planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Swapping Hamilton and Palmer last year would have created at least a 2 second swing. I reckon they'd be fighting over the back end of the top 6.

I don't think so. I reckon yes, Palmer would consistently be near the back of the top six, but I don't think Lewis could take that Renault into contention for those top six places. Looking at a sample of Palmer's last five races with Renault, and assuming that he's a full second a lap slower than Hamilton (which I don't honestly think he would have been - there would have been times where he was a lot closer, but I've made it a whole second throughout):

NOTE: Since Palmer rarely made Q3, I actually just took 2 tenths off Hulk's numbers for this simulation.

---

Singapore
Hamilton (Renault) 1:40.8 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:41.1 - P7

In Singapore, Mercedes' worst track and possibly Renault's best, Lewis does actually manage to get into the top six, with his teammate Hulkenberg right behind him. Palmer is out-qualified by both Renault cars.

Italy
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:36.5 - P1
Hamilton (Renault) 1:37.8 - P11

Hamilton's gap over the field was so huge that Palmer is still on pole, with Lewis unable to break into Q3. This is a bit of a weird one, however, and I think Palmer would probably have been more than his usual gap slower than Hamilton here.

Belgium
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:43.5 - P5
Hamilton (Renault) 1:44.7 - P7

Hamilton once again qualifies right ahead of Hulk at the top of the midfield, while Palmer splits the Bulls, half a second back from his Mercedes teammate.

Hungary
Hamilton (Renault) 1:17.2 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:17.7 - P9

In a shocking display, Palmer would have qualified his Mercedes all the way down in 9th for the Hungaroring (although it should be noted that this was a poor performance for Hamilton, being outqualified by Bottas).

Great Britain
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:27.6 - P4
Hamilton (Renault) 1:28.6 - P6

At this power track, Hamilton has no answer for Palmer, who still manages to out-qualify everyone who isn't a Mercedes or Ferrari.

---

Okay, so it was actually closer than I would have thought. But this isn't swapping an average midfield driver with Hamilton - this is swapping a man who was universally considered unfit for F1 with Hamilton.

If you swapped Hamilton and a mediocre driver, you'd just get a Ferrari WDC and that driver would be safely in the top six most every race.

mikeyg123 wrote:Interesting numbers. Thanks for doing that. Obviously the second advantage I gave Hamilton is an average. I think it would be sometimes more, sometimes less. I think i'm being generous to Palmer to be honest. The average gap between him and Hulkenberg is massive and I wouldn't put Hulkenberg as a lot quicker than Bottas.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Swapping Hamilton and Palmer last year would have created at least a 2 second swing. I reckon they'd be fighting over the back end of the top 6.

I don't think so. I reckon yes, Palmer would consistently be near the back of the top six, but I don't think Lewis could take that Renault into contention for those top six places. Looking at a sample of Palmer's last five races with Renault, and assuming that he's a full second a lap slower than Hamilton (which I don't honestly think he would have been - there would have been times where he was a lot closer, but I've made it a whole second throughout):

NOTE: Since Palmer rarely made Q3, I actually just took 2 tenths off Hulk's numbers for this simulation.

---

Singapore
Hamilton (Renault) 1:40.8 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:41.1 - P7

In Singapore, Mercedes' worst track and possibly Renault's best, Lewis does actually manage to get into the top six, with his teammate Hulkenberg right behind him. Palmer is out-qualified by both Renault cars.

Italy
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:36.5 - P1
Hamilton (Renault) 1:37.8 - P11

Hamilton's gap over the field was so huge that Palmer is still on pole, with Lewis unable to break into Q3. This is a bit of a weird one, however, and I think Palmer would probably have been more than his usual gap slower than Hamilton here.

Belgium
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:43.5 - P5
Hamilton (Renault) 1:44.7 - P7

Hamilton once again qualifies right ahead of Hulk at the top of the midfield, while Palmer splits the Bulls, half a second back from his Mercedes teammate.

