planetf1.com

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Really?

Verstappen and Ricciardo both overtook Bottas several times in 2018 and they weren't the only ones.
All you have to do to realize which driver is better is look at the number of poles and wins comparative to Hamilton as his teammates.
Rosberg 1,000x out of 100 for me.

You've got to be kidding, how many of Hamilton's teammates have had some of the most dominant cars in F1 history? 1, just 1.

Of course Rosberg has more wins and poles than Button and Bottas while teammates with Hamilton but as we know that's not a good indicator of how good a driver is.

I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Actually, 2007's McLaren was one of the best cars ever. Problem is, their car was just one of 4 Ferraris on the grid that season. But Hamilton and Alonso both enjoyed a tremendously elite car and both teams allowed both drivers to race one another and both teams squabbled it out to the very end.

Button was an excellent driver, but about equal to Bottas, but CERTAINLY not as good as Rosberg. Button was for years called the so called tire whisperer, but once the silly putty tires were introduced, that misnomer was exposed immediately. The only season where Button looked supreme was 2009 when he was lucky enough that Brawn bought the Honda program for all of $1.00 and the chassis, which is to date, the most thoroughly developed of all time, and the makeshift adaptation of the Mercedes engine, as off kilter as it was, actually worked! And even then he only looked supreme for the first half of the season. From there he tapered off significantly as the car advantage was clawed back by other teams. Button was lucky to hang onto the 2009 title.

The Brawn was so stellar right out of the gate that even not having the funds to develop it at all throughout the season, they still won the constructors and drivers championship.

On the other hand, Rosberg looked solid in the first half of his career, but not elite, and certainly still not there when Mercedes acquired the team. However, that's precisely when he really began to improve, and by the time Hamilton came one board, he was reaching his full potential. In their 2nd season together is when Rosberg finally reached elite status. Button always just was the same driver throughout his entire career in terms of speed, but in his last 5-6 seasons he nailed down the consistency, which was his biggest issue.

Just like Valteri stated this season, he's as fast as anyone but the difference between him and Hamilton is consistency, in that while he can put together the perfect lap, Hamilton can produce perfect laps consistently. And if you analyze Hamilton vs Rosberg vs Bottas, Hamilton is the most consistent, followed by Rosberg, with Bottas trailing behind. Rosberg and Bottas in this years car would have seen either Rosberg win the title or Vettel win the title, but Bottas would have yielded pretty much the same results. It would be a closer battle, but Rosberg would still prevail.

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:He doesn't have the skill of Hamilton and he rolls over too easily.

Rosberg also didn't have the skill of Hamilton but generally speaking he gave as good as he got so far as obeying team orders etc (Monaco 2016 aside, I still think that was a big mistake from him). Rosberg effectively demanded equal treatment within the team for the most part, and he got it. Bottas will keep getting screwed until he puts his foot down and I suspect it's already too late for that with Ocon in the frame for 2020.

I think you have to take the view now that Rosberg was simply that bit better than Bottas speedwise, however in today's climate if Rosberg kept pulling some of the stunts he did I think Mercedes would sack him.

Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

Whoah, Hang on a sec there Pardner!

That's simply not accurate. Bottas is an excellent driver and he looked the part 3x in 2018. You cannot forget who his teammate is and how the team had Bottas play rear gunner for Hamilton, even sacrificing his efforts to improve Hamilton's chances in races and over the season. Bottas is a great driver, but Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel and a few others are just a hair better. And that in no way makes Bottas a nothing driver. Such a notion is preposterous.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:He doesn't have the skill of Hamilton and he rolls over too easily.

Rosberg also didn't have the skill of Hamilton but generally speaking he gave as good as he got so far as obeying team orders etc (Monaco 2016 aside, I still think that was a big mistake from him). Rosberg effectively demanded equal treatment within the team for the most part, and he got it. Bottas will keep getting screwed until he puts his foot down and I suspect it's already too late for that with Ocon in the frame for 2020.

I think you have to take the view now that Rosberg was simply that bit better than Bottas speedwise, however in today's climate if Rosberg kept pulling some of the stunts he did I think Mercedes would sack him.

Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

Whoah, Hang on a sec there Pardner!

That's simply not accurate. Bottas is an excellent driver and he looked the part 3x in 2018. You cannot forget who his teammate is and how the team had Bottas play rear gunner for Hamilton, even sacrificing his efforts to improve Hamilton's chances in races and over the season. Bottas is a great driver, but Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel and a few others are just a hair better. And that in no way makes Bottas a nothing driver. Such a notion is preposterous.

