planetf1.com

Lojik wrote:Feels to me like Merc have been on top of the tyres in two races, Australia and Barcelona where they were significantly faster than the rest. Ferrari are consistently ok on the tyres except at Barcelona where they struggled. RBR have been reasonable everywhere but lack the power to make it count in most qualy sessions. If Merc get on top of the tyres I think they will be hard to beat, but right now I would rather be in the Ferrari.

I guess Canada next weekend will tell us whether Spain was a one off or not. One off = expect Ferrari to have the edge, not a one off = Merc back ahead. Can't really include Monaco due to it being so different.

Six races in the next eight weekends starting in Canada so a pretty crucial part of the season coming up.

KingVoid wrote:Average qualifying gaps can be skewed by extreme gaps (like Monza 2017) and qualifying sessions where one driver doesn’t set a time (Brazil 2017, Australia 2018). Median qualifying gaps are better than average qualifying gaps for this precise reason. They still give a representative gap between the drivers without having to worry about outliers.

The median qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas is 0.100s in Hamilton’s favour.

The median qualifying gap between Ricciardo and Verstappen is 0.041s in Ricciardo’s favour.

I think the best is a combination of all of them, which still isn't perfect.

You can't beat just a raw list, listed in order of biggest gap to biggest deficit. With a few * highlighting key things like, crashed out, wet session etc.

Obviously Brazil 2017 you simply can't include because Hamilton set no time in any session. But Australia I am still curious to how this is included or how it would be included if Bottas was just slow and didn't make it to Q3. How is Alonso compared to Stoffel when Alonso makes Q3 but Stoffel goes out in Q2?

Even if you are using median, you have to decide if Hamilton was 0.1 or 0.8 ahead in Australia to place it in order.

Lojik wrote:Feels to me like Merc have been on top of the tyres in two races, Australia and Barcelona where they were significantly faster than the rest. Ferrari are consistently ok on the tyres except at Barcelona where they struggled. RBR have been reasonable everywhere but lack the power to make it count in most qualy sessions. If Merc get on top of the tyres I think they will be hard to beat, but right now I would rather be in the Ferrari.

I dont think Australia and Spain are comparable.

In Australia, Hamilton had a 3.3 second lead over Raikkonen after 17 laps and the gap was already 1.2 after the first lap. So he pulled 2 seconds in 16 laps and said himself he was unable to pull a gap to Kimi.

In Spain, Hamilton had an 8 second lead on lap 16 and there had only been 9 racing laps given the SC was out for ages. Spain was dominance.

The advantage Mercedes had in Australia is very similar to that of Ferrari in China. That being 0.5+ ahead in qualifying and holding a decent gap in the race. Bottas was the same gap from the lead as Kimi in Australia. 3.5 seconds after 17 laps. The key difference being the undercut delta was much larger in China and Ferrari had a slow stop.

Johnson wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Average qualifying gaps can be skewed by extreme gaps (like Monza 2017) and qualifying sessions where one driver doesn’t set a time (Brazil 2017, Australia 2018). Median qualifying gaps are better than average qualifying gaps for this precise reason. They still give a representative gap between the drivers without having to worry about outliers.

The median qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas is 0.100s in Hamilton’s favour.

The median qualifying gap between Ricciardo and Verstappen is 0.041s in Ricciardo’s favour.

I think the best is a combination of all of them, which still isn't perfect.

You can't beat just a raw list, listed in order of biggest gap to biggest deficit. With a few * highlighting key things like, crashed out, wet session etc.

Obviously Brazil 2017 you simply can't include because Hamilton set no time in any session. But Australia I am still curious to how this is included or how it would be included if Bottas was just slow and didn't make it to Q3. How is Alonso compared to Stoffel when Alonso makes Q3 but Stoffel goes out in Q2?

Even if you are using median, you have to decide if Hamilton was 0.1 or 0.8 ahead in Australia to place it in order.

If a driver crashes out of qualifying and doesn’t set a representative time, then that qualifying session automatically goes to the driver who did set a qualifying time. You don’t need to decide whether a driver is 0.1 or 0.8 seconds ahead. That doesn’t matter when you calculate the median gap.

