is almost half a second slower than Vettel on race pace. That's a lot over the course of a Grand Prix, and it's why Vettel is leading the WDC while Ferrari isn't in contention for the WCC.

Kimi is also one of the worst drivers on the grid today. If you replace Vettal (a top 5 driver) with perhaps an average F1 driver (someone who is 8-12th best on the grid like perhaps Sainz or Perez) we would see the Ferrari in a similar position in the constructor's race. Kimi would have more points than he does (it's amazing how people don't seem to realize how many times his strategy has been sacrificed) and the average F1 driver would have a points haul similar to Bottas.

Let's assume you have a driver who is consistently 2 tenths slower than Vettel, both in qualifying and the race.

Australia: Wouldn't have been close enough to Hamilton to make the overcut work, but still finishes 2nd (barely).
China: No one was anywhere near Vettel, so still finishes 2nd, albeit almost 20 seconds off the lead.
Bahrain: At 2 tenths a lap slower, Hamilton catches him and passes him for the lead; finishes 2nd.
Russia: Finishes 2nd, but instead of hounding Bottas for the lead, both drivers are about 10 seconds off the lead.
Spain: Still 2nd - Ricciardo was over a minute behind.
Monaco: The Vettel substitute would have lost this one to Kimi, but Ferrari still wins.
Canada: Instead of finishing 4th, the substitute is 6th, just ahead of Kimi and behind both Force Indias.
Baku: If you assume the Vettel substitute wouldn't have rammed Lewis and got the penalty, Ferrari probably actually wins this one.
Austria: Not only does the substitute not win, he's jumped by both Ricciardo and Hamilton, finishing 4th ahead of Kimi.
Britain: This was a really bad performance by Vettel, so I'll be nice and say the substitute gets the same result.
Hungary: Without Vettel's pace, Ferrari is forced to swap the drivers and gets a 1-3 instead of a 1-2, with Kimi winning.
Spa: The substitute's slower pace puts him into Ricciardo's grip with about two laps to go, finishing 3rd.

So with a driver consistently 2 tenths a lap slower than Vettel, we get - instead of 220-213, as the points actually stand - 185-236, in favor of Lewis. Lewis has 7 wins to his 1. I don't think anybody would be talking about the cars being equal, or the Ferrari possibly ahead.

I really feel bad pointing this out because I know it must have taken you quite a bit of time to put together this post but this is actually an illogical way of assessing things. If you've heard of the butterfly effect you would understand that assuming that things would play out in an identical fashion despite changing something as substantial as who is driving for Ferrari; is a completely inaccurate way of looking at things. That's not even to mention that some of the points are highly dubious (like the assertion that 2 tenths of a second means he would be caught and overtaken at Bahrain). You've also completely ignored the reality of how Ferrari run their team strategy. Sorry but this is just not a meaningful or accurate model.

Are you suggesting then that with any other driver in that car the results so far would be very similar? The driver difference is negligible?

In the WDC Vettel makes a massive difference. I think Hamilton would be running away with it if there were an average F1 driver in the other Ferrari.

The point you made though was about the car. You suggested that we would all think the Ferrari was on par with the Red Bull if not for Vettel. That's simply untrue. Kimi is a poor qualifier and yet he has out-qualified both Red Bull drivers this season easily. Additionally, whoever you replace Vettel with (again, assume someone who is in the average range on the grid like Sainz, Hulk, Perez, etc.) would almost certainly be a better qualifier than Raikkonen. They still would have locked out front rows in places like Monaco and Hungary. They still would both be in the top 4 in the standings; well ahead of 2 superior Red Bull drivers. I don't think people would be that easily fooled by simply replacing Vettel. This isn't a Lotus 2012 scenario.

babararacucudada wrote:F1 cars should be able to drive in the rain. [The current cars are not suitable, but they could be made adaptable. Circuits could be modified to cope with rain too. The racing on a wet track can often be better than on a dry track.]

They can.

Charlie Whiting should be fired, he only has his job due to nepotism.

I've just thought of a other one:

I'm in favour of penalties for using too many engine components.

However, they should be allowed in-season testing that does not count towards your allocation.


