planetf1.com

The Ferrari took until Spain to qualify ahead of a Mercedes or within a second of pole, never mind the RB or McLaren. It shouldn't be in the discussion for quickest anything really.

Two quick drivers in two quicker cars taking points off each other amongst some team mishaps for Hamilton and Alonso in a car hopelessly off the pace pre Spain but somehow picking up good points through greater reliability than the quicker cars around it.

Sounds strangely familiar. Just needs Alonso to win a crazy attrition race next and we're in business.

(Spain upgrade being as good for McLaren as it was for Ferrari would be most welcome too)

The Lotus, to me, was at least the equal of the McLaren and Red Bull on pace. The Ferrari seemed to be somewhat lacking in terms of single lap pace but it had the pace on Sundays and I think the fact that Massa was nowhere helped create the impression that the car was less competitive than it actually was. It absolutely belongs in the conversation among the other three teams. There were weekends where Ferrari dominated. They just didn't qualify very well that year.

Lotus's weakness was their driver lineup relative to the other three teams. Ferrari's weakness was getting the tires into the window in qualy. McLaren's weakness was reliability and...well...McLaren. Red Bull won primarily because their team performed the best in terms of strategy and execution while having the best all around car.

sandman1347 wrote:The Lotus, to me, was at least the equal of the McLaren and Red Bull on pace. The Ferrari seemed to be somewhat lacking in terms of single lap pace but it had the pace on Sundays and I think the fact that Massa was nowhere helped create the impression that the car was less competitive than it actually was. It absolutely belongs in the conversation among the other three teams. There were weekends where Ferrari dominated. They just didn't qualify very well that year.

Lotus's weakness was their driver lineup relative to the other three teams. Ferrari's weakness was getting the tires into the window in qualy. McLaren's weakness was reliability and...well...McLaren. Red Bull won primarily because their team performed the best in terms of strategy and execution while having the best all around car.

What weekends did Ferrari dominate?

I can think of the pole and win in Germany but Red Bull were at least as quick if not quicker but Ferrari pitted for new wets in Q3 and got the pole and dirty air did the rest in the race. Ditto Silverstone with Red Bull in quali but Webber got past in the race.

Italy they might well have done but reliability screwed it in qualifying. That was the big stinger for them, it was the only weekend they looked the quickest throughout that I can recall.

KingVoid wrote:I think that McLaren and Red Bull were a step above Lotus and Ferrari in 2012. They took poles regularly while Lotus and Ferrari struggled to compete in qualifying.

Hard to disagree with that imho. Lotus had a good race car but it wasn't equal all round to McL or RB. 2012, I would say it was a battle mostly between RB and McL, first leaning towards RB but by the end of the season the McL was the car to beat. Jensen and Lewis won 6 or 7 races that year, no? (that was the year Lewis finally won more than Jenson, no? 4 to 3? Not sure but...) Wasn't finishing 2012 with the fastest car what made McL's decision to redesign in 2013 rather than evolve with only one year of regulations left so utterly insane?


Anyway, to go back to the thread title, I can't help but think that McL have had the worst winter since records began judging from their pace and what they say, no?

1. Last year they said their chasis was equal to RBR's.
2. This year they have the same PU but are still 1.5-2s off the pace

Therefore, they lost 1.5-2s in pace through their design, no? Even williams haven't messed up that much, and wow, they have a nightmare package this year.

Shia Luck wrote:

KingVoid wrote:I think that McLaren and Red Bull were a step above Lotus and Ferrari in 2012. They took poles regularly while Lotus and Ferrari struggled to compete in qualifying.

Hard to disagree with that imho. Lotus had a good race car but it wasn't equal all round to McL or RB. 2012, I would say it was a battle mostly between RB and McL, first leaning towards RB but by the end of the season the McL was the car to beat. Jensen and Lewis won 6 or 7 races that year, no? (that was the year Lewis finally won more than Jenson, no? 4 to 3? Not sure but...) Wasn't finishing 2012 with the fastest car what made McL's decision to redesign in 2013 rather than evolve with only one year of regulations left so utterly insane?


Anyway, to go back to the thread title, I can't help but think that McL have had the worst winter since records began judging from their pace and what they say, no?

1. Last year they said their chasis was equal to RBR's.
2. This year they have the same PU but are still 1.5-2s off the pace

Therefore, they lost 1.5-2s in pace through their design, no? Even williams haven't messed up that much, and wow, they have a nightmare package this year.

