planetf1.com

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:It was just a comparison of the least dominant cars in each era in response to your request for Blinky's numbers is all.

I assume no-one, including yourself, could be bothered to do the numbers so Exediron picked one comparison point, (the least dominant in each era) for us to discuss.

Not sure why it's a big deal, it's not like he was picking the strongest Merc to put against the weakest RB or anything dodgy to make a false impression.

Well it was Blinky that put himself forward with all the info while Exediron had already posted before I read Blinky's post.

The point being that nobody addressed what Herb said, they either misread it or sidetracked it.

It doesn't need a deep analysis of anything to realise that the 2017 Mercedes was better than the 2012 Red Bull.

He did but obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Exediron responded to your request for numbers.

They did,including you. Blinky said "about a year ago.." so you knew fine well he wasn't talking about the 2017 car but you were still asking for the numbers anyway(sidetracked) or you just misread it too.

I agree but it was just a talking point for us while waiting on Blinky's response I assumed. Exediron had already disagreed with Blinky's original post and named a couple of seasons he thought the RB was quicker. So comparing the 'least dominant' from each other was just another talking point.

Exediron did respond but not to what I was asking for in relation to Herb's post.

Herb wrote:Then he would have already retired, the Merc wasn't the best by a big distance. It was overall better, but not by much. Similar to some of Vettel's championship winning cars.

Nothing that Exediron said was actually incorrect though.

Expanding the data:-

2010 Red Bull 0.26s
2011 Red Bull 0.32s
2013 Red Bull 0.14s
2017 Mercedes 0.16s

The 2013 season was a tale of 2 halves when the Red Bull was dominant in the second half of the season with Vettel's 9 straight wins, during this period the Red Bull had a 0.39s advantage.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Right I've taken the trouble to go through the qualifying data:-

2010 Red Bull had a 0.26s advantage
2017 Mercedes had a 0.16s advantage

The 2010 Red Bull was better.

I will next look at the 2011 and 2013 Red Bulls.

It may well be, but not as a result of that logic. You know this, right?

This being the same logic you've been using all season to say that the Mercedes was better than the Ferrari.

No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:It was just a comparison of the least dominant cars in each era in response to your request for Blinky's numbers is all.

I assume no-one, including yourself, could be bothered to do the numbers so Exediron picked one comparison point, (the least dominant in each era) for us to discuss.

Not sure why it's a big deal, it's not like he was picking the strongest Merc to put against the weakest RB or anything dodgy to make a false impression.

Well it was Blinky that put himself forward with all the info while Exediron had already posted before I read Blinky's post.

The point being that nobody addressed what Herb said, they either misread it or sidetracked it.

It doesn't need a deep analysis of anything to realise that the 2017 Mercedes was better than the 2012 Red Bull.

He did but obviously got the wrong end of the stick. Exediron responded to your request for numbers.

They did,including you. Blinky said "about a year ago.." so you knew fine well he wasn't talking about the 2017 car but you were still asking for the numbers anyway(sidetracked) or you just misread it too.

I agree but it was just a talking point for us while waiting on Blinky's response I assumed. Exediron had already disagreed with Blinky's original post and named a couple of seasons he thought the RB was quicker. So comparing the 'least dominant' from each other was just another talking point.

Exediron did respond but not to what I was asking for in relation to Herb's post.

Herb wrote:Then he would have already retired, the Merc wasn't the best by a big distance. It was overall better, but not by much. Similar to some of Vettel's championship winning cars.

Nothing that Exediron said was actually incorrect though.

I don't think it was an attempt to answer it, he'd already agreed in essence with Herb by putting forward 2010/11 as years he felt the RB was even quicker than the '17 Mercedes.

I think it was just another comparison to discuss in absence of the numbers you were asking for as those numbers didn't have anything to do with Herb's point either as Blinky had got the wrong end of the stick, so we may as well discuss something sort of thing.

At least that's what it looked like to me.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Right I've taken the trouble to go through the qualifying data:-

2010 Red Bull had a 0.26s advantage
2017 Mercedes had a 0.16s advantage

The 2010 Red Bull was better.