Hungary
Hamilton (Renault) 1:17.2 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:17.7 - P9

In a shocking display, Palmer would have qualified his Mercedes all the way down in 9th for the Hungaroring (although it should be noted that this was a poor performance for Hamilton, being outqualified by Bottas).

Great Britain
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:27.6 - P4
Hamilton (Renault) 1:28.6 - P6

At this power track, Hamilton has no answer for Palmer, who still manages to out-qualify everyone who isn't a Mercedes or Ferrari.

---

Okay, so it was actually closer than I would have thought. But this isn't swapping an average midfield driver with Hamilton - this is swapping a man who was universally considered unfit for F1 with Hamilton.

If you swapped Hamilton and a mediocre driver, you'd just get a Ferrari WDC and that driver would be safely in the top six most every race.

Interesting numbers. Thanks for doing that. Obviously the second advantage I gave Hamilton is an average. I think it would be sometimes more, sometimes less. I think i'm being generous to Palmer to be honest. The average gap between him and Hulkenberg is massive and I wouldn't put Hulkenberg as a lot quicker than Bottas.

Lotus49 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:Hamilton had the better car so of course Seb was under more pressure.
Let's see how Hamilton copes if his car is a handicap next year. I guarantee he won't be as competitive as Seb was if their roles were reversed.

I'm wondering just exactly how do you measure that?

Stop Press: Vettel wins yet another title in the best car which seems to take a special talent when he does it?

Hamilton has won 3 out of his 4 WDCs with the outright best car. In the one WDC he won without the best car, his main competitor was Massa. I'm fairly confident that Vettel would have won the WDC in the 2008 McLaren if his main competitor was Massa.

I don't think we will ever see Hamilton drive with a proper car handicap again. His contract runs out in 2020, and we will have the same engine regulations until then.

However, we saw enough of how Hamilton coped with a car handicap from 2009-2013. He was good, but no Senna or Schumacher.

What did they do with a car handicap that he didn't?

Zoue wrote: Schumacher's drive in Spain in 1996, when he was regularly lapping more than 5 seconds faster than anybody else in the rain, doesn't really have a parallel, except perhaps with Senna's (also) maiden win in Portugal in 1985. Cars are different now, to be fair, but legendary drives like that don't really have parallel today

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Swapping Hamilton and Palmer last year would have created at least a 2 second swing. I reckon they'd be fighting over the back end of the top 6.

I don't think so. I reckon yes, Palmer would consistently be near the back of the top six, but I don't think Lewis could take that Renault into contention for those top six places. Looking at a sample of Palmer's last five races with Renault, and assuming that he's a full second a lap slower than Hamilton (which I don't honestly think he would have been - there would have been times where he was a lot closer, but I've made it a whole second throughout):

NOTE: Since Palmer rarely made Q3, I actually just took 2 tenths off Hulk's numbers for this simulation.

---

Singapore
Hamilton (Renault) 1:40.8 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:41.1 - P7

In Singapore, Mercedes' worst track and possibly Renault's best, Lewis does actually manage to get into the top six, with his teammate Hulkenberg right behind him. Palmer is out-qualified by both Renault cars.

Italy
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:36.5 - P1
Hamilton (Renault) 1:37.8 - P11

Hamilton's gap over the field was so huge that Palmer is still on pole, with Lewis unable to break into Q3. This is a bit of a weird one, however, and I think Palmer would probably have been more than his usual gap slower than Hamilton here.

Belgium
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:43.5 - P5
Hamilton (Renault) 1:44.7 - P7

Hamilton once again qualifies right ahead of Hulk at the top of the midfield, while Palmer splits the Bulls, half a second back from his Mercedes teammate.

Hungary
Hamilton (Renault) 1:17.2 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:17.7 - P9

In a shocking display, Palmer would have qualified his Mercedes all the way down in 9th for the Hungaroring (although it should be noted that this was a poor performance for Hamilton, being outqualified by Bottas).

Great Britain
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:27.6 - P4
Hamilton (Renault) 1:28.6 - P6

At this power track, Hamilton has no answer for Palmer, who still manages to out-qualify everyone who isn't a Mercedes or Ferrari.