For point 1 - And according to a BBC article there was skeptism in the paddock about Mclarens claim..
I think Mclaren needs a clear out to move forward...

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Obvious difference being when they were competitive. Alonso didn't walk into one of the best cars at Renault so I don't think Lewis-McLaren would count anyway. Seb-RB is arguable depending on how you view the 2009 RB I suppose.

Alonso didn't leave a better situation to go to a poorer one, likewise Vettel when he left STR, I'm talking about a driver leaving a title capable car and going into a worse car like when Schumacher left Benetton and when Hamilton left McLaren, that's were the comparisons are very similar.

You could say the likes of Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel all lucked into title winning cars, they were all junior drivers for the teams come whether the car was going to be good or bad.

We are all responding to the same post that doesn't mention all these caveats as to why Alonso-Renault doesn't count.

They were 7th when Alonso joined as a test driver. 4th when he joined as a driver. 4th in his first year. 3rd in his second year and then back to back champions. That's nothing like lucking into title capable cars in your first year with the team.

It's the very definition of zero to hero team wise and you can keep adding all the caveats you want, he has to be champ, has to be leaving a championship car, etc..but pole2win mentioned none of them.

Schumacher did exactly what Alonso did at Benetton but he didn't mention Benetton, so I took that onboard as the leaving to join another team when he mentioned Ferrari.

Alonso did join from another team as well though, he wasn't a Renault jnr, he joined from Minardi to be Renault's test driver.

Pole2Win can clarify though but I don't see why it doesn't count just because he was at his 2nd team and a young un'.

Briatore was Alonso's manager and also the TP of Renault, Briatore placed him at Minardi then the following year Alonso sat out the year as the Renault reserve driver, Schumacher joined Benetton from Jordan.

The comparisons are close to identical, Briatore was TP of both Benetton and Renault, the teams were basically the same but just rebadged.

Benetton
Schumacher 3rd-4th-1st-1st-Ferrari

Renault
Alonso 6th-4th-1st-1st-McLaren

However Pole2Win only mentioned what Schumacher did at Ferrari.

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote: Hamilton did not leave a title capable car to go to Mercedes - he left McLaren precisley because he had decided they weren't title capable. Very different from what Schumi did - he didn't quit Benetton in disgust and just take the best offer available, which is what Hamilton basically did. Similar idea for Seb going to Ferrari: he didn't leave a title capable car, he decided that the RBR no longer was one.

Hamilton had the fastest car in F1 when he left McLaren, Button the supposed more cerebral driver thought Hamilton was an idiot and the 2013 title was going to be open season for him, I say more praise to Hamilton to see the writing on the wall for McLaren.

Schumacher left Benetton for the massive retainer offered by Ferrari, also there were suggestions that he was keen to get away from the cheating rumours that surrounded Benetton.

That's a stretch. The car was certainly quick in 2012 but to call it the fastest outright isn't accurate. Red Bull certainly had a car with at least equivalent pace and arguably Lotus and Ferrari were right there as well. There was maybe 2-3 tenths between those 4 teams most of the year with fluctuations as to where they stood relative to each other. When you combine that with the car's shotty reliability, I don't think saying he had the fastest car is an accurate representation of the 2012 season at all.

But yeah, I get your point. He had won races every year with McLaren and had at least an outside shot at the title in most of those years. Leaving for Mercedes was well off the beaten path.

In 2012 Hamilton had the most poles 7, 8 if I include Barcelona were his mechanic underfueled him and would have had the most wins, 7 if not for unreliability and again Barcelona if not for the faceplam in qualifying, Button himself won 3 races.

I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

I guess you missed the part about the car being good enough to win 10 races?

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Hamilton had the fastest car in F1 when he left McLaren, Button the supposed more cerebral driver thought Hamilton was an idiot and the 2013 title was going to be open season for him, I say more praise to Hamilton to see the writing on the wall for McLaren.

Schumacher left Benetton for the massive retainer offered by Ferrari, also there were suggestions that he was keen to get away from the cheating rumours that surrounded Benetton.

That's a stretch. The car was certainly quick in 2012 but to call it the fastest outright isn't accurate. Red Bull certainly had a car with at least equivalent pace and arguably Lotus and Ferrari were right there as well. There was maybe 2-3 tenths between those 4 teams most of the year with fluctuations as to where they stood relative to each other. When you combine that with the car's shotty reliability, I don't think saying he had the fastest car is an accurate representation of the 2012 season at all.

But yeah, I get your point. He had won races every year with McLaren and had at least an outside shot at the title in most of those years. Leaving for Mercedes was well off the beaten path.