I will next look at the 2011 and 2013 Red Bulls.

It may well be, but not as a result of that logic. You know this, right?

This being the same logic you've been using all season to say that the Mercedes was better than the Ferrari.

No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

TBF this is true. We have heard all season about how much of a huge advantage Merc's extra quali speed has given them. The 2010 Red Bull was certainly better in quali than the 2017 Merc.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Right I've taken the trouble to go through the qualifying data:-

2010 Red Bull had a 0.26s advantage
2017 Mercedes had a 0.16s advantage

The 2010 Red Bull was better.

I will next look at the 2011 and 2013 Red Bulls.

It may well be, but not as a result of that logic. You know this, right?

This being the same logic you've been using all season to say that the Mercedes was better than the Ferrari.

No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: It may well be, but not as a result of that logic. You know this, right?

This being the same logic you've been using all season to say that the Mercedes was better than the Ferrari.

No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: This being the same logic you've been using all season to say that the Mercedes was better than the Ferrari.

No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

it would help if you took the trouble to read what someone writes instead of blindly pushing forward your agenda. Nobody's throwing any data out, just pointing out that you need more than the two lines you have written to draw the conclusion you do.

More data may well show the Red Bull held a bigger advantage. But what you've written on its own doesn't.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No, it isn't. You can't just pull out two headline figures and make an assertion like that.

Like I said, it's possible the 2010 Red Bull was better, but you need a bit more detail than that to make your case

It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

it would help if you took the trouble to read what someone writes instead of blindly pushing forward your agenda. Nobody's throwing any data out, just pointing out that you need more than the two lines you have written to draw the conclusion you do.

More data may well show the Red Bull held a bigger advantage. But what you've written on its own doesn't.

So we need more data, were does this more data come from that's more relevant?

We've gone through the season being told specifically that it's the Mercedes qualifying advantage being the reason why it was the better car to be in, but using qualifying stats from seasons previous is seemingly irrelevant because there is some extra context that has to be considered which for me is just changing positions to suit.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: It was faster than the 2017 Mercedes and started on pole nearly every race, this is the argument you have made all season long for the 2017 Mercedes being the better car than the Ferrari.

Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

it would help if you took the trouble to read what someone writes instead of blindly pushing forward your agenda. Nobody's throwing any data out, just pointing out that you need more than the two lines you have written to draw the conclusion you do.

More data may well show the Red Bull held a bigger advantage. But what you've written on its own doesn't.

So we need more data, were does this more data come from that's more relevant?

We've gone through the season being told specifically that it's the Mercedes qualifying advantage being the reason why it was the better car to be in, but using qualifying stats from seasons previous is seemingly irrelevant because there is some extra context that has to be considered which for me is just changing positions to suit.

Well, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, you are comparing two different years. If you want to make a statement on which car from two different seasons was better overall just using qualifying gaps, then at the very least you'd probably want to keep it to tracks which were common to both years. But even then, you'd want to limit outliers such as rain or e.g. gearbox issues etc.

Even then, at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't made any kind of claim which car is better (or even disputed the end result!), just pointing out your methodology for drawing a conclusion is flawed. I don't know how you can make the claim of changing positions, when you're making such a fundamentally different comparison.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Read what I wrote. I'm not making any argument in favour of either car. I'm just pointing out your one line summary can't lead to the conclusion you make on its own

Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

it would help if you took the trouble to read what someone writes instead of blindly pushing forward your agenda. Nobody's throwing any data out, just pointing out that you need more than the two lines you have written to draw the conclusion you do.

More data may well show the Red Bull held a bigger advantage. But what you've written on its own doesn't.

So we need more data, were does this more data come from that's more relevant?

We've gone through the season being told specifically that it's the Mercedes qualifying advantage being the reason why it was the better car to be in, but using qualifying stats from seasons previous is seemingly irrelevant because there is some extra context that has to be considered which for me is just changing positions to suit.