---

Okay, so it was actually closer than I would have thought. But this isn't swapping an average midfield driver with Hamilton - this is swapping a man who was universally considered unfit for F1 with Hamilton.

If you swapped Hamilton and a mediocre driver, you'd just get a Ferrari WDC and that driver would be safely in the top six most every race.

Interesting numbers. Thanks for doing that. Obviously the second advantage I gave Hamilton is an average. I think it would be sometimes more, sometimes less. I think i'm being generous to Palmer to be honest. The average gap between him and Hulkenberg is massive and I wouldn't put Hulkenberg as a lot quicker than Bottas.

I appreciate this is just a fun exercise but you may as well randomly make up figures to get something at least as accurate. If you take Spa, for example, Palmer actually qualified faster than Hulk (in Q2, he didn't take part in Q3), yet here we have him qualifying outside the top 4, when the only reason Vettel split the Mercs was because he got the infamous tow from Kimi. The Merc was far and away the best car at that track and I think every driver would have qualified top 4 at the very least.

You also need to allow for the fact that Bottas may have simply been quite poor at a few tracks. I struggle to believe that with these cars any driver should be dropping more than half a second to his team mate on a regular basis, yet Bottas was often dropping much more than that. We are making the assumption that the gap was down to Hamilton putting in special performances every time, but it could equally be that Bottas was simply not driving well, and for me I think the size of the gaps suggest at the very least that it was likely a bit of both.

mikeyg123 wrote:The only assumption being made is that Hamilton is about a second per lap faster than Palmer. Bottas's performance or lack of it isn't really relavent. We are just using Hamilton as an example of what a tier 1 driver could do in the Mercedes and transposing that to suppose what may be achievable in a Renault.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote: Schumacher's drive in Spain in 1996, when he was regularly lapping more than 5 seconds faster than anybody else in the rain, doesn't really have a parallel, except perhaps with Senna's (also) maiden win in Portugal in 1985. Cars are different now, to be fair, but legendary drives like that don't really have parallel today

That is partly the case because there are no spare cars anymore. Schumacher had a choice between a car with a dry and one with a rain set-up. Had he made the wrong choice before the race, his legendary drive would not have happened. Schumacher was fantastic in the rain, make no mistake. But he still had to take his car with him round the track.
Senna was prouder of his 1985 Portuguese win than of his Donington one in 1993, and rightly so. But even he admitted he had had several offs and was lucky to regain the track every time. Luck is a necessary part of success.

I don't really hold an opinion on Vettel and his performance under pressure. Baku made me wonder, but that was not really pressure. SC restarts are downright silly.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:I'm not quite sure how assembled these numbers but Italy must surely be wrong you seem to be giving Palmer the wet weather ability of Hamilton putting Palmer on pole whilst Bottas qualified around P7 I believe?

As you'll notice if you read my post...

Exediron wrote:Hamilton's gap over the field was so huge that Palmer is still on pole, with Lewis unable to break into Q3. This is a bit of a weird one, however, and I think Palmer would probably have been more than his usual gap slower than Hamilton here.

I got the numbers by simply adding a second to Lewis' time in every session, on the assumption that Palmer is a second slower. Lewis was on pole by over a second in Italy, so that gives Palmer the pole as well. I noted that I think it's a fluke result, as indeed I think Lewis' 1.2 second gap over Verstappen was a fluke. I do not believe that Hamilton is that much faster than Verstappen in the wet, so it must have come down to more than just driver ability.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote: Schumacher's drive in Spain in 1996, when he was regularly lapping more than 5 seconds faster than anybody else in the rain, doesn't really have a parallel, except perhaps with Senna's (also) maiden win in Portugal in 1985. Cars are different now, to be fair, but legendary drives like that don't really have parallel today

That is partly the case because there are no spare cars anymore. Schumacher had a choice between a car with a dry and one with a rain set-up. Had he made the wrong choice before the race, his legendary drive would not have happened. Schumacher was fantastic in the rain, make no mistake. But he still had to take his car with him round the track.
Senna was prouder of his 1985 Portuguese win than of his Donington one in 1993, and rightly so. But even he admitted he had had several offs and was lucky to regain the track every time. Luck is a necessary part of success.