When I order Hamilton’s qualifying sessions relative to Bottas from best to worst, the list goes like:

Australia, Monaco, Baku, Spain, China, Bahrain

The median exists between Baku and Spain. Bottas didn’t set a time in Q3 in Australia and therefore that qualifying session automatically goes to Hamilton. The gap doesn’t matter at all.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: That’s completely rubbish. You can’t take FP times as indicative of qualifying times. And even you must see the absurdity of not taking overall Q2 times. It takes a special kind of bias to take those figures...

I'm showing how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas, Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 because his first run wasn't quick enough whilst you must still believe that Hamilton was close to his limit in Q2 then simply turned the engine up to 11 in Q3 to go 9 tenths quicker.

I don’t have to believe anything. I can just look at the facts which show that bottas was less than a tenth down in Hamilton. Extrapolating anything from that for Q3 is pure projection I’m afraid. Deep down you must know that I’m afraid.

This is why it can be so difficult to debate with you. You take things which are 100% opinion, heavily biased opinion at that, and try to pass them off as fact

No you wasn't biased when you gave the Mercedes engine 100% credit for Hamilton's pole lap, I've shown how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas in every session, how Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 whilst Hamilton obviously cruised through to Q3 but no this is no evidence at all.

I would even venture that the deficit to Hamilton was a contributing factor to Bottas' crash in Q3.

So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

Johnson wrote:Out of interest, when season averages are quoted for qualifying that many of you quote. Where do you get that data from? How are incidences such as Bottas vs Hamilton in Australia treated? Officially Hamilton out qualified Bottas by 0.8. Would they use that?

I know wet sessions are usually discounted from these statistics but not sure how crashes or just Q2 drop outs are handled if the team mate progresses to Q3, do they use both the Q2 times or Q2 vs Q3?

I classed it as void, Q2 is no good because the top drivers don't need to be flat out.

KingVoid wrote:Average qualifying gaps can be skewed by extreme gaps (like Monza 2017) and qualifying sessions where one driver doesn’t set a time (Brazil 2017, Australia 2018). Median qualifying gaps are better than average qualifying gaps for this precise reason. They still give a representative gap between the drivers without having to worry about outliers.

The median qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas is 0.100s in Hamilton’s favour.

The median qualifying gap between Ricciardo and Verstappen is 0.041s in Ricciardo’s favour.

Or you can simple void the sessions, medians by the sound of it still include such things as wet sessions and drivers crashing, for instance I have Verstappen beating Ricciardo by 0.09s.

Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

KingVoid wrote:

Johnson wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Average qualifying gaps can be skewed by extreme gaps (like Monza 2017) and qualifying sessions where one driver doesn’t set a time (Brazil 2017, Australia 2018). Median qualifying gaps are better than average qualifying gaps for this precise reason. They still give a representative gap between the drivers without having to worry about outliers.

The median qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas is 0.100s in Hamilton’s favour.

The median qualifying gap between Ricciardo and Verstappen is 0.041s in Ricciardo’s favour.

I think the best is a combination of all of them, which still isn't perfect.

You can't beat just a raw list, listed in order of biggest gap to biggest deficit. With a few * highlighting key things like, crashed out, wet session etc.

Obviously Brazil 2017 you simply can't include because Hamilton set no time in any session. But Australia I am still curious to how this is included or how it would be included if Bottas was just slow and didn't make it to Q3. How is Alonso compared to Stoffel when Alonso makes Q3 but Stoffel goes out in Q2?

Even if you are using median, you have to decide if Hamilton was 0.1 or 0.8 ahead in Australia to place it in order.

If a driver crashes out of qualifying and doesn’t set a representative time, then that qualifying session automatically goes to the driver who did set a qualifying time. You don’t need to decide whether a driver is 0.1 or 0.8 seconds ahead. That doesn’t matter when you calculate the median gap.