And related:

Those penalties absoultely should affect the driver. He is just a member of the team.

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

Oh yeah I agree. But in either scenario Bottas still beats Kimi

Anyway it's all nonsense. Someone else would have to be in the empty Ferrari/Merc competing for race wins

Yes indeed but all this is about Vettel winning in an inferior car because he is better than Hamiton, it's a common theme.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

I'm sure his DNF's and bad luck in general played a role in the points gap. Over the last 6 race weekends Kimi has actually been quite good. He's 3-3 in quali for example with not a big avg gap. Bottas on the other hand is getting a pasting lately with very large gaps when he loses.

Kimi's form in the first couple of races wasn't good at all but I'm not seeing much wrong since Monaco. He could have the same number of wins as Bottas if pit strategy had been ideal.

What 10 drivers are better out of interest. I'd have Ham,Seb,Alo,Dan and Max for certain. Bottas likely and then some potential with Hulk and Perez but I'm not certain.

Sainz and Grosjean, I know he was teammates with Kimi but he was a rookie and the crashing didn't help, I could be wrong of course.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think a top driver is worth more than you think. Take this year's Ferrari: if Vettel hadn't been in it, our perception of its capabilities would probably be in the ballpark of where Red Bull is now; competent, better than the rest, but not quite as good as the Merc. And I'm basing this on Kimi's performances. You can really see why the best drivers are paid the big bucks

With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

2 races out of 12 so far, not exactly setting the world alight. Point is looking at Kimi's performance you wouldn't say that the Ferrari was on a par with the Mercedes, which illustrates that a top driver can still make a fairly significant difference

Kimi's not even a top 10 driver, also recent history that predates this season would show that Bottas is better than Kimi.

Regarding how inferior you think the Ferrari is, Marchionne has just been interviewed and he believes that Ferrari has the upper hand in the remaining races.

You're missing the point of my post entirely. It's about how a top driver can alter the perception of a car. If you don't think Vettel has been performing well in the Ferrari then fair enough, but the point I am clearly failing to make properly was in response to a poster about how significant a top driver is. I chose Ferrari as an example because one driver is clearly leaving another in the shade and much of the perception of how good that car is stems from the results of the better driver. You don't have to look ay deeper than the fact that going by Kimi's performances alone few would have claimed that the Ferrari equalled, let alone bettered, the Mercedes. Which means a top driver is significant. That's it

Likewise if you just went by Bottas' performance relative to Vettel you would think that the Mercedes car was inferior. Bottas outqualified Massa 36-12 but is getting outqualified by Vettel 9-4.

No I don't believe that Vettel is not performing well but then again I don't believe we are comparing Vettel with either Kimi or Bottas when trying to judge the performance of the Ferrari when comparing with Mercedes so in this case there is no misconception.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
How is this relavent? Zoue said two Kimi level drivers, not two average drivers.

Actually he didn't say that at all...

So we are saying putting 2 inferior drivers in the car to what Mercedes have would be proof that the Ferrari is an inferior car?

Of course we know this is how some would think like the Ferrari wasn't the best car in 2007 and 2008, both Kimi and Massa were the equal of Alonso and Hamilton despite the fact that in subsequent years Alonso thrashed both Kimi and Massa in the same car.

Of course this theory would come from the poster who believes that Hamilton is the most overrated driver in the history of F1.

Didn't take you too long to bring Hamilton into it...

I thought the point of this thread was for people to be able to express opinions without being targeted. Seems you didn't get the memo

Well that's what can happen when you make an unpopular opinion?

I got a reply to what I said about Vettel.

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote: With Vettel not driving for Ferrari Kimi would have won 2 races the same amount as Bottas, maybe the Mercedes is not a top car either?

Meanwhile Red Bull have little chance of winning a race.

Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

Oh yeah I agree. But in either scenario Bottas still beats Kimi

Anyway it's all nonsense. Someone else would have to be in the empty Ferrari/Merc competing for race wins

Yes indeed but all this is about Vettel winning in an inferior car because he is better than Hamiton, it's a common theme.