I don't really hold an opinion on Vettel and his performance under pressure. Baku made me wonder, but that was not really pressure. SC restarts are downright silly.

Spain '96, yes Schumacher had two set ups as he was way behind the Williams's on Saturday, but others had a wet setup as well. Hill mentioned that he had a good wet setup, but still went off track and damaged his car; he claimed that he couldn't keep the drivers behind him at bay anyway. But even the perfect wet setup could not explain such a performance difference. You also forget that Schumacher had engine problems and only ran at 9 or 8 cylinders, plus a broken exhaust. He eased up after he was a full minute ahead of everyone else. It was a great drive by all means, for the out of ordinary lines he took to cool the tyres, the overtakes on Alesi and Villeneuve and the two stop strategy he chose.

As for Donington that's true, Senna was the only one with traction control and never praised himself too much about this victory. This also was a great drive that gained notoriety due to the first lap performance. A truly awesome lap, albeit with TC help.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Swapping Hamilton and Palmer last year would have created at least a 2 second swing. I reckon they'd be fighting over the back end of the top 6.

I don't think so. I reckon yes, Palmer would consistently be near the back of the top six, but I don't think Lewis could take that Renault into contention for those top six places. Looking at a sample of Palmer's last five races with Renault, and assuming that he's a full second a lap slower than Hamilton (which I don't honestly think he would have been - there would have been times where he was a lot closer, but I've made it a whole second throughout):

NOTE: Since Palmer rarely made Q3, I actually just took 2 tenths off Hulk's numbers for this simulation.

---

Singapore
Hamilton (Renault) 1:40.8 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:41.1 - P7

In Singapore, Mercedes' worst track and possibly Renault's best, Lewis does actually manage to get into the top six, with his teammate Hulkenberg right behind him. Palmer is out-qualified by both Renault cars.

Italy
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:36.5 - P1
Hamilton (Renault) 1:37.8 - P11

Hamilton's gap over the field was so huge that Palmer is still on pole, with Lewis unable to break into Q3. This is a bit of a weird one, however, and I think Palmer would probably have been more than his usual gap slower than Hamilton here.

Belgium
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:43.5 - P5
Hamilton (Renault) 1:44.7 - P7

Hamilton once again qualifies right ahead of Hulk at the top of the midfield, while Palmer splits the Bulls, half a second back from his Mercedes teammate.

Hungary
Hamilton (Renault) 1:17.2 - P6
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:17.7 - P9

In a shocking display, Palmer would have qualified his Mercedes all the way down in 9th for the Hungaroring (although it should be noted that this was a poor performance for Hamilton, being outqualified by Bottas).

Great Britain
Palmer (Mercedes) 1:27.6 - P4
Hamilton (Renault) 1:28.6 - P6

At this power track, Hamilton has no answer for Palmer, who still manages to out-qualify everyone who isn't a Mercedes or Ferrari.

---

Okay, so it was actually closer than I would have thought. But this isn't swapping an average midfield driver with Hamilton - this is swapping a man who was universally considered unfit for F1 with Hamilton.

If you swapped Hamilton and a mediocre driver, you'd just get a Ferrari WDC and that driver would be safely in the top six most every race.

Interesting numbers. Thanks for doing that. Obviously the second advantage I gave Hamilton is an average. I think it would be sometimes more, sometimes less. I think i'm being generous to Palmer to be honest. The average gap between him and Hulkenberg is massive and I wouldn't put Hulkenberg as a lot quicker than Bottas.

I appreciate this is just a fun exercise but you may as well randomly make up figures to get something at least as accurate. If you take Spa, for example, Palmer actually qualified faster than Hulk (in Q2, he didn't take part in Q3), yet here we have him qualifying outside the top 4, when the only reason Vettel split the Mercs was because he got the infamous tow from Kimi. The Merc was far and away the best car at that track and I think every driver would have qualified top 4 at the very least.