When I order Hamilton’s qualifying sessions relative to Bottas from best to worst, the list goes like:

Australia, Monaco, Baku, Spain, China, Bahrain

The median exists between Baku and Spain. Bottas didn’t set a time in Q3 in Australia and therefore that qualifying session automatically goes to Hamilton. The gap doesn’t matter at all.

You shouldn't use median on such a small sample size, especially when you already know there may be outliers.

In my opinion, 6 data points are not enough to show anything conclusive.

Put last year's times in too and think you'd be getting somewhere.

JN23 wrote:

Lojik wrote:Feels to me like Merc have been on top of the tyres in two races, Australia and Barcelona where they were significantly faster than the rest. Ferrari are consistently ok on the tyres except at Barcelona where they struggled. RBR have been reasonable everywhere but lack the power to make it count in most qualy sessions. If Merc get on top of the tyres I think they will be hard to beat, but right now I would rather be in the Ferrari.

I guess Canada next weekend will tell us whether Spain was a one off or not. One off = expect Ferrari to have the edge, not a one off = Merc back ahead. Can't really include Monaco due to it being so different.

Six races in the next eight weekends starting in Canada so a pretty crucial part of the season coming up.

Canada is a power track which should favour Ferrari. A series of straights split up by slow speed chicanes. It is most comparable to Bahrain which favoured Ferrari.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: I'm showing how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas, Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 because his first run wasn't quick enough whilst you must still believe that Hamilton was close to his limit in Q2 then simply turned the engine up to 11 in Q3 to go 9 tenths quicker.

I don’t have to believe anything. I can just look at the facts which show that bottas was less than a tenth down in Hamilton. Extrapolating anything from that for Q3 is pure projection I’m afraid. Deep down you must know that I’m afraid.

This is why it can be so difficult to debate with you. You take things which are 100% opinion, heavily biased opinion at that, and try to pass them off as fact

No you wasn't biased when you gave the Mercedes engine 100% credit for Hamilton's pole lap, I've shown how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas in every session, how Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 whilst Hamilton obviously cruised through to Q3 but no this is no evidence at all.

I would even venture that the deficit to Hamilton was a contributing factor to Bottas' crash in Q3.

So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

davidheath461 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Lojik wrote:Feels to me like Merc have been on top of the tyres in two races, Australia and Barcelona where they were significantly faster than the rest. Ferrari are consistently ok on the tyres except at Barcelona where they struggled. RBR have been reasonable everywhere but lack the power to make it count in most qualy sessions. If Merc get on top of the tyres I think they will be hard to beat, but right now I would rather be in the Ferrari.

I guess Canada next weekend will tell us whether Spain was a one off or not. One off = expect Ferrari to have the edge, not a one off = Merc back ahead. Can't really include Monaco due to it being so different.

Six races in the next eight weekends starting in Canada so a pretty crucial part of the season coming up.

Canada is a power track which should favour Ferrari. A series of straights split up by slow speed chicanes. It is most comparable to Bahrain which favoured Ferrari.

Didn't you tell us Spain would definitely favour Ferrari?

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Lojik wrote:Feels to me like Merc have been on top of the tyres in two races, Australia and Barcelona where they were significantly faster than the rest. Ferrari are consistently ok on the tyres except at Barcelona where they struggled. RBR have been reasonable everywhere but lack the power to make it count in most qualy sessions. If Merc get on top of the tyres I think they will be hard to beat, but right now I would rather be in the Ferrari.

I guess Canada next weekend will tell us whether Spain was a one off or not. One off = expect Ferrari to have the edge, not a one off = Merc back ahead. Can't really include Monaco due to it being so different.

Six races in the next eight weekends starting in Canada so a pretty crucial part of the season coming up.

Canada is a power track which should favour Ferrari. A series of straights split up by slow speed chicanes. It is most comparable to Bahrain which favoured Ferrari.

Didn't you tell us Spain would definitely favour Ferrari?

i did

Am i not allowed to make predictions anymore then?

Zoue wrote:It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits.

