planetf1.com

Exediron wrote:

Invade wrote:I have Ferrari and Mercedes as equal for Monza (race) but gave the race weekend to Ferrari for qualifying given their front row lockout despite a fine Hamilton effort, which suggests they had a real edge in qualifying.. an edge they should have converted one way or another into a race win.

I'd say Ferrari was quicker in quali, but Mercedes seemed to be quicker in the race. It's inconclusive, however, because Vettel took himself out of the running so early. Calling it a draw weekend is fair.

If Ferrari was quicker in qualifying, but it's inconclusive in the race, then, as per 2017, the default position is Ferrari having the overall better car that weekend.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

Exediron wrote: Interesting indeed... but also, at the current point of development, that's looking like even with a perfect season Ferrari isn't going to win. At this point - unless Ferrari can take a dramatic turn in their form - the Mercedes looks like the clearly quicker car, and it has in race trim since Monza. I don't see Hamilton not extending his advantage by at least 13 points, meaning that he would have won anyway according to that calculation.

Of course, there is the X factor: would Ferrari have fallen off this badly if they were leading the title? There's precedent to think they might have. In 2012 they had the best car, but lost in the development race. In fact, one might argue that Ferrari has gone backwards compared to Mercedes or Red Bull every year for some time.

Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

I agree with the general gist, but if we have to go down the road of "if Ferrari had the perfect season", then the same shall be equally applied to the Merc. They also dropped some points along the way, Poker won't stop reminding us how the blasted VSC stole a race from Hamilton early this year, or mechanical faults or Lewis having a slow start of the year. How would that make the table look?

Again what is this about me continually harping on about things, I mentioned it at the time only.

I'll correct it then, you wouldn't stop harping about it at the time. Better?

Certainly better than I'm continually reminding people about it.

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Mayhem wrote: Agreed, Not saying Ferrari would have won the title but vettel would be leading at this point and Hamilton would be gaining fast coming towards the final races of the season. What a championship that would have been to watch. Could have been one of the greatest battles.

As you stated would have Ferrari have dropped off at the rate they have no way of knowing but this has become a character trait of theirs in recent years, where they just fall flat on there faces. This has been the worst of it by far in the turbo hybrid era.

It has also raised questions as to what exactly has happened since the passing of Sergio Marchionne. Everything seemed to start going south ever since then.

I agree with the general gist, but if we have to go down the road of "if Ferrari had the perfect season", then the same shall be equally applied to the Merc. They also dropped some points along the way, Poker won't stop reminding us how the blasted VSC stole a race from Hamilton early this year, or mechanical faults or Lewis having a slow start of the year. How would that make the table look?

Again what is this about me continually harping on about things, I mentioned it at the time only.

I'll correct it then, you wouldn't stop harping about it at the time. Better?

Certainly better than I'm continually reminding people about it.

Ok, I apologise for that, it was a wrong statement. You did have a good go at the time though!

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: I agree with the general gist, but if we have to go down the road of "if Ferrari had the perfect season", then the same shall be equally applied to the Merc. They also dropped some points along the way, Poker won't stop reminding us how the blasted VSC stole a race from Hamilton early this year, or mechanical faults or Lewis having a slow start of the year. How would that make the table look?

Again what is this about me continually harping on about things, I mentioned it at the time only.

I'll correct it then, you wouldn't stop harping about it at the time. Better?

Certainly better than I'm continually reminding people about it.

Ok, I apologise for that, it was a wrong statement. You did have a good go at the time though!

Yep, and for the record I still don't like lucky SC/VSC results, I would ban being able to pit under those conditions.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

That was not very true was it? Merc didn't start this season with a healthy gap to all others you believe?

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

That was not very true was it? Merc didn't start this season with a healthy gap to all others you believe?

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Yes Mercedes were faster in Australia also confirmed by AMUS, what about all the other races?

I mean seriously is this the best you can do?

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Yes Mercedes were faster in Australia also confirmed by AMUS, what about all the other races?

I mean seriously is this the best you can do?

I was just correcting you when you wrote that Merc was underdog until Monza

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Yes Mercedes were faster in Australia also confirmed by AMUS, what about all the other races?

I mean seriously is this the best you can do?

I was just correcting you when you wrote that Merc was underdog until Monza

...in the majority of races.

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Yes Mercedes were faster in Australia also confirmed by AMUS, what about all the other races?

I mean seriously is this the best you can do?

I was just correcting you when you wrote that Merc was underdog until Monza

...in the majority of races.

you're getting closer : )

pokerman wrote: Yep, and for the record I still don't like lucky SC/VSC results, I would ban being able to pit under those conditions.