You also need to allow for the fact that Bottas may have simply been quite poor at a few tracks. I struggle to believe that with these cars any driver should be dropping more than half a second to his team mate on a regular basis, yet Bottas was often dropping much more than that. We are making the assumption that the gap was down to Hamilton putting in special performances every time, but it could equally be that Bottas was simply not driving well, and for me I think the size of the gaps suggest at the very least that it was likely a bit of both.

The only assumption being made is that Hamilton is about a second per lap faster than Palmer. Bottas's performance or lack of it isn't really relavent. We are just using Hamilton as an example of what a tier 1 driver could do in the Mercedes and transposing that to suppose what may be achievable in a Renault.

Zoue wrote:And i have to add, I think assuming a constant 1s gap between drivers is unrealistic. It's much too much IMO

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:And i have to add, I think assuming a constant 1s gap between drivers is unrealistic. It's much too much IMO

I can only agree. Anything over half a second difference between established drivers, and the way the team is run has to be questioned. A driver who is a second slower has no place in F1. And yes, I do remember when there were fans who really believed Schumacher was 2 seconds faster. Ludicrous, though some will still buy it.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I saw one car veer sharply across the track and force the other car off the track it was as simple as that.

It's never as simple as that which is why Mercedes saw it differently.

What did they see in Austria?

I thought they blamed Nico,no?

(And by they I mean Toto or Niki still)

To be honest I can't remember, all I remember is Hamilton feeling the need to tell the team that Rosberg hit him and then the initial claim from Lauda that Hamilton hit Rosberg's car when he tried to rejoin the track which damaged Rosberg's car.

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:Hamilton had the better car so of course Seb was under more pressure.
Let's see how Hamilton copes if his car is a handicap next year. I guarantee he won't be as competitive as Seb was if their roles were reversed.

I'm wondering just exactly how do you measure that?

Stop Press: Vettel wins yet another title in the best car which seems to take a special talent when he does it?

Hamilton has won 3 out of his 4 WDCs with the outright best car. In the one WDC he won without the best car, his main competitor was Massa. I'm fairly confident that Vettel would have won the WDC in the 2008 McLaren if his main competitor was Massa.

I don't think we will ever see Hamilton drive with a proper car handicap again. His contract runs out in 2020, and we will have the same engine regulations until then.

However, we saw enough of how Hamilton coped with a car handicap from 2009-2013. He was good, but no Senna or Schumacher.

What did they do with a car handicap that he didn't?

He has always been good, no matter what car he has driven. But I think it's hard to argue that he reached the heights of Schumacher or Senna when he didn't have the best (or almost best) car. Both of those drivers often looked the best irrespective of what they drove and sometimes it was hard to tell that they weren't in the best car. Schumacher's drive in Spain in 1996, when he was regularly lapping more than 5 seconds faster than anybody else in the rain, doesn't really have a parallel, except perhaps with Senna's (also) maiden win in Portugal in 1985. Cars are different now, to be fair, but legendary drives like that don't really have parallel today

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:I noted that I think it's a fluke result, as indeed I think Lewis' 1.2 second gap over Verstappen was a fluke. I do not believe that Hamilton is that much faster than Verstappen in the wet, so it must have come down to more than just driver ability.

Well my point being is that you can't carry a set gap into wet qualifying, you have Palmer out qualifying Bottas by a second, strange that you wouldn't consider the fact that Hamilton was simply that good?

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:And i have to add, I think assuming a constant 1s gap between drivers is unrealistic. It's much too much IMO

I can only agree. Anything over half a second difference between established drivers, and the way the team is run has to be questioned. A driver who is a second slower has no place in F1. And yes, I do remember when there were fans who really believed Schumacher was 2 seconds faster. Ludicrous, though some will still buy it.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:I noted that I think it's a fluke result, as indeed I think Lewis' 1.2 second gap over Verstappen was a fluke. I do not believe that Hamilton is that much faster than Verstappen in the wet, so it must have come down to more than just driver ability.