Oh get over it, poker. The COMMON THEME is pokerman, and a couple of your "buddies", turning everything into an anti-Hamilton rant. Mark THAT down as one of my unpopular opinions as I believe that is the thread's topic.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mcdo wrote: Yeah but take Hamilton out and Bottas has 4 race wins

Well I would rate Bottas as being better than Kimi, Kimi's level of performance has him with less points than Ricciardo.

Oh yeah I agree. But in either scenario Bottas still beats Kimi

Anyway it's all nonsense. Someone else would have to be in the empty Ferrari/Merc competing for race wins

Yes indeed but all this is about Vettel winning in an inferior car because he is better than Hamiton, it's a common theme.

Oh get over it, poker. The COMMON THEME is pokerman, and a couple of your "buddies", turning everything into an anti-Hamilton rant. Mark THAT down as one of my unpopular opinions as I believe that is the thread's topic.

I don't believe you read all the posts relevant to this Blake, Zoue has stated this many times.

Exediron wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Exediron wrote:With two drivers like Kimi in the Ferrari, Mercedes would have won 9 races to Ferrari's 3 (I'll be generous and say neither copy of Kimi would have rammed Hamilton behind the safety car, so Baku probably goes their way). Hamilton would have a vast championship lead, and the Ferrari would look no better than it did in 2015.

Kimi is almost half a second slower than Vettel on race pace. That's a lot over the course of a Grand Prix, and it's why Vettel is leading the WDC while Ferrari isn't in contention for the WCC.

Kimi is also one of the worst drivers on the grid today. If you replace Vettal (a top 5 driver) with perhaps an average F1 driver (someone who is 8-12th best on the grid like perhaps Sainz or Perez) we would see the Ferrari in a similar position in the constructor's race. Kimi would have more points than he does (it's amazing how people don't seem to realize how many times his strategy has been sacrificed) and the average F1 driver would have a points haul similar to Bottas.

Let's assume you have a driver who is consistently 2 tenths slower than Vettel, both in qualifying and the race.

Australia: Wouldn't have been close enough to Hamilton to make the overcut work, but still finishes 2nd (barely).
China: No one was anywhere near Vettel, so still finishes 2nd, albeit almost 20 seconds off the lead.
Bahrain: At 2 tenths a lap slower, Hamilton catches him and passes him for the lead; finishes 2nd.
Russia: Finishes 2nd, but instead of hounding Bottas for the lead, both drivers are about 10 seconds off the lead.
Spain: Still 2nd - Ricciardo was over a minute behind.
Monaco: The Vettel substitute would have lost this one to Kimi, but Ferrari still wins.
Canada: Instead of finishing 4th, the substitute is 6th, just ahead of Kimi and behind both Force Indias.
Baku: If you assume the Vettel substitute wouldn't have rammed Lewis and got the penalty, Ferrari probably actually wins this one.
Austria: Not only does the substitute not win, he's jumped by both Ricciardo and Hamilton, finishing 4th ahead of Kimi.
Britain: This was a really bad performance by Vettel, so I'll be nice and say the substitute gets the same result.
Hungary: Without Vettel's pace, Ferrari is forced to swap the drivers and gets a 1-3 instead of a 1-2, with Kimi winning.
Spa: The substitute's slower pace puts him into Ricciardo's grip with about two laps to go, finishing 3rd.

So with a driver consistently 2 tenths a lap slower than Vettel, we get - instead of 220-213, as the points actually stand - 185-236, in favor of Lewis. Lewis has 7 wins to his 1. I don't think anybody would be talking about the cars being equal, or the Ferrari possibly ahead.

There are a few problems with this analysis, but its interesting none the less.

But one thing you have missed is when Vettel was being held up, a 0.2 a lap slower driver may still have been able to follow the car infront but this assumes him being pulled away from by 0.2...for exmaple - Vettel was faster than Bottas in Russia and Austria at the end of the race. He also appeared to be able to go quicker in Australia and Spa if Hamilton wasn't right ahead of him. So the 0.2 a lap slower version could have quite easily have matched his results in all these races. Australia he would have still won if his overcut laps were each 0.2 slower - he emerged 3 seconds ahead of Hamilton after his stop.