I wouldn't say that's particularly true, track evolution is a thing and a track can get faster by the minute. I'm not saying that's relevant in this particular case, but drivers who set times later than their teammates often go a bit faster.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: No you wasn't biased when you gave the Mercedes engine 100% credit for Hamilton's pole lap, I've shown how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas in every session, how Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 whilst Hamilton obviously cruised through to Q3 but no this is no evidence at all.

I would even venture that the deficit to Hamilton was a contributing factor to Bottas' crash in Q3.

So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

Canada seems to be Hamilton's favourite track... Would love to see Daniel with some strong performances this year and hope Red Bull give him the better car.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

pokerman wrote:Or you can simple void the sessions, medians by the sound of it still include such things as wet sessions and drivers crashing, for instance I have Verstappen beating Ricciardo by 0.09s.

No, because IMO those qualifying sessions should still count in favour of the driver who won. If Verstappen crashes out of FP3 and damages his car while Ricciardo takes pole, why should Riccardo not take credit for winning that qualy session?

Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

The median gap between Senna and Prost is very similar to the average gap.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Of course it matters, if one driver does a 2nd run and the other doesn't then it's not exactly a good comparison, Vettel beat both Mercedes in Q2.

It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's not over analysing any situation, every driver does 2 runs in Q3 because they get given a fresh set of tyres and all drivers have 2 runs. If one driver in Q2 manages to comfortably get through on 1 run and another driver needs 2 runs then its not equal, Bottas isn't thinking he fancies a look at the scenery and a wave at the fans, his coming back out for a reason. Hamilton got through comfortably and had time in hand shown by how much be beat Vettel who beat him in Q2.

You want to keep it simple so you can argue your point, the reason why a driver needs to come out again is very much relevant to the discussion, I have seen Hamilton come out plenty of times to do an extra Q2 run because he is struggling, ruined his tyres or to get a practice run in.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:
Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's not over analysing any situation, every driver does 2 runs in Q3 because they get given a fresh set of tyres and all drivers have 2 runs. If one driver in Q2 manages to comfortably get through on 1 run and another driver needs 2 runs then its not equal, Bottas isn't thinking he fancies a look at the scenery and a wave at the fans, his coming back out for a reason. Hamilton got through comfortably and had time in hand shown by how much be beat Vettel who beat him in Q2.

You want to keep it simple so you can argue your point, the reason why a driver needs to come out again is very much relevant to the discussion, I have seen Hamilton come out plenty of times to do an extra Q2 run because he is struggling, ruined his tyres or to get a practice run in.

I don't remember ever judging a driver on whether he gets through Q2 on one run or two. Ever. As far as I can tell the only reason it's being flagged now is because some are keen to portray the gap to Hamilton as being larger than it was. And IMO we are started to get into the realms of nit-picking by attempting to use two runs as evidence of a slower driver.

And I have no issue with saying Hamilton did a better job in Australia. But this sub-thread started because poker tried to claim as fact that Hamilton would have had a large margin over Bottas in Q3, in an attempt to raise his season average. But the only evidence we have is that they were reasonably evenly matched in Q2 and we simply don't know what would have happened in Q3. The times in Q2 showed that Bottas could get close to Hamilton, irrespective of how many attempts it took him to do that, and there's no reason to believe that he would have suddenly fallen away in Q3.

pokerman wrote:Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

That's exactly what it was. Having a season average unduly influenced by one outstanding performance doesn't seem very accurate to me.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

That's exactly what it was. Having a season average unduly influenced by one outstanding performance doesn't seem very accurate to me.

As I've said before, the mean and the median are usually very close.

There is also the possibility that Bottas went full mode for Q2 as he was in danger of going out after a slow first run, best to play safe and give him all the power so he doesn’t have to risk too much elsewhere in braking zones etc. 1 mistake on his 2nd run and he was possibly out of qualifying.

Hamilton confirmed the engine was switched up in Q3 on his car.

Johnson wrote:There is also the possibility that Bottas went full mode for Q2 as he was in danger of going out after a slow first run, best to play safe and give him all the power so he doesn’t have to risk too much elsewhere in braking zones etc. 1 mistake on his 2nd run and he was possibly out of qualifying.