Well my point being is that you can't carry a set gap into wet qualifying, you have Palmer out qualifying Bottas by a second, strange that you wouldn't consider the fact that Hamilton was simply that good?

I don't know what's strange about it. Hamilton has never led a wet qualifying by some ludicrous 1+ second gap before, and I don't expect him to do it again either. Wet qualifying is all about being on the track at the right time as conditions are changing, and clearly Hamilton nailed that. But no, I do not believe he is over a second faster than Verstappen in wet conditions, and I honestly wonder how you can. This isn't an attack on Hamilton, I simply don't believe that it's possible to be 'that good' in modern F1.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:I don't know what's strange about it. Hamilton has never led a wet qualifying by some ludicrous 1+ second gap before, and I don't expect him to do it again either. Wet qualifying is all about being on the track at the right time as conditions are changing, and clearly Hamilton nailed that. But no, I do not believe he is over a second faster than Verstappen in wet conditions, and I honestly wonder how you can. This isn't an attack on Hamilton, I simply don't believe that it's possible to be 'that good' in modern F1.

I think in the wet there is enough difference a driver can make where it is possible to pull a big advantage over his rivals. Hamilton may not usually be over a second quicker than Versappen in the wet but he might just have been in that moment. I'm not saying that is the case. Just saying it's a possibility.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:I don't know what's strange about it. Hamilton has never led a wet qualifying by some ludicrous 1+ second gap before, and I don't expect him to do it again either. Wet qualifying is all about being on the track at the right time as conditions are changing, and clearly Hamilton nailed that. But no, I do not believe he is over a second faster than Verstappen in wet conditions, and I honestly wonder how you can. This isn't an attack on Hamilton, I simply don't believe that it's possible to be 'that good' in modern F1.

I think in the wet there is enough difference a driver can make where it is possible to pull a big advantage over his rivals. Hamilton may not usually be over a second quicker than Versappen in the wet but he might just have been in that moment. I'm not saying that is the case. Just saying it's a possibility.

Lance Stroll out-qualified his teammate by 1.2 seconds at the same Grand Prix. Was that simply because he's so good?

Wet qualifying is a lottery. Over the course of enough time, the better drivers will certainly average out to being ahead more often than not. But I don't think that you can point to a huge gap and say that's because a given driver is so good in the wet. Pokerman even knows this, since he excludes wet qualifying from his pace comparisons.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:Lance Stroll out-qualified his teammate by 1.2 seconds at the same Grand Prix. Was that simply because he's so good?

Wet qualifying is a lottery. Over the course of enough time, the better drivers will certainly average out to being ahead more often than not. But I don't think that you can point to a huge gap and say that's because a given driver is so good in the wet. Pokerman even knows this, since he excludes wet qualifying from his pace comparisons.

I think Stroll could well have been that much better than Massa at that moment. I don't find it difficult to believe it's possible. You get into a better grove, keep the tyre temperature up higher etc. A driver can make way more difference in the wet. I certainly wouldn't automatically assume a driver that does particular well did not do so on merit.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:Lance Stroll out-qualified his teammate by 1.2 seconds at the same Grand Prix. Was that simply because he's so good?

Wet qualifying is a lottery. Over the course of enough time, the better drivers will certainly average out to being ahead more often than not. But I don't think that you can point to a huge gap and say that's because a given driver is so good in the wet. Pokerman even knows this, since he excludes wet qualifying from his pace comparisons.

I think Stroll could well have been that much better than Massa at that moment. I don't find it difficult to believe it's possible. You get into a better grove, keep the tyre temperature up higher etc. A driver can make way more difference in the wet. I certainly wouldn't automatically assume a driver that does particular well did not do so on merit.

If Stroll temporarily outperformed Massa by a second (which I doubt, but I accept is possible) that's not because he's that much better than Massa, so it would be down to a statistically unlikely individual performance. In which case, getting back to the origin of the debate, there's no reason to say Palmer couldn't have also had an unusually strong wet weather performance. If anyone can be better in the wet based on their performance on that day - whether or not they're typically the better driver - then there's nothing that makes Hamilton able to do it and Palmer incapable.