The same for Monaco, if each of his over cut laps had been 0.2 slower he still had a chance to over cut Raikkonen by going 1 more lap longer. He emerged about a second ahead if I remember correctly so even if he pitted the same lap it would be very close.

Hungary, he also still wins. 0.2 would not make any difference. Kimi didn't even get in DRS once, 0.2 wasn't going to make any difference to how that race unfolded - the dirty air was too strong - you needed to be 1.5-2.0 seconds a lap quicker to pass in Hungary.

Spa - how would that be close with Ricciardo. Once the SC went in, Vettel pulled 8 seconds on Ricciardo in 11 laps, that is over 0.7 per lap... so he would pull away at 0.5 per lap and finish comfortably 2nd.

Austria - he would not get jumped by Ricciardo or Hamilton, not only was he being held up by Bottas in the 2nd stint but he was more than 0.2 quicker than Ricciardo before being held up. You also couldn't pass.. so he finishes 2nd still and likely still right on Bottas' rear wing.

Bahrain - he managed the gap in the final stint and ran a pace to just bring it home. By the end he was doing laps the same speed as his out lap, Hamilton was doing laps a second slower than his. Hamilton had worn through his tyres, Vettel had at least a couple of tenths held back to push if he needed to.

lamo wrote:

Exediron wrote:So with a driver consistently 2 tenths a lap slower than Vettel, we get - instead of 220-213, as the points actually stand - 185-236, in favor of Lewis. Lewis has 7 wins to his 1. I don't think anybody would be talking about the cars being equal, or the Ferrari possibly ahead.

There are a few problems with this analysis, but its interesting none the less.

But one thing you have missed is when Vettel was being held up, a 0.2 a lap slower driver may still have been able to follow the car infront but this assumes him being pulled away from by 0.2...for exmaple - Vettel was faster than Bottas in Russia and Austria at the end of the race. He also appeared to be able to go quicker in Australia and Spa if Hamilton wasn't right ahead of him. So the 0.2 a lap slower version could have quite easily have matched his results in all these races. Australia he would have still won if his overcut laps were each 0.2 slower - he emerged 3 seconds ahead of Hamilton after his stop.

The same for Monaco, if each of his over cut laps had been 0.2 slower he still had a chance to over cut Raikkonen by going 1 more lap longer. He emerged about a second ahead if I remember correctly so even if he pitted the same lap it would be very close.

Hungary, he also still wins. 0.2 would not make any difference. Kimi didn't even get in DRS once, 0.2 wasn't going to make any difference to how that race unfolded - the dirty air was too strong - you needed to be 1.5-2.0 seconds a lap quicker to pass in Hungary.

Spa - how would that be close with Ricciardo. Once the SC went in, Vettel pulled 8 seconds on Ricciardo in 11 laps, that is over 0.7 per lap... so he would pull away at 0.5 per lap and finish comfortably 2nd.

Austria - he would not get jumped by Ricciardo or Hamilton, not only was he being held up by Bottas in the 2nd stint but he was more than 0.2 quicker than Ricciardo before being held up. You also couldn't pass.. so he finishes 2nd still and likely still right on Bottas' rear wing.

That's fair - it was a fairly quick and sloppy analysis, meant to make the point that you wouldn't need a driver much slower than Vettel for Ferrari to no longer be competitive in the WDC.

I will just defend myself on Hungary; I wasn't implying that Kimi would have overtaken the Vettel substitute, merely that with 2 tenths a lap less pace (and Kimi would be matching it), Ferrari would have had to react to Hamilton. Additionally, since it's assumed as 2 tenths in pace for both quali and the race, Kimi would have been on pole in the first place, making the issue moot.

Yes the bigger damage to Vettel would be the 0.2 in qualifying. He wouldn't win Australia if he wasn't 2nd on the first lap and I believe he would full behind Bottas in a couple of races too which would limit his options in the race

I don't think Hamiltons results change much by adding 0.2 to him, ironically he might have won in Australia because by the time he pitted he would have been about 6 seconds behind Max instead of 3 and not been held up for so many laps by him.