Hamilton confirmed the engine was switched up in Q3 on his car.

Agree it's possible. The only issue is the claim that it was a fact that Hamilton was "going to give Bottas a whopping" before Bottas' accident in qualifying, in order to raise Hamilton's qualifying ratio against Bottas this year. He may well have done, but it's by no means certain

Early predictions for this weekend's Grand Prix? Love an evening race in the UK, wouldnt be suprised to see Hamilton make it 7 wins.

Expect Merc dominance again

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don’t have to believe anything. I can just look at the facts which show that bottas was less than a tenth down in Hamilton. Extrapolating anything from that for Q3 is pure projection I’m afraid. Deep down you must know that I’m afraid.

This is why it can be so difficult to debate with you. You take things which are 100% opinion, heavily biased opinion at that, and try to pass them off as fact

No you wasn't biased when you gave the Mercedes engine 100% credit for Hamilton's pole lap, I've shown how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas in every session, how Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 whilst Hamilton obviously cruised through to Q3 but no this is no evidence at all.

I would even venture that the deficit to Hamilton was a contributing factor to Bottas' crash in Q3.

So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

I have actually voided Australia from my stats, I was merely having a conversation in trying to determine who has been the best qualifier in Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo in respect to what would be expected from them, so was trying to establish parameters with the poster, and then you stepped in who as a rule as no interest in such things and basically derailed the interaction with said poster.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:Or you can simple void the sessions, medians by the sound of it still include such things as wet sessions and drivers crashing, for instance I have Verstappen beating Ricciardo by 0.09s.

No, because IMO those qualifying sessions should still count in favour of the driver who won. If Verstappen crashes out of FP3 and damages his car while Ricciardo takes pole, why should Riccardo not take credit for winning that qualy session?

Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

The median gap between Senna and Prost is very similar to the average gap.

Senna out qualifies Prost in Monaco by 1.4s, next time out he is unable to set a dry time, one session is wet, the other session that is dry his engine blows up so Prost out qualifies him.

Both qualifying's are treated as outliers so it's Senna 1 - 1 Prost, that doesn't seem to reflect at all that Senna was better, so basically the system is governed as much by luck so how can that represent a true performance difference between the 2 drivers?

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: It doesn't matter. When comparing team mates' times in qualifying, the only match that is made is which session it's in, not which run they made in that session. So ordinarily, you'd compare both Q3 times, but if that's not available you either don't make a comparison at all or take the next best ones, which would be Q2. But you'd never compare Q3 with Q2, for example.

Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's different because the other driver has also had 2 tries, I doubt that Hamilton just sits in the pits after his first run, also the fact that Hamilton went 9 tenths quicker in Q3 makes what Bottas did in Q2 needing 2 goes at it just to match Hamilton somewhat redundant.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Your methodology would basically scrub out Senna's mythical lap at Monaco as a mere outlier.

That's exactly what it was. Having a season average unduly influenced by one outstanding performance doesn't seem very accurate to me.

Qualifying isn't lineal it has ebbs and flows, if you ignore the ebbs then you don't get a true full picture.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote: Why did Bottas do a 2nd run in Q2?

why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's different because the other driver has also had 2 tries, I doubt that Hamilton just sits in the pits after his first run, also the fact that Hamilton went 9 tenths quicker in Q3 makes what Bottas did in Q2 needing 2 goes at it just to match Hamilton somewhat redundant.

It doesn't make it redundant at all. There could be any number of reasons why Bottas didn't get a good lap in. Doesn't mean he couldn't.

You can make all manner of justifications, but it's still wholly speculation on what Bottas may or may not have done in Q3. It's enough to say that Hamilton did a better job, but you simply cannot extrapolate times from it. Kimi was slower than Vettel in Q2, but turned that around in Q1. Proof that Q2 times don't always equate to Q3 ones.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:No you wasn't biased when you gave the Mercedes engine 100% credit for Hamilton's pole lap, I've shown how Hamilton was consistently quicker than Bottas in every session, how Bottas had to do a second run in Q2 whilst Hamilton obviously cruised through to Q3 but no this is no evidence at all.