I think KingVoid is referring specifically to Bottas as a racer, not as a driver. In terms of overtaking and defending I would consider him pretty weak, to be honest.

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:He doesn't have the skill of Hamilton and he rolls over too easily.

Rosberg also didn't have the skill of Hamilton but generally speaking he gave as good as he got so far as obeying team orders etc (Monaco 2016 aside, I still think that was a big mistake from him). Rosberg effectively demanded equal treatment within the team for the most part, and he got it. Bottas will keep getting screwed until he puts his foot down and I suspect it's already too late for that with Ocon in the frame for 2020.

I think you have to take the view now that Rosberg was simply that bit better than Bottas speedwise, however in today's climate if Rosberg kept pulling some of the stunts he did I think Mercedes would sack him.

Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

I'd say it is only recently Bottas has been struggling with tyre management. In his Williams days, I thought he was often excellent at this. And near the beginning of the last 2 seasons, he had rather a lot of brave moves. Ben Edwards on channel 4 actually said "who said he wasn't aggressive enough" when he overtook kimi in spain this year. And although this overtake was on hartley, the way he did that in Spa this year looked to be one of the bravest overtaking moves of the year. I still wouldn't include him in the top 10 for attempting overtakes as he does seem to hold back a bit to much, but he doesn't do nothing. And when he does do them, normally he is very clean. Certainly more so than Rosberg. One reason why I think a better wheel to wheel races is actually ok to say.

Exediron wrote: I think KingVoid is referring specifically to Bottas as a racer, not as a driver. In terms of overtaking and defending I would consider him pretty weak, to be honest.

I think he is normally excellent at defending. Won't argue that he's not the best at taking overtaking opportunities. There were so many races when he was at Williams where he was holding faster cars behind him for ages. There were also 2 races in 2015 where Ferrari were obviously far better than the Williams and yet Bottas managed to keep Kimi behind until the race had finished in one and Vettel in another. He looked very aware of what they were doing behind him and always defended well. I also think he did an excellent job in Britain this year when vettel was on significantly better tyres. He judges what Vettel was about to do perfectly lap after lap. And it was pretty much bang on the lap that the tyres hit there recommended number of laps that Bottas started to struggle. Admittedly then, he lost many places and could hardly defend at all.

This year has made him look worse because he's been poor with managing his tyres. Once he's locked up a few times then it is obvious he's going to be weak and although it may look like he's weak at defending, there isn't much point if there is a chance it could make things worse.

The majority of the time, defending I would say is one of Botats's strong points.

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:He doesn't have the skill of Hamilton and he rolls over too easily.

Rosberg also didn't have the skill of Hamilton but generally speaking he gave as good as he got so far as obeying team orders etc (Monaco 2016 aside, I still think that was a big mistake from him). Rosberg effectively demanded equal treatment within the team for the most part, and he got it. Bottas will keep getting screwed until he puts his foot down and I suspect it's already too late for that with Ocon in the frame for 2020.

I think you have to take the view now that Rosberg was simply that bit better than Bottas speedwise, however in today's climate if Rosberg kept pulling some of the stunts he did I think Mercedes would sack him.

Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

They was driving totally different cars.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Really?

Verstappen and Ricciardo both overtook Bottas several times in 2018 and they weren't the only ones.
All you have to do to realize which driver is better is look at the number of poles and wins comparative to Hamilton as his teammates.
Rosberg 1,000x out of 100 for me.

You've got to be kidding, how many of Hamilton's teammates have had some of the most dominant cars in F1 history? 1, just 1.

Of course Rosberg has more wins and poles than Button and Bottas while teammates with Hamilton but as we know that's not a good indicator of how good a driver is.

I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Actually, 2007's McLaren was one of the best cars ever. Problem is, their car was just one of 4 Ferraris on the grid that season. But Hamilton and Alonso both enjoyed a tremendously elite car and both teams allowed both drivers to race one another and both teams squabbled it out to the very end.

Button was an excellent driver, but about equal to Bottas, but CERTAINLY not as good as Rosberg. Button was for years called the so called tire whisperer, but once the silly putty tires were introduced, that misnomer was exposed immediately. The only season where Button looked supreme was 2009 when he was lucky enough that Brawn bought the Honda program for all of $1.00 and the chassis, which is to date, the most thoroughly developed of all time, and the makeshift adaptation of the Mercedes engine, as off kilter as it was, actually worked! And even then he only looked supreme for the first half of the season. From there he tapered off significantly as the car advantage was clawed back by other teams. Button was lucky to hang onto the 2009 title.