Well, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, you are comparing two different years. If you want to make a statement on which car from two different seasons was better overall just using qualifying gaps, then at the very least you'd probably want to keep it to tracks which were common to both years. But even then, you'd want to limit outliers such as rain or e.g. gearbox issues etc.

Even then, at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't made any kind of claim which car is better (or even disputed the end result!), just pointing out your methodology for drawing a conclusion is flawed. I don't know how you can make the claim of changing positions, when you're making such a fundamentally different comparison.

I'm basically making the same comparison you made in deciding that the 2017 Mercedes was better than the Ferrari and I'm using the exact same logic in saying that the 2010 and 2011 Red Bulls were measurably better than the 2017 Mercedes.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Different standards for different drivers that's all I'm reading here.

I took the time to go through the data, I'm not surprised to see the data being thrown out, personal opinion rules.

it would help if you took the trouble to read what someone writes instead of blindly pushing forward your agenda. Nobody's throwing any data out, just pointing out that you need more than the two lines you have written to draw the conclusion you do.

More data may well show the Red Bull held a bigger advantage. But what you've written on its own doesn't.

So we need more data, were does this more data come from that's more relevant?

We've gone through the season being told specifically that it's the Mercedes qualifying advantage being the reason why it was the better car to be in, but using qualifying stats from seasons previous is seemingly irrelevant because there is some extra context that has to be considered which for me is just changing positions to suit.

Well, at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, you are comparing two different years. If you want to make a statement on which car from two different seasons was better overall just using qualifying gaps, then at the very least you'd probably want to keep it to tracks which were common to both years. But even then, you'd want to limit outliers such as rain or e.g. gearbox issues etc.

Even then, at the risk of repeating myself, I haven't made any kind of claim which car is better (or even disputed the end result!), just pointing out your methodology for drawing a conclusion is flawed. I don't know how you can make the claim of changing positions, when you're making such a fundamentally different comparison.

I'm basically making the same comparison you made in deciding that the 2017 Mercedes was better than the Ferrari and I'm using the exact same logic in saying that the 2010 and 2011 Red Bulls were measurably better than the 2017 Mercedes.

Sigh, never mind. Clearly it's going over your head, so I'll drop it

As a hamilton fan every year is a roller coaster of emotion, I cant remember any other driver where i've felt as anxious at every single race start and every lap afterwards. I have watched so many races where he's just going round and all of a sudden his engine goes, or his tyre deflates. The guy is a luck magnet, good or bad.

I'll be kind of glad when he retires the stress is monumental on me lol.

In regards to the discussion above i felt the Ferrari this year was the best all round car. I honestly believe if Lewis had been driving the Ferrari he would of still won the WDC.

What do you honestly think?

stevey wrote:As a hamilton fan every year is a roller coaster of emotion, I cant remember any other driver where i've felt as anxious at every single race start and every lap afterwards. I have watched so many races where he's just going round and all of a sudden his engine goes, or his tyre deflates. The guy is a luck magnet, good or bad.

I'll be kind of glad when he retires the stress is monumental on me lol.

In regards to the discussion above i felt the Ferrari this year was the best all round car. I honestly believe if Lewis had been driving the Ferrari he would of still won the WDC.

What do you honestly think?

I think he's certainly capable of winning it in the Ferrari, but it depends who would have been in the Mercedes. If e.g. Vettel, then I think Vettel would have won. If Bottas, then Lewis would have taken the title.

Bottom line is that even though the Ferrari and Merc were the clear best cars, the end results would have been very different if Lewis or Seb hadn't sat in their respective seats. They both proved why they earned the big bucks in 2017.

And, by the way, you haven't learned what a roller coaster of emotions is until you've been a Kimi fan.

stevey wrote:As a hamilton fan every year is a roller coaster of emotion, I cant remember any other driver where i've felt as anxious at every single race start and every lap afterwards. I have watched so many races where he's just going round and all of a sudden his engine goes, or his tyre deflates. The guy is a luck magnet, good or bad.

I'll be kind of glad when he retires the stress is monumental on me lol.

In regards to the discussion above i felt the Ferrari this year was the best all round car. I honestly believe if Lewis had been driving the Ferrari he would of still won the WDC.