In 2012 Hamilton had the most poles 7, 8 if I include Barcelona were his mechanic underfueled him and would have had the most wins, 7 if not for unreliability and again Barcelona if not for the faceplam in qualifying, Button himself won 3 races.

I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

I guess you missed the part about the car being good enough to win 10 races?

Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

pokerman wrote: I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: That's a stretch. The car was certainly quick in 2012 but to call it the fastest outright isn't accurate. Red Bull certainly had a car with at least equivalent pace and arguably Lotus and Ferrari were right there as well. There was maybe 2-3 tenths between those 4 teams most of the year with fluctuations as to where they stood relative to each other. When you combine that with the car's shotty reliability, I don't think saying he had the fastest car is an accurate representation of the 2012 season at all.

But yeah, I get your point. He had won races every year with McLaren and had at least an outside shot at the title in most of those years. Leaving for Mercedes was well off the beaten path.

In 2012 Hamilton had the most poles 7, 8 if I include Barcelona were his mechanic underfueled him and would have had the most wins, 7 if not for unreliability and again Barcelona if not for the faceplam in qualifying, Button himself won 3 races.

I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

I guess you missed the part about the car being good enough to win 10 races?

Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

Pray tell how the Red Bull was good enough to win 17/18 races, it was off the pace in the early part of the season, McLaren won 7 races on merit as far as I recall plus Vettel inherited 2 wins after Hamilton retired.

If you just take Button's performances then no it wasn't the fastest car but is not how that tends to work, the Hamilton/McLaren combination was the fastest , most pole positions and should have had the most wins but let down by unreliability from both the car and personal.

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

You do know that I'm making comparison with Schumacher at Ferrari and pray tell who else Mercedes could have signed that would have suited their remit, why did it become so important to sign Hamilton if basically they never needed him in the first place, I did explain the scenario that was playing out?

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

You do know that I'm making comparison with Schumacher at Ferrari and pray tell who else Mercedes could have signed that would have suited their remit, why did it become so important to sign Hamilton if basically they never needed him in the first place, I did explain the scenario that was playing out?

Oh yes, I do know that you are making that comparison between Schumacher in Ferrari and Hamilton in Mercedes - in terms of bringing the team from nothing to everything. But all I am saying is that, besides this bare fact that both teams prior to these respective drivers' arrival were not winning anything, just like so in the case of Vettel and RBR, you got NOTHING that to impress us with as what exactly did Hamilton contribute so significantly (if in any way) to the development of the Merc supreme PU and the entire machinery at large, all that while he was busy racing in that pre-hybrid era car. And so much so that without him arriving, the Mercedes' PU dominance perhaps would not had happened. I mean, rally. Look, then I'd say, Rosberg did it. He made it happen. Why not? He was there too.

And yes, all you got here is your "scenario" that Mercedes signed Hamilton. The Magical Hamilton, I presume.

And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote: In 2012 Hamilton had the most poles 7, 8 if I include Barcelona were his mechanic underfueled him and would have had the most wins, 7 if not for unreliability and again Barcelona if not for the faceplam in qualifying, Button himself won 3 races.

I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

I guess you missed the part about the car being good enough to win 10 races?

Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

Pray tell how the Red Bull was good enough to win 17/18 races, it was off the pace in the early part of the season, McLaren won 7 races on merit as far as I recall plus Vettel inherited 2 wins after Hamilton retired.

If you just take Button's performances then no it wasn't the fastest car but is not how that tends to work, the Hamilton/McLaren combination was the fastest , most pole positions and should have had the most wins but let down by unreliability from both the car and personal.

What you said was that the McLaren was the fastest car. You didn't say joint fastest and you didn't say car/driver combo. Your statement suggests that the car was faster than the Red Bull which I see no evidence for. If your argument is that Lewis made the difference then that's not the car is it? I'm talking about the car alone.

A car doesn't have to be the fastest in order to win a race. The wins Vettel inherited in Singapore and Abu Dhabi were races where his car was absolutely capable of winning. I'm also miffed at your notion that Red Bull were off the pace. They had a couple of rough weekends with the tires but they were not off the pace at any point that year. I suppose China was a bit of a nightmare but that's one race.

You didn't answer my question. What makes you think the Mclaren was faster than the Red Bull?

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

You do know that I'm making comparison with Schumacher at Ferrari and pray tell who else Mercedes could have signed that would have suited their remit, why did it become so important to sign Hamilton if basically they never needed him in the first place, I did explain the scenario that was playing out?