Problem is banning pitting under the SC/VSC would cause lucky results anyway...
Under the SC any one who had just pitted would gain an advantage over those who hadn't as the net loss due to pitting would be largely negated.
Under the VSC unless they made it so it VSC ended with cars at the same point of the track a car that was due to pit (maybe to avoid the undercut of someone who had just pitted) may have to complete an extra live lap, or at least majority of one, potentially leading to lost places...

The SC/VSC isn't perfect, but I've not seen any other suggestion that is either. Unless a change would be a guaranteed improvement over the current system, and I'm not convinced banning pitting is, then we should leave it as is...

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote:

AnRs wrote: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

Yes Mercedes were faster in Australia also confirmed by AMUS, what about all the other races?

I mean seriously is this the best you can do?

I was just correcting you when you wrote that Merc was underdog until Monza

...in the majority of races.

you're getting closer : )

No that sums it up, strange that a car has to be faster every time out to be considered the fastest car.

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

Don't pay attention to the bullying, it's been in here for a while now.

dompclarke wrote:

pokerman wrote: Yep, and for the record I still don't like lucky SC/VSC results, I would ban being able to pit under those conditions.

Problem is banning pitting under the SC/VSC would cause lucky results anyway...
Under the SC any one who had just pitted would gain an advantage over those who hadn't as the net loss due to pitting would be largely negated.
Under the VSC unless they made it so it VSC ended with cars at the same point of the track a car that was due to pit (maybe to avoid the undercut of someone who had just pitted) may have to complete an extra live lap, or at least majority of one, potentially leading to lost places...

The SC/VSC isn't perfect, but I've not seen any other suggestion that is either. Unless a change would be a guaranteed improvement over the current system, and I'm not convinced banning pitting is, then we should leave it as is...

Yeah I'd not fully considered the situation with the SC because the cars get bunched up, they could do it with the VSC though like they have done in F2 to stop drivers gaining an unfair advantage.

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

I'm not trying to single you out. In fact you're not even nearly the main example of this. I was just clarifying myself.

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

I'm not trying to single you out. In fact you're not even nearly the main example of this. I was just clarifying myself.

Your last sentence kind of felt like that. Ok otherwise

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: No one said that they didn't bottle it.

There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

I'm not trying to single you out. In fact you're not even nearly the main example of this. I was just clarifying myself.

Your last sentence kind of felt like that. Ok otherwise

I believe when he said there are people out there is a clue that he wasn't referring to you?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: There are people now trying to spin a "Mercedes had the better car" narrative. The fact is that Ferrari generally had the faster car for the majority of the season but through driver error, poor strategy and, most importantly, outstanding performance from Hamilton and Mercedes, Merc actually established a commanding 40 point lead prior to actually catching and, in fact, surpassing Ferrari in development. Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you but that's what's happening.

Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

I'm not trying to single you out. In fact you're not even nearly the main example of this. I was just clarifying myself.

Your last sentence kind of felt like that. Ok otherwise

I believe when he said there are people out there is a clue that he wasn't referring to you?

The sentence that says "Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you" wouldn't make me think he refers to me?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Why are you singling me out? Why is it blunt for me???

Ferrari may have been generally faster, but on the flipside, I think Mercedes was never that far back. The differences were not huge. Mercedes seems like the more rounded package overall (car-driver-strategy), but that's a subject of debate it seems.

I'm not trying to single you out. In fact you're not even nearly the main example of this. I was just clarifying myself.

Your last sentence kind of felt like that. Ok otherwise

I believe when he said there are people out there is a clue that he wasn't referring to you?

The sentence that says "Sorry if that's too blunt and honest for you" wouldn't make me think he refers to me?

He just meant him calling out things for what they were, like I said the first sentence referenced the fact he wasn't talking about you.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

AnRs wrote:

pokerman wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... efore_the/

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/2018 ... qualifying

7 th off a second ahead off everyone else is an underdog?

I’m not joining the underdog debut. But the Mercedes had 1 pole in the next 6 races after that. Australia was clearly the biggest qualifying anomaly of the season and remains there best qualifying performance for Mercedes - 15 races later.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Here we go again...Guess it's that time of year for the excuses and revisionism. You'd think that, in a year where Ferrari/Vettel so clearly bottled it, we wouldn't have to go through this.

The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Under dog suggests vastly inferior car, I don’t think that.

Race 2-14 (Monza) was definelty a period the Vettel-Ferrari was stronger. Even if you say the cars were equal in speed. Hamilton had a mechanical race DNF, a qualifying DNF and a grid penalty for Gearbox change in that 13 race period. So once accounting for reliability, Ferrari was the better car.