Exediron wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:And i have to add, I think assuming a constant 1s gap between drivers is unrealistic. It's much too much IMO

I can only agree. Anything over half a second difference between established drivers, and the way the team is run has to be questioned. A driver who is a second slower has no place in F1. And yes, I do remember when there were fans who really believed Schumacher was 2 seconds faster. Ludicrous, though some will still buy it.

Hulk's average advantage over Palmer throughout 2017 was more than 8 tenths. Unless you think Hulk is the quickest on the grid, someone was going to have a second over him in that same car.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: It's never as simple as that which is why Mercedes saw it differently.

What did they see in Austria?

I thought they blamed Nico,no?

(And by they I mean Toto or Niki still)

To be honest I can't remember, all I remember is Hamilton feeling the need to tell the team that Rosberg hit him and then the initial claim from Lauda that Hamilton hit Rosberg's car when he tried to rejoin the track which damaged Rosberg's car.

Says here he blamed Nico anyway. http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/167 ... -collision

mikeyg123 wrote:I remember Monaco 97. Schumacher came round after the first lap 6 seconds ahead of anybody else.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:I noted that I think it's a fluke result, as indeed I think Lewis' 1.2 second gap over Verstappen was a fluke. I do not believe that Hamilton is that much faster than Verstappen in the wet, so it must have come down to more than just driver ability.

Well my point being is that you can't carry a set gap into wet qualifying, you have Palmer out qualifying Bottas by a second, strange that you wouldn't consider the fact that Hamilton was simply that good?

I don't know what's strange about it. Hamilton has never led a wet qualifying by some ludicrous 1+ second gap before, and I don't expect him to do it again either. Wet qualifying is all about being on the track at the right time as conditions are changing, and clearly Hamilton nailed that. But no, I do not believe he is over a second faster than Verstappen in wet conditions, and I honestly wonder how you can. This isn't an attack on Hamilton, I simply don't believe that it's possible to be 'that good' in modern F1.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:Lance Stroll out-qualified his teammate by 1.2 seconds at the same Grand Prix. Was that simply because he's so good?

Wet qualifying is a lottery. Over the course of enough time, the better drivers will certainly average out to being ahead more often than not. But I don't think that you can point to a huge gap and say that's because a given driver is so good in the wet. Pokerman even knows this, since he excludes wet qualifying from his pace comparisons.

I think Stroll could well have been that much better than Massa at that moment. I don't find it difficult to believe it's possible. You get into a better grove, keep the tyre temperature up higher etc. A driver can make way more difference in the wet. I certainly wouldn't automatically assume a driver that does particular well did not do so on merit.

If Stroll temporarily outperformed Massa by a second (which I doubt, but I accept is possible) that's not because he's that much better than Massa, so it would be down to a statistically unlikely individual performance. In which case, getting back to the origin of the debate, there's no reason to say Palmer couldn't have also had an unusually strong wet weather performance. If anyone can be better in the wet based on their performance on that day - whether or not they're typically the better driver - then there's nothing that makes Hamilton able to do it and Palmer incapable.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: What did they see in Austria?

I thought they blamed Nico,no?

(And by they I mean Toto or Niki still)

To be honest I can't remember, all I remember is Hamilton feeling the need to tell the team that Rosberg hit him and then the initial claim from Lauda that Hamilton hit Rosberg's car when he tried to rejoin the track which damaged Rosberg's car.

Says here he blamed Nico anyway. http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/167 ... -collision

Read carefully he thinks the cars collided when Hamilton tried to return to the track as in the second incident so he's somewhat confused, but yes he thought it was Rosberg's fault but he wasn't sure.

For myself I remembered him thinking the cars hit one another when Hamilton was trying to return to the track and I'm sure he said in that instance on the TV that Lewis hit Nico.

Wolff told German television that both brakes on Rosberg's car "were at the end."

"He (Rosberg) didn't give him enough space. It's a pity, it shouldn't happen," Wolff said.