The Brawn was so stellar right out of the gate that even not having the funds to develop it at all throughout the season, they still won the constructors and drivers championship.

On the other hand, Rosberg looked solid in the first half of his career, but not elite, and certainly still not there when Mercedes acquired the team. However, that's precisely when he really began to improve, and by the time Hamilton came one board, he was reaching his full potential. In their 2nd season together is when Rosberg finally reached elite status. Button always just was the same driver throughout his entire career in terms of speed, but in his last 5-6 seasons he nailed down the consistency, which was his biggest issue.

Just like Valteri stated this season, he's as fast as anyone but the difference between him and Hamilton is consistency, in that while he can put together the perfect lap, Hamilton can produce perfect laps consistently. And if you analyze Hamilton vs Rosberg vs Bottas, Hamilton is the most consistent, followed by Rosberg, with Bottas trailing behind. Rosberg and Bottas in this years car would have seen either Rosberg win the title or Vettel win the title, but Bottas would have yielded pretty much the same results. It would be a closer battle, but Rosberg would still prevail.

Rosberg wouldn't have won this years title. Vettel would have never made the same mistakes racing Rosberg than racing Hamilton who raced the best he ever has.

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I think you have to take the view now that Rosberg was simply that bit better than Bottas speedwise, however in today's climate if Rosberg kept pulling some of the stunts he did I think Mercedes would sack him.

Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

Whoah, Hang on a sec there Pardner!

That's simply not accurate. Bottas is an excellent driver and he looked the part 3x in 2018. You cannot forget who his teammate is and how the team had Bottas play rear gunner for Hamilton, even sacrificing his efforts to improve Hamilton's chances in races and over the season. Bottas is a great driver, but Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel and a few others are just a hair better. And that in no way makes Bottas a nothing driver. Such a notion is preposterous.

I think KingVoid is referring specifically to Bottas as a racer, not as a driver. In terms of overtaking and defending I would consider him pretty weak, to be honest.

Tbh Bottas did a great job in the last part of the season holding other cars up to help Hamilton.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Really?

Verstappen and Ricciardo both overtook Bottas several times in 2018 and they weren't the only ones.
All you have to do to realize which driver is better is look at the number of poles and wins comparative to Hamilton as his teammates.
Rosberg 1,000x out of 100 for me.

You've got to be kidding, how many of Hamilton's teammates have had some of the most dominant cars in F1 history? 1, just 1.

Of course Rosberg has more wins and poles than Button and Bottas while teammates with Hamilton but as we know that's not a good indicator of how good a driver is.

I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Actually, 2007's McLaren was one of the best cars ever. Problem is, their car was just one of 4 Ferraris on the grid that season. But Hamilton and Alonso both enjoyed a tremendously elite car and both teams allowed both drivers to race one another and both teams squabbled it out to the very end.

Button was an excellent driver, but about equal to Bottas, but CERTAINLY not as good as Rosberg. Button was for years called the so called tire whisperer, but once the silly putty tires were introduced, that misnomer was exposed immediately. The only season where Button looked supreme was 2009 when he was lucky enough that Brawn bought the Honda program for all of $1.00 and the chassis, which is to date, the most thoroughly developed of all time, and the makeshift adaptation of the Mercedes engine, as off kilter as it was, actually worked! And even then he only looked supreme for the first half of the season. From there he tapered off significantly as the car advantage was clawed back by other teams. Button was lucky to hang onto the 2009 title.

The Brawn was so stellar right out of the gate that even not having the funds to develop it at all throughout the season, they still won the constructors and drivers championship.

On the other hand, Rosberg looked solid in the first half of his career, but not elite, and certainly still not there when Mercedes acquired the team. However, that's precisely when he really began to improve, and by the time Hamilton came one board, he was reaching his full potential. In their 2nd season together is when Rosberg finally reached elite status. Button always just was the same driver throughout his entire career in terms of speed, but in his last 5-6 seasons he nailed down the consistency, which was his biggest issue.

Just like Valteri stated this season, he's as fast as anyone but the difference between him and Hamilton is consistency, in that while he can put together the perfect lap, Hamilton can produce perfect laps consistently. And if you analyze Hamilton vs Rosberg vs Bottas, Hamilton is the most consistent, followed by Rosberg, with Bottas trailing behind. Rosberg and Bottas in this years car would have seen either Rosberg win the title or Vettel win the title, but Bottas would have yielded pretty much the same results. It would be a closer battle, but Rosberg would still prevail.