Once the season ends the Merecedes could still be the car to have in 13-14/21 races so could still end “dominant”. The 2013 Red Bull only won 4 of the first 10 races in 2013,then the last 9. The 2009 Red Bull won 1 of the first 7, then 5 from the last 10 and there an argument it was the best overall car in 2009 which at halfway would have been laughable.

Johnson wrote:Race 2-14 (Monza) was definelty a period the Vettel-Ferrari was stronger. Even if you say the cars were equal in speed. Hamilton had a mechanical race DNF, a qualifying DNF and a grid penalty for Gearbox change in that 13 race period. So once accounting for reliability, Ferrari was the better car.

Once the season ends the Merecedes could still be the car to have in 13-14/21 races so could still end “dominant”. The 2013 Red Bull only won 4 of the first 10 races in 2013,then the last 9. The 2009 Red Bull won 1 of the first 7, then 5 from the last 10 and there an argument it was the best overall car in 2009 which at halfway would have been laughable.

That's too broad. The Mercedes was the better car between France and Austria - as has been said publicly by, among other people, Toto Wolff.

The truth is that so far there has not been a sustained period where one car was definitively better than the other. Many people - myself among them - think we're headed for one, but we've only had two races now where Mercedes clearly had the better car. That's not a sustained run of form either.

Bottom line: the season has been close, and when people talk about Ferrari's advantage in the first half, it was a tenth or two - and when people talk about Mercedes' advantage it was the same thing. Barring poor driver performances, neither team has truly dominated more than perhaps one race each. But I think people have become so used to dominant cars that when someone says 'the Mercedes is better' they take that to mean 'the Mercedes is enough better that the drivers no longer matter', which is not the same thing at all.

Mercedes was very strong in France indeed but both cars DNF'd in Austria. You have to factor in the reliability if you are talking the car overall and not just the speed.

If the car is able to win at least 65-70% of the races it edges toward dominant in my opinion, definitely 70%. Maybe not in out right performance but in terms of results. For example if could achieve such results by only being 0.150-0.250 quicker.

In the 13 race period I mention, I think the scores are for "better car"-

Ferrari- 7
Mercedes- 3
Equal- 3

But my overall for the season is now;
Ferrari- 7
Mercedes- 7
Equal- 3

Could easily end-
Ferrari- 7
Mercedes- 11
Equal- 3

Where if you give Mercedes 1 or 2 of those equals it starts to be dominant. Maybe Ferrari's new aero updates will change everything again.

Johnson wrote:Mercedes was very strong in France indeed but both cars DNF'd in Austria. You have to factor in the reliability if you are talking the car overall and not just the speed.

I agree with you on a macro scale: season long, if one car DNFs more often it is a worse car. But in Austria they just happened to have both cars DNF, which is not at all common for the 2018 Mercedes. For me that means it was still the best car, and that was simply a very unlucky race.

Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

sandman1347 wrote:Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

I feel that has been the case at a number of other races this season as well. Now that we have the rest of the season to provide some context, his pole lap in Melbourne in particular looks to have been quite special. Some seem to be holding the view that a Hamilton pole alone on any given weekend is enough evidence that the Mercedes was the superior car, and I don't believe that to be the case.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: The end game now will be probably to try and prove that the Mercedes was the fastest car.

as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:Giving Mercedes the British GP is a bit dubious IMO. That's a very strong Hamilton track and a weak Vettel track and Ferrari looked quicker there all weekend.

Yeah general opinion is that Hamilton stole the pole.

Mercedes even gave that race to themselves. Hamilton may have stolen pole, but remember that this was during the period of the season when Ferrari was noticeably quicker in qualifying than they were in races. Hamilton looked quicker in the race, and the only reason he didn't win is likely because of the collision with Kimi.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

I think the bolded part is what people take issue with. Hamilton actually put himself in strong position to win the title during a period when Ferrari had the quicker car. That's the bit you seem hell bent on not acknowledging.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: as opposed to your endgame to try to prove that Hamilton was the plucky underdog this year?

He was up to Monza, I'm not surprised you think otherwise as you endless campaigned that the Ferrari was not quicker.

he wasn't though. The performance of the cars fluctuated from track to track but somehow the narrative is that Hamilton was the underdog until Monza?

Everything I read says the Ferrari was more often quicker, then there is your version of events, with the Mercedes resurgence I'm sure at seasons end you will make Mercedes the fastest car with Hamilton simply winning in the fastest car like you also concluded last season.

He may well have the faster car by the end of the season. The Merc certainly looks comfortably quicker at the moment. But he put himself in a strong position to win the title when the cars were relatively equal. For you that's somehow not enough, but for me I still think that shows a strong season by Hamilton

No it isn't because it goes against things that I have read using things like GPS data to determine which was the faster car at any given race.