What do you honestly think?

Same for me it's hard to actually enjoy the races because of the stress and like you say it's past experience of bad luck.

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:As a hamilton fan every year is a roller coaster of emotion, I cant remember any other driver where i've felt as anxious at every single race start and every lap afterwards. I have watched so many races where he's just going round and all of a sudden his engine goes, or his tyre deflates. The guy is a luck magnet, good or bad.

I'll be kind of glad when he retires the stress is monumental on me lol.

In regards to the discussion above i felt the Ferrari this year was the best all round car. I honestly believe if Lewis had been driving the Ferrari he would of still won the WDC.

What do you honestly think?

Same for me it's hard to actually enjoy the races because of the stress and like you say it's past experience of bad luck.

And you support the driver who's had the best material in the history of F1, try support Verstappen in 2017, IMO the most interesting driver this year

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

stevey wrote:As a hamilton fan every year is a roller coaster of emotion, I cant remember any other driver where i've felt as anxious at every single race start and every lap afterwards. I have watched so many races where he's just going round and all of a sudden his engine goes, or his tyre deflates. The guy is a luck magnet, good or bad.

I'll be kind of glad when he retires the stress is monumental on me lol.

In regards to the discussion above i felt the Ferrari this year was the best all round car. I honestly believe if Lewis had been driving the Ferrari he would of still won the WDC.

What do you honestly think?

Same for me it's hard to actually enjoy the races because of the stress and like you say it's past experience of bad luck.

And you support the driver who's had the best material in the history of F1, try support Verstappen in 2017, IMO the most interesting driver this year

The stress comes with the title challenge and it's not like he had a lap dog teammate.

Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Zoue wrote: And, by the way, you haven't learned what a roller coaster of emotions is until you've been a Kimi fan.

That's more a high altitude parachute drop than a roller coaster.

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Each to their own emotions, but when they express that he's had bad luck you have to perhaps change the perspective a bit and see if it's true or not?

AnRs wrote:

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Each to their own emotions, but when they express that he's had bad luck you have to perhaps change the perspective a bit and see if it's true or not?

It will be about context. If you know you're in a car that is capable of winning - more, even likely to win! - and you lose out due to circumstances that you perceive to be largely out of your own control them yes, I'd state that the term bad luck can be applied.
From another perspective - if you are a proven title-winning driver and you are given a car that should be capable of winning but it consistently under-performs, again you can consider that bad luck.
If you're consistently in a midfield car, not expected to win, is that bad luck? Is it just bad luck that the top cars are not available to you?
I'm sure that this point could be debated all day long!

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

By that standard you are listing second and third best cars as well, Schumacher must have had about 10 title challenging cars, would you look to deride him as well for have even better material than Hamilton?

Also which top drivers have only been able to dream of title challenging cars or are you listing all the drivers like the Strolls, Ericssons etc.?

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Yes that was the actual point I was making.

AnRs wrote:

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Each to their own emotions, but when they express that he's had bad luck you have to perhaps change the perspective a bit and see if it's true or not?

The blown engine in Malaysia 2016 which basically put paid to Hamilton's title challenge is an example of bad luck.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Interesting that you mention the year 2017 in the same sentence to Hamilton having the best material in the history of the sport and perhaps not unsurprising?

Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Each to their own emotions, but when they express that he's had bad luck you have to perhaps change the perspective a bit and see if it's true or not?

The blown engine in Malaysia 2016 which basically put paid to Hamilton's title challenge is an example of bad luck.

Is it? Or is it inevitable that you have some DNF even if you have the best engine ever made in F1? Can you expect to finish every time and every time have a hp advantage?

It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

mikeyg123 wrote:It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

Agreed. Even if you're lucky enough to haver the best car, that doesn't mean you can't be unlucky if that car then breaks down on you. And going back to the rollercoaster of emotions, it's arguably worse because you've had a glimpse of what might have been, rather than no expectation of anything in the first place.

mikeyg123 wrote:It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

But the other driver with same package had more technical problems than he had during their time together, should he expect to have even less?