Oh yes, I do know that you are making that comparison between Schumacher in Ferrari and Hamilton in Mercedes - in terms of bringing the team from nothing to everything. But all I am saying is that, besides this bare fact that both teams prior to these respective drivers' arrival were not winning anything, just like so in the case of Vettel and RBR, you got NOTHING that to impress us with as what exactly did Hamilton contribute so significantly (if in any way) to the development of the Merc supreme PU and the entire machinery at large, all that while he was busy racing in that pre-hybrid era car. And so much so that without him arriving, the Mercedes' PU dominance perhaps would not had happened. I mean, rally. Look, then I'd say, Rosberg did it. He made it happen. Why not? He was there too.

And yes, all you got here is your "scenario" that Mercedes signed Hamilton. The Magical Hamilton, I presume.

And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

I guess you missed the part about the car being good enough to win 10 races?

Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

Pray tell how the Red Bull was good enough to win 17/18 races, it was off the pace in the early part of the season, McLaren won 7 races on merit as far as I recall plus Vettel inherited 2 wins after Hamilton retired.

If you just take Button's performances then no it wasn't the fastest car but is not how that tends to work, the Hamilton/McLaren combination was the fastest , most pole positions and should have had the most wins but let down by unreliability from both the car and personal.

What you said was that the McLaren was the fastest car. You didn't say joint fastest and you didn't say car/driver combo. Your statement suggests that the car was faster than the Red Bull which I see no evidence for. If your argument is that Lewis made the difference then that's not the car is it? I'm talking about the car alone.

A car doesn't have to be the fastest in order to win a race. The wins Vettel inherited in Singapore and Abu Dhabi were races where his car was absolutely capable of winning. I'm also miffed at your notion that Red Bull were off the pace. They had a couple of rough weekends with the tires but they were not off the pace at any point that year. I suppose China was a bit of a nightmare but that's one race.

You didn't answer my question. What makes you think the Mclaren was faster than the Red Bull?

I'm not sure if your mixing up the fastest car with the best car, Vettel had the best car in Singapore and Abu Dhabi because he won, however he couldn't keep pace with Hamilton before he retired therefore the McLaren was the fastest car.

Going over the season the McLaren had the beating of Red Bull in 11 of the 20 races, I give the USA a draw were Hamilton managed to pass Vettel but couldn't pull away, so Red Bull had the beating of McLaren in 8 races, what McLaren had though was poor reliability and operational errors so the better team/car was Red Bull.

mpls2 wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:

KingVoid wrote:I think that McLaren and Red Bull were a step above Lotus and Ferrari in 2012. They took poles regularly while Lotus and Ferrari struggled to compete in qualifying.

Hard to disagree with that imho. Lotus had a good race car but it wasn't equal all round to McL or RB. 2012, I would say it was a battle mostly between RB and McL, first leaning towards RB but by the end of the season the McL was the car to beat. Jensen and Lewis won 6 or 7 races that year, no? (that was the year Lewis finally won more than Jenson, no? 4 to 3? Not sure but...) Wasn't finishing 2012 with the fastest car what made McL's decision to redesign in 2013 rather than evolve with only one year of regulations left so utterly insane?


Anyway, to go back to the thread title, I can't help but think that McL have had the worst winter since records began judging from their pace and what they say, no?

1. Last year they said their chasis was equal to RBR's.
2. This year they have the same PU but are still 1.5-2s off the pace

Therefore, they lost 1.5-2s in pace through their design, no? Even williams haven't messed up that much, and wow, they have a nightmare package this year.

For point 1 - And according to a BBC article there was skeptism in the paddock about Mclarens claim..
I think Mclaren needs a clear out to move forward...

Oh, yes, agreed. Alo is managing to get the car into positions it just doesn't seem to deserve, but it's still sad to see McL with few sponsers and very happy? relieved? to be fighting for best of the rest.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

Pray tell how the Red Bull was good enough to win 17/18 races, it was off the pace in the early part of the season, McLaren won 7 races on merit as far as I recall plus Vettel inherited 2 wins after Hamilton retired.

If you just take Button's performances then no it wasn't the fastest car but is not how that tends to work, the Hamilton/McLaren combination was the fastest , most pole positions and should have had the most wins but let down by unreliability from both the car and personal.

What you said was that the McLaren was the fastest car. You didn't say joint fastest and you didn't say car/driver combo. Your statement suggests that the car was faster than the Red Bull which I see no evidence for. If your argument is that Lewis made the difference then that's not the car is it? I'm talking about the car alone.