I would even venture that the deficit to Hamilton was a contributing factor to Bottas' crash in Q3.

So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

I have actually voided Australia from my stats, I was merely having a conversation in trying to determine who has been the best qualifier in Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo in respect to what would be expected from them, so was trying to establish parameters with the poster, and then you stepped in who as a rule as no interest in such things and basically derailed the interaction with said poster.

oh well, if we're re-writing history...

You tried to make a claim which more than doubled the average qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas. I was simply pointing out that this was pure speculation, but you kept at it, so...

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:

Zoue wrote: why does it matter?

Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's different because the other driver has also had 2 tries, I doubt that Hamilton just sits in the pits after his first run, also the fact that Hamilton went 9 tenths quicker in Q3 makes what Bottas did in Q2 needing 2 goes at it just to match Hamilton somewhat redundant.

It doesn't make it redundant at all. There could be any number of reasons why Bottas didn't get a good lap in. Doesn't mean he couldn't.

You can make all manner of justifications, but it's still wholly speculation on what Bottas may or may not have done in Q3. It's enough to say that Hamilton did a better job, but you simply cannot extrapolate times from it. Kimi was slower than Vettel in Q2, but turned that around in Q1. Proof that Q2 times don't always equate to Q3 ones.

Well you know it would have been nice if I could had continued the conversation on with the actual poster who I was talking to instead of going back over old ground of how unremarkable Hamilton's Australian pole lap was.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:So this whole thing is based on you being upset that I didn't think Hamilton's lap in Australia was as special as you did? Good grief.

The above is complete nonsense. FP times aren't always consistent with qualifying outcomes, as you well know. And having to do two laps could be down to anything. Not every driver gets it right first time: isn't that the point of letting them go out more than once?

Fact is you cannot read anything into the stats you've presented. But somehow you present them as fact, whereas it's simply wishful thinking on your part, as is your theory on Bottas' crash. This is what happens when you view everything through a Hamilton shaped lens, unfortunately. Bottas was matching Hamilton until his accident. That's the only stat that matters. You just can't extrapolate anything else from that

Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

I have actually voided Australia from my stats, I was merely having a conversation in trying to determine who has been the best qualifier in Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo in respect to what would be expected from them, so was trying to establish parameters with the poster, and then you stepped in who as a rule as no interest in such things and basically derailed the interaction with said poster.

oh well, if we're re-writing history...

You tried to make a claim which more than doubled the average qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas. I was simply pointing out that this was pure speculation, but you kept at it, so...

Like I said I was running it past a poster who was in discussion with me when trying to set a level for the drivers qualifying performances this year, Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo, this was just between me and him, he could have taken it onboard or not?

Then I had to relive just how unremarkable Hamilton's pole lap was.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote: Of course it would matter, I honestly can't remember so thats why I asked. Was he at risk of being knocked out? Did he go out to a 2nd run to try and find more time as he didn't feel comfortable? For both reasons you would push harder than you need too, Vettel beat Hamilton in Q2 while he was sitting in the pits.

One driver sitting in the pits taking it easy while the other needs to go out again doesn't exactly tell me it's equal.

it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's different because the other driver has also had 2 tries, I doubt that Hamilton just sits in the pits after his first run, also the fact that Hamilton went 9 tenths quicker in Q3 makes what Bottas did in Q2 needing 2 goes at it just to match Hamilton somewhat redundant.

It doesn't make it redundant at all. There could be any number of reasons why Bottas didn't get a good lap in. Doesn't mean he couldn't.

You can make all manner of justifications, but it's still wholly speculation on what Bottas may or may not have done in Q3. It's enough to say that Hamilton did a better job, but you simply cannot extrapolate times from it. Kimi was slower than Vettel in Q2, but turned that around in Q1. Proof that Q2 times don't always equate to Q3 ones.

Well you know it would have been nice if I could had continued the conversation on with the actual poster who I was talking to instead of going back over old ground of how unremarkable Hamilton's Australian pole lap was.

there was nothing to stop you continuing with them. Nothing at all. You still can, in fact.