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

But the other driver with same package had more technical problems than he had during their time together, should he expect to have even less?

I don't know if that's true but if it is then Rosberg having bad luck on more occasions doesn't mean that Hamilton wasn't unlucky on that particular occasions.

The most fortunate man in the world can still have instances have bad luck.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

Zoue wrote:

AnRs wrote: Most driver can only dream off a car capable off a title challenge, your driver have had around eight?

yes, but to be fair when talking about a roller coaster of emotions it's much more acute when a driver is at the sharp end. More to win/lose means bigger emotional investment. It's been hard to get too emotional about Alonso last year, for example, since practically the only thing to look forward to was him actually finishing a Grand Prix!

Each to their own emotions, but when they express that he's had bad luck you have to perhaps change the perspective a bit and see if it's true or not?

The blown engine in Malaysia 2016 which basically put paid to Hamilton's title challenge is an example of bad luck.

Is it? Or is it inevitable that you have some DNF even if you have the best engine ever made in F1? Can you expect to finish every time and every time have a hp advantage?

It was bad luck in relation to the only driver that could beat him to the title who had not one engine problem during the season whilst Hamilton had 4 races handicapped by engine problems, Malaysia being the final nail in the coffin, he would have had a nice lead on Rosberg but instead it turned around totally in Rosberg's favour.

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

But the other driver with same package had more technical problems than he had during their time together, should he expect to have even less?

I feel like you've just said that off the top of your head, make a list to prove what you said.

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:It's bad luck. He had the same package as someone else who didn't retire. I think it's pretty fair to call that unlucky in that instance.

I think even if you say Hamilton is fortune to have the best car at the start of the race you have to accept it's unfortunate when that breaks down and is therefore no longer the best car in the race.

But the other driver with same package had more technical problems than he had during their time together, should he expect to have even less?

I don't know if that's true but if it is then Rosberg having bad luck on more occasions doesn't mean that Hamilton wasn't unlucky on that particular occasions.

The most fortunate man in the world can still have instances have bad luck.

Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

Hamilton had more bad luck than Rosberg in 2015. I agree if Hamilton had endured even worse luck then Rosberg would have been champion.

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

Hamilton had more bad luck than Rosberg in 2015. I agree if Hamilton had endured even worse luck then Rosberg would have been champion.

Yes indeed however AnRs is stuck in his belief.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

Hamilton had more bad luck than Rosberg in 2015. I agree if Hamilton had endured even worse luck then Rosberg would have been champion.

Yes indeed however AnRs is stuck in his belief.

First it was about one race, and when I proved that Rosberg switching cars with your driver would have won him another title, then it's about that season : )
Even though Rosberg during their time together had worse bad luck you can off course cherry pick it how you want, feel free..I'm out

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

Hamilton had more bad luck than Rosberg in 2015. I agree if Hamilton had endured even worse luck then Rosberg would have been champion.

Yes indeed however AnRs is stuck in his belief.

First it was about one race, and when I proved that Rosberg switching cars with your driver would have won him another title, then it's about that season : )
Even though Rosberg during their time together had worse bad luck you can off course cherry pick it how you want, feel free..I'm out

They both had instances of bad luck. I don't see why that's difficult to understand.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed and Rosberg never actually lost a title to Hamilton based on having more bad luck.

With the double points in 2015 that is a highly arguable claim, switch the "bad luck" and Rosberg has 2 titles.

Hamilton had more bad luck than Rosberg in 2015. I agree if Hamilton had endured even worse luck then Rosberg would have been champion.

Yes indeed however AnRs is stuck in his belief.

First it was about one race, and when I proved that Rosberg switching cars with your driver would have won him another title, then it's about that season : )
Even though Rosberg during their time together had worse bad luck you can off course cherry pick it how you want, feel free..I'm out

Yes you are out without providing any evidence that proves you are right.

Just a slight titbit, Hamilton didn't need Rosberg's car to breakdown to win the title in Abu Dhabi but Rosberg needed Hamilton's car to breakdown for him to win the title.