Team director Niki Lauda also blamed Rosberg, saying, "Nico had tried at all cost to prevent Lewis from overtaking with non-functioning brakes."

pokerman wrote:Back to reality the Hulk out qualified Palmer by 1.4s yet Palmer could well have out qualified Bottas by 1 second, and taking it further you also make it sound like such performances are a fluke or lucky, Hamilton must be very lucky in those conditions?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I remember Monaco 97. Schumacher came round after the first lap 6 seconds ahead of anybody else.

It's interesting reading about wet and dry set ups, did Schumacher get the set up right that day I vaguely remember something about this happening at Monaco the one time?

Rockie wrote: As for Ricciardo when he gets to Vettels level he can talk, for now he should concentrate on being team leader at Redbull.

Teddy007 wrote:
You mean when they both had the same car, Ric was winning a few races and essentially best of the rest behind Merc.. while Vettel threw a tantrum and quit RBR.

I find comments like this ridiculous and short sighted. Ric proved him self against Vettel - if his fans like it or not. We will never know what both drivers could have done over two years but over a single season - Ric came out on top.

Teddy007 wrote:

Rockie wrote: As for Ricciardo when he gets to Vettels level he can talk, for now he should concentrate on being team leader at Redbull.

You mean when they both had the same car, Ric was winning a few races and essentially best of the rest behind Merc.. while Vettel threw a tantrum and quit RBR.

I find comments like this ridiculous and short sighted. Ric proved him self against Vettel - if his fans like it or not. We will never know what both drivers could have done over two years but over a single season - Ric came out on top.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Back to reality the Hulk out qualified Palmer by 1.4s yet Palmer could well have out qualified Bottas by 1 second, and taking it further you also make it sound like such performances are a fluke or lucky, Hamilton must be very lucky in those conditions?

When has Hamilton ever out-qualified the field by a second in wet conditions before? If this was the only time, no, he doesn't need to be abnormally lucky.

AnRs wrote:

Teddy007 wrote:
You mean when they both had the same car, Ric was winning a few races and essentially best of the rest behind Merc.. while Vettel threw a tantrum and quit RBR.

I find comments like this ridiculous and short sighted. Ric proved him self against Vettel - if his fans like it or not. We will never know what both drivers could have done over two years but over a single season - Ric came out on top.

I was impressed how Vettel handled the tide he had in 2014, I never heard off him "throwing a tantrum", more acknowledging he had problems?

davidheath461 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:I remember Monaco 97. Schumacher came round after the first lap 6 seconds ahead of anybody else.

It's interesting reading about wet and dry set ups, did Schumacher get the set up right that day I vaguely remember something about this happening at Monaco the one time?

Yes.

He set the T-car up for intermediate conditions and his race car for dry conditions. He changed at the last minute to the former.

Mclaren and Williams got it badly wrong that day - going for dry setups and slick tyres.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: I thought they blamed Nico,no?

(And by they I mean Toto or Niki still)

To be honest I can't remember, all I remember is Hamilton feeling the need to tell the team that Rosberg hit him and then the initial claim from Lauda that Hamilton hit Rosberg's car when he tried to rejoin the track which damaged Rosberg's car.

Says here he blamed Nico anyway. http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/167 ... -collision

Read carefully he thinks the cars collided when Hamilton tried to return to the track as in the second incident so he's somewhat confused, but yes he thought it was Rosberg's fault but he wasn't sure.

For myself I remembered him thinking the cars hit one another when Hamilton was trying to return to the track and I'm sure he said in that instance on the TV that Lewis hit Nico.

I thought he did hit him when he returned to the track but just checked and it's unclear and I can't find a Lewis onboard but frankly who cares once you know why he was off track in the first place. I think it's clear enough what they saw in Austria...

Wolff told German television that both brakes on Rosberg's car "were at the end."

"He (Rosberg) didn't give him enough space. It's a pity, it shouldn't happen," Wolff said.

Team director Niki Lauda also blamed Rosberg, saying, "Nico had tried at all cost to prevent Lewis from overtaking with non-functioning brakes."

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/lewis- ... 86816.html


Why ask about Austria anyway?