A car doesn't have to be the fastest in order to win a race. The wins Vettel inherited in Singapore and Abu Dhabi were races where his car was absolutely capable of winning. I'm also miffed at your notion that Red Bull were off the pace. They had a couple of rough weekends with the tires but they were not off the pace at any point that year. I suppose China was a bit of a nightmare but that's one race.

You didn't answer my question. What makes you think the Mclaren was faster than the Red Bull?

I'm not sure if your mixing up the fastest car with the best car, Vettel had the best car in Singapore and Abu Dhabi because he won, however he couldn't keep pace with Hamilton before he retired therefore the McLaren was the fastest car.

Going over the season the McLaren had the beating of Red Bull in 11 of the 20 races, I give the USA a draw were Hamilton managed to pass Vettel but couldn't pull away, so Red Bull had the beating of McLaren in 8 races, what McLaren had though was poor reliability and operational errors so the better team/car was Red Bull.

2 things: first, you've done nothing to separate car from driver whatsoever; presumably assuming that Hamilton and Vettel's performance is equal therefor whoever wins has the better car. This is something that is pretty common in the forum but it's something that is completely illogical. Secondly, I count 7 races where Red Bull were clearly better, 5 races where McLaren were clearly better and 8 races where it's down to interpretation.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote: Perhaps you missed the part where the Red Bull was good enough to win about 17-18 races. The real question poker, is why do you rate the McLaren from 2012 as faster than the Red Bull?

Pray tell how the Red Bull was good enough to win 17/18 races, it was off the pace in the early part of the season, McLaren won 7 races on merit as far as I recall plus Vettel inherited 2 wins after Hamilton retired.

If you just take Button's performances then no it wasn't the fastest car but is not how that tends to work, the Hamilton/McLaren combination was the fastest , most pole positions and should have had the most wins but let down by unreliability from both the car and personal.

What you said was that the McLaren was the fastest car. You didn't say joint fastest and you didn't say car/driver combo. Your statement suggests that the car was faster than the Red Bull which I see no evidence for. If your argument is that Lewis made the difference then that's not the car is it? I'm talking about the car alone.

A car doesn't have to be the fastest in order to win a race. The wins Vettel inherited in Singapore and Abu Dhabi were races where his car was absolutely capable of winning. I'm also miffed at your notion that Red Bull were off the pace. They had a couple of rough weekends with the tires but they were not off the pace at any point that year. I suppose China was a bit of a nightmare but that's one race.

You didn't answer my question. What makes you think the Mclaren was faster than the Red Bull?

I'm not sure if your mixing up the fastest car with the best car, Vettel had the best car in Singapore and Abu Dhabi because he won, however he couldn't keep pace with Hamilton before he retired therefore the McLaren was the fastest car.

Going over the season the McLaren had the beating of Red Bull in 11 of the 20 races, I give the USA a draw were Hamilton managed to pass Vettel but couldn't pull away, so Red Bull had the beating of McLaren in 8 races, what McLaren had though was poor reliability and operational errors so the better team/car was Red Bull.

2 things: first, you've done nothing to separate car from driver whatsoever; presumably assuming that Hamilton and Vettel's performance is equal therefor whoever wins has the better car. This is something that is pretty common in the forum but it's something that is completely illogical. Secondly, I count 7 races where Red Bull were clearly better, 5 races where McLaren were clearly better and 8 races where it's down to interpretation.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

It very much seems that way, McLaren won 7 races which I seem to recall was on merit and Hamilton had 3 wins taken away from him, yet only 5 races were they were better?

You do know the premise of this was me saying that Hamilton walked away from a car good enough to win 10 races, how do I separate from that statement wins that may have been down to Hamilton himself?

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

And to have done all that in only one year. Remarkable.

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Crazy to think hamilton develoed that Merc Hybrid PU. it eas Merc themelves.. Hamilton just drives it..
Wasn't Schumi in the Merc team for 3 years layng the ground work.. so hardly a fair comparison...!

pokerman wrote: Briatore was Alonso's manager and also the TP of Renault, Briatore placed him at Minardi then the following year Alonso sat out the year as the Renault reserve driver, Schumacher joined Benetton from Jordan.

The comparisons are close to identical, Briatore was TP of both Benetton and Renault, the teams were basically the same but just rebadged.

Benetton
Schumacher 3rd-4th-1st-1st-Ferrari

Renault
Alonso 6th-4th-1st-1st-McLaren

However Pole2Win only mentioned what Schumacher did at Ferrari.

To be clear you did say "leaving to join another team". I can only respond to what you or Pole2Win actually write here rather than start guessing.

I'm sure he'll clarify.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Yeah, I know. And all that while walking out his Roscoe and Coco. And Chuck Norris suddenly turned out a big loser and went into a seclusion in the Buddhist temple getting instantly inspired to start searching for the higher meaning in life.

Prema wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Yeah, I know. And all that while walking out his Roscoe and Coco. And Chuck Norris suddenly turned out a big loser and went into a seclusion in the Buddhist temple getting instantly inspired to start searching for the higher meaning in life.

I agree, not really comparable, not directly. Different eras, different rules, different driver involvement, just not the same...

On the McLaren vs Red Bull in 2012. I thought it was pretty tight, some tracks suited one more than the other and vice versa. I don't think Seb had a great start to the year, I think he was trying to adjust his driving to maximise the EBD.

It was written somewhere,could be Mark Hughes, that Mark was just getting in and driving it quick whereas Seb was learning how to drive it quicker, so Mark did better initially but Seb eventually could get a lot more out of it which he of course did in the second half. I think this made the RB look a little worse than it was at the start of the year.

On McLaren's side they had a different concept and didn't fully understand why they were so quick so sometimes struggled with set up. I do think on its day it was marginally quicker than the RB,McLaren felt it was too, but they also felt they had gotten the most out of it and that's why they made that infamous switch for 2013.

Lotus and Ferrari were kinder on it's tyres which hurt on a Saturday but helped on a Sunday, but not by enough to be in the conversation for me. Especially with Ferrari's pre Spain form with the wonky coanda.

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It's not a competition.

All the arguments you make against Hamilton and then seemingly give Schumacher free reign in how he designed and developed the Ferrari.

Blake wrote:

And to have done all that in only one year. Remarkable.

I guess Schumacher was just a bit slower with his design specs?

mpls2 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Crazy to think hamilton develoed that Merc Hybrid PU. it eas Merc themelves.. Hamilton just drives it..
Wasn't Schumi in the Merc team for 3 years layng the ground work.. so hardly a fair comparison...!

Yes Schumacher sacrificed 3 years of his life just for another driver to come along and take the glory, plausible???

pokerman wrote:

mpls2 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote: Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Crazy to think hamilton develoed that Merc Hybrid PU. it eas Merc themelves.. Hamilton just drives it..
Wasn't Schumi in the Merc team for 3 years layng the ground work.. so hardly a fair comparison...!

Yes Schumacher sacrificed 3 years of his life just for another driver to come along and take the glory, plausible???

Are you suggesting that his crystal ball didn't inform him that the 2013 season would suit Mercedes best?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mpls2 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Prema wrote: Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It also only took him a year. Schumacher needed four.

Crazy to think hamilton develoed that Merc Hybrid PU. it eas Merc themelves.. Hamilton just drives it..
Wasn't Schumi in the Merc team for 3 years layng the ground work.. so hardly a fair comparison...!

Yes Schumacher sacrificed 3 years of his life just for another driver to come along and take the glory, plausible???

Are you suggesting that his crystal ball didn't inform him that the 2013 season would suit Mercedes best?

I don't believe he had any idea about what was to come.

I have a pretty good memory of 2012

McLaren was faster: Australia, China, Spain, Hungary, Belgium, Monza, Singapore
Red Bull was faster: Bahrain, Monaco, Europe, Britain, Japan, Korea, India
They were equal: Canada, Germany, USA

Abu Dhabi, Brazil and Malaysia can be argued as either McLaren quicker or equal depending on your POV.

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:
And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Yes as much sense as any top F1 team signing any top F1 driver, the list is as long as the history of F1.

As far as your comparison between Hamilton and Schumacher, Hamilton clearly beats him. He managed not only to pull what Schumacher did - to bring the team from winning nothing to winning everything. But also to do it by developing that dominant hybrid era PU/car in the future while racing in a totally different car and having even a zero testing of it, and also all that in his free time in between pursuing his other interests such as hip-hop and fashion and high-jet social life... something that he had been criticized for as causing him dropping his racing focus... ah, well, little those critics knew what he really was secretly up to ...

It's not a competition.

All the arguments you make against Hamilton and then seemingly give Schumacher free reign in how he designed and developed the Ferrari.

Actually I don't make any arguments against Hamilton since there is simply nothing there to argue against. I am only pointing out exactly that: there is nothing concrete there.

And so you're back to your comparison, but look, this time you're driving in a reverse. Now you are not comparing Hamilton with him, but him with Hamilton. And since there is nothing concrete with Hamilton that you could impress with, you're making your case against giving a "free pass" to Schumacher either. See, if Hamilton can get it, none can.
(if you can't stand as tall as that tree, then cut the tree to your size)

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

You do know that I'm making comparison with Schumacher at Ferrari and pray tell who else Mercedes could have signed that would have suited their remit, why did it become so important to sign Hamilton if basically they never needed him in the first place, I did explain the scenario that was playing out?

Oh yes, I do know that you are making that comparison between Schumacher in Ferrari and Hamilton in Mercedes - in terms of bringing the team from nothing to everything. But all I am saying is that, besides this bare fact that both teams prior to these respective drivers' arrival were not winning anything, just like so in the case of Vettel and RBR, you got NOTHING that to impress us with as what exactly did Hamilton contribute so significantly (if in any way) to the development of the Merc supreme PU and the entire machinery at large, all that while he was busy racing in that pre-hybrid era car. And so much so that without him arriving, the Mercedes' PU dominance perhaps would not had happened. I mean, rally. Look, then I'd say, Rosberg did it. He made it happen. Why not? He was there too.

And yes, all you got here is your "scenario" that Mercedes signed Hamilton. The Magical Hamilton, I presume.

And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Surely even you are aware that you are comparing apples to oranges?

What Schumacher did with Ferrari will likely never be repeated. Not because no-one will ever be as good as him, but because with every year that passes drivers contribute less and less to the development of the cars, while computers dominate. Schumacher's achievements were from a different time

Schumacher did not develop any F1 car and he also did not built a team around him. He drove faster and better than most and more successful than anyone - and that should be enough, really.

Todt and di Montezemolo bought out the successful team from Benetton and threw much more money on them than Benetton ever could. And that was a hugely successful strategy!

Edit: The times of Jack Brabham were long over by then.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Prema wrote: Signing the top drivers by the side of top tams is rather the standard, so I do not see why would you attribute any special significance to Merc signing Hamilton. I don't know about that part of being obvious that Merc was to dominate in the Hybrid era (at one point it had to be obvious), but you impress me as someone trying to attribute a kind of extraordinary significance of Hamilton to the development of the supreme machinery that the Merc turned out to be. I really have not seen anything of any sort of evidence that any of the drivers had really been contributing to the designs and engineering of the hybrid era PU's and cars while at the same time thundering around in those pre-hybrid era cars and fighting for their WDC points. And I do not understand where the hack did Rosberg disappear in this regard anyway? Why are we talking "Hamilton" and not "Rosberg" to even start with? Just because Hamilton was the faster one of the two and won more than Rosberg?

Anyway. We the fans of F1 drivers have this privilege to believe in anything about our heroes, anything which would make our day. Personally, I believe that, if Hamilton stayed in McLaren he would still be a 1x WDC and Rosberg a multiple WDC (unless he got a faster driver for his teammate). And it would not make a slightest difference to Merc in regard of what machinery their 1'000 engineers, mechanics and designers were to churn out back then, as well as today.

You do know that I'm making comparison with Schumacher at Ferrari and pray tell who else Mercedes could have signed that would have suited their remit, why did it become so important to sign Hamilton if basically they never needed him in the first place, I did explain the scenario that was playing out?

Oh yes, I do know that you are making that comparison between Schumacher in Ferrari and Hamilton in Mercedes - in terms of bringing the team from nothing to everything. But all I am saying is that, besides this bare fact that both teams prior to these respective drivers' arrival were not winning anything, just like so in the case of Vettel and RBR, you got NOTHING that to impress us with as what exactly did Hamilton contribute so significantly (if in any way) to the development of the Merc supreme PU and the entire machinery at large, all that while he was busy racing in that pre-hybrid era car. And so much so that without him arriving, the Mercedes' PU dominance perhaps would not had happened. I mean, rally. Look, then I'd say, Rosberg did it. He made it happen. Why not? He was there too.

And yes, all you got here is your "scenario" that Mercedes signed Hamilton. The Magical Hamilton, I presume.

And if you really still wonder why a top team like Mercedes would sign Hamilton... just as same as why McLaren would sign Alonso, and Ferrari sign Alonso and then Vettel, and so on. They are the best and fastest F1 drivers that are available to them at the given time. Does that make a sense to you?

Yes as much sense as Ferrari signing Schumacher.

Surely even you are aware that you are comparing apples to oranges?

What Schumacher did with Ferrari will likely never be repeated. Not because no-one will ever be as good as him, but because with every year that passes drivers contribute less and less to the development of the cars, while computers dominate. Schumacher's achievements were from a different time

Schumacher achieved what he did mainly because he was the best driver in F1 for a decade and also let's not forget Ferrari had the biggest budget, as for Schumacher actually developing the car he was said not to be that good as a test driver because he would drive around problems with the car.

KingVoid wrote:I have a pretty good memory of 2012

McLaren was faster: Australia, China, Spain, Hungary, Belgium, Monza, Singapore
Red Bull was faster: Bahrain, Monaco, Europe, Britain, Japan, Korea, India
They were equal: Canada, Germany, USA

Abu Dhabi, Brazil and Malaysia can be argued as either McLaren quicker or equal depending on your POV.

In Abu Dhabi Hamilton was on pole by 3 tenths and was leading until his car failed, in Brazil again Hamilton on pole, Button in second, the Bulls not far behind but Vettel was 3 tenths behind Hamilton, the race was wet and the Bulls didn't feature although Vettel got spun round by Senna on the opening lap. The Hulk and Button built a lead then the SC came out, after the SC the race was between the Hulk and Hamilton before the Hulk crashed him out and got a penalty, Button won the race.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:What Schumacher did with Ferrari will likely never be repeated. Not because no-one will ever be as good as him, but because with every year that passes drivers contribute less and less to the development of the cars, while computers dominate. Schumacher's achievements were from a different time

Schumacher achieved what he did mainly because he was the best driver in F1 for a decade and also let's not forget Ferrari had the biggest budget, as for Schumacher actually developing the car he was said not to be that good as a test driver because he would drive around problems with the car.

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that Schumacher literally developed the car to be a world-beater. The last driver who did that was possibly Niki Lauda, if it wasn't even earlier. Schumi just got the right people into the team, and then motivated them with the fact that they had the best driver.

Hamilton didn't bring a whole raft of technical people from McLaren with him, so I'd have to say it's hard to make a parallel there.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:What Schumacher did with Ferrari will likely never be repeated. Not because no-one will ever be as good as him, but because with every year that passes drivers contribute less and less to the development of the cars, while computers dominate. Schumacher's achievements were from a different time

Schumacher achieved what he did mainly because he was the best driver in F1 for a decade and also let's not forget Ferrari had the biggest budget, as for Schumacher actually developing the car he was said not to be that good as a test driver because he would drive around problems with the car.

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that Schumacher literally developed the car to be a world-beater. The last driver who did that was possibly Niki Lauda, if it wasn't even earlier. Schumi just got the right people into the team, and then motivated them with the fact that they had the best driver.

Hamilton didn't bring a whole raft of technical people from McLaren with him, so I'd have to say it's hard to make a parallel there.

Well that's what seems to have been implied plus Schumacher personally did not get anyone into the team, that was Jean Todt with a bucket full of cash, the motivating with his performance I would not disagree with.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:What Schumacher did with Ferrari will likely never be repeated. Not because no-one will ever be as good as him, but because with every year that passes drivers contribute less and less to the development of the cars, while computers dominate. Schumacher's achievements were from a different time

Schumacher achieved what he did mainly because he was the best driver in F1 for a decade and also let's not forget Ferrari had the biggest budget, as for Schumacher actually developing the car he was said not to be that good as a test driver because he would drive around problems with the car.

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that Schumacher literally developed the car to be a world-beater. The last driver who did that was possibly Niki Lauda, if it wasn't even earlier. Schumi just got the right people into the team, and then motivated them with the fact that they had the best driver.

Hamilton didn't bring a whole raft of technical people from McLaren with him, so I'd have to say it's hard to make a parallel there.

Well that's what seems to have been implied plus Schumacher personally did not get anyone into the team, that was Jean Todt with a bucket full of cash, the motivating with his performance I would not disagree with.

pokerman. You win. Schumi didn't do anything to make Ferrari better. All he did was drive, oh and maybe something of relatively little significance... such as motivate. He had basically no effect on the team's growth whatsoever... certainly did not do anything more, if as much, than Lewis has done, after all he brought Paddy Lowe too. In fact, he may have done even less, as it has already been pointed out that it took several more years for Big Budget Ferrari to win than it did the guys at Hamilton/Mercedes, so I guess you can make the case that Schumi just have been a liability instead. Darn Schumi... Thank gawd that we had Luca and Todt!