Excellent post apart from the claim that the 2007 McLaren was one of the best cars ever, there are some of us who don't even think it was the best car in 2007 and of course it was a far cry from being dominant, how many dominant cars have there been if F1, quite a few, so the 2007 McLaren is a long way from being considered one of the best cars ever.

F1_Ernie wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Maybe in qualifying yes, but I'd offset that by saying Bottas is a better wheel to wheel racer, they both falter in race pace.

Bottas is a nothing racer. At least Rosberg made some very brave late-braking moves sometimes.

Rosberg’s race pace is also better than Bottas, so was his tyre management.

Whoah, Hang on a sec there Pardner!

That's simply not accurate. Bottas is an excellent driver and he looked the part 3x in 2018. You cannot forget who his teammate is and how the team had Bottas play rear gunner for Hamilton, even sacrificing his efforts to improve Hamilton's chances in races and over the season. Bottas is a great driver, but Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel and a few others are just a hair better. And that in no way makes Bottas a nothing driver. Such a notion is preposterous.

I think KingVoid is referring specifically to Bottas as a racer, not as a driver. In terms of overtaking and defending I would consider him pretty weak, to be honest.

Tbh Bottas did a great job in the last part of the season holding other cars up to help Hamilton.

Indeed all in all it cost him 3rd in the WDC, quite a portion of his season got sacrificed.

The way he was treated I think Bottas is just there to finish behind Hamilton. He is very underrated driver. I think he will have a better 2019.

Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Really?

Verstappen and Ricciardo both overtook Bottas several times in 2018 and they weren't the only ones.
All you have to do to realize which driver is better is look at the number of poles and wins comparative to Hamilton as his teammates.
Rosberg 1,000x out of 100 for me.

You've got to be kidding, how many of Hamilton's teammates have had some of the most dominant cars in F1 history? 1, just 1.

Of course Rosberg has more wins and poles than Button and Bottas while teammates with Hamilton but as we know that's not a good indicator of how good a driver is.

I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Actually, 2007's McLaren was one of the best cars ever. Problem is, their car was just one of 4 Ferraris on the grid that season. But Hamilton and Alonso both enjoyed a tremendously elite car and both teams allowed both drivers to race one another and both teams squabbled it out to the very end.

Button was an excellent driver, but about equal to Bottas, but CERTAINLY not as good as Rosberg. Button was for years called the so called tire whisperer, but once the silly putty tires were introduced, that misnomer was exposed immediately. The only season where Button looked supreme was 2009 when he was lucky enough that Brawn bought the Honda program for all of $1.00 and the chassis, which is to date, the most thoroughly developed of all time, and the makeshift adaptation of the Mercedes engine, as off kilter as it was, actually worked! And even then he only looked supreme for the first half of the season. From there he tapered off significantly as the car advantage was clawed back by other teams. Button was lucky to hang onto the 2009 title.

The Brawn was so stellar right out of the gate that even not having the funds to develop it at all throughout the season, they still won the constructors and drivers championship.

On the other hand, Rosberg looked solid in the first half of his career, but not elite, and certainly still not there when Mercedes acquired the team. However, that's precisely when he really began to improve, and by the time Hamilton came one board, he was reaching his full potential. In their 2nd season together is when Rosberg finally reached elite status. Button always just was the same driver throughout his entire career in terms of speed, but in his last 5-6 seasons he nailed down the consistency, which was his biggest issue.

Just like Valteri stated this season, he's as fast as anyone but the difference between him and Hamilton is consistency, in that while he can put together the perfect lap, Hamilton can produce perfect laps consistently. And if you analyze Hamilton vs Rosberg vs Bottas, Hamilton is the most consistent, followed by Rosberg, with Bottas trailing behind. Rosberg and Bottas in this years car would have seen either Rosberg win the title or Vettel win the title, but Bottas would have yielded pretty much the same results. It would be a closer battle, but Rosberg would still prevail.

Excellent post apart from the claim that the 2007 McLaren was one of the best cars ever, there are some of us who don't even think it was the best car in 2007 and of course it was a far cry from being dominant, how many dominant cars have there been if F1, quite a few, so the 2007 McLaren is a long way from being considered one of the best cars ever.

The way both McLarens and both Ferrari traded blows throughout 2007 