If you make a claim on a public forum that doesn't stand up to scrutiny then you can't complain when you are called out on it. If you want a private conversation, then PM them. This is always how forums have worked and someone with your post count is well aware of that.

And nobody talked about how unremarkable Hamilton's Australian pole lap was. I just pointed out you couldn't assume that he would have given Bottas "a whopping." I can't help it if you draw extra conclusions from that

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Lap for lap Hamilton was quicker all weekend and you're simple dismissing the fact that everytime Bottas was slower, Hamilton was 9 tenths quicker than his Q2 yet you are using the Q2 as an example of Bottas matching Hamilton despite Hamilton's car having been parked in the pits for over 5 minutes when Bottas did this.

At the time I believe you said the Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit and the Q3 time was courtesy of Mercedes' party mode and not what observers said that it was a mega lap, but no Bottas would have simply have used the same party mode and also gone 9 tenths quicker, a pity Bottas didn't use it in Q2 it would have saved him 2 runs, by the way what ever happened to this magic party mode?

It's wholly irrelevant how long one driver is sitting in the pits. The fact is that the last match up we have is Q2 and in that session barely anything separated them. This whole thing is you stating as a fact that Hamilton would have been significantly faster than Bottas in Q3, in order to widen the seasonal qualifying average, but the fact remains that this is pure guesswork and not guaranteed, no matter how put out you may feel that Hamilton was not being given enough credit for his lap.

I don't believe I ever said Q2 was close to Hamilton's limit?

I have actually voided Australia from my stats, I was merely having a conversation in trying to determine who has been the best qualifier in Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo in respect to what would be expected from them, so was trying to establish parameters with the poster, and then you stepped in who as a rule as no interest in such things and basically derailed the interaction with said poster.

oh well, if we're re-writing history...

You tried to make a claim which more than doubled the average qualifying gap between Hamilton and Bottas. I was simply pointing out that this was pure speculation, but you kept at it, so...

Like I said I was running it past a poster who was in discussion with me when trying to set a level for the drivers qualifying performances this year, Hamilton, Vettel and Ricciardo, this was just between me and him, he could have taken it onboard or not?

Then I had to relive just how unremarkable Hamilton's pole lap was.

It's not "between you and him" when it's on a public forum. This needs explaining?

Still unclear how saying you can't assume a whopping translates into an unremarkable lap

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: it's not relevant, though, not in the context of what was being discussed. Do we over-analyse every qualifying session and discount a driver going faster on his second run? Of course we don't. We just look at the final result. What if he needs two tries to get pole? Is that bad?

It's different because the other driver has also had 2 tries, I doubt that Hamilton just sits in the pits after his first run, also the fact that Hamilton went 9 tenths quicker in Q3 makes what Bottas did in Q2 needing 2 goes at it just to match Hamilton somewhat redundant.

It doesn't make it redundant at all. There could be any number of reasons why Bottas didn't get a good lap in. Doesn't mean he couldn't.

You can make all manner of justifications, but it's still wholly speculation on what Bottas may or may not have done in Q3. It's enough to say that Hamilton did a better job, but you simply cannot extrapolate times from it. Kimi was slower than Vettel in Q2, but turned that around in Q1. Proof that Q2 times don't always equate to Q3 ones.

Well you know it would have been nice if I could had continued the conversation on with the actual poster who I was talking to instead of going back over old ground of how unremarkable Hamilton's Australian pole lap was.

there was nothing to stop you continuing with them. Nothing at all. You still can, in fact.

If you make a claim on a public forum that doesn't stand up to scrutiny then you can't complain when you are called out on it. If you want a private conversation, then PM them. This is always how forums have worked and someone with your post count is well aware of that.

And nobody talked about how unremarkable Hamilton's Australian pole lap was. I just pointed out you couldn't assume that he would have given Bottas "a whopping." I can't help it if you draw extra conclusions from that

Your interventions lost the flow of the discussion I was trying to make, the gap between Hamilton and Bottas is 0.05s and that's not going to change, I'm not really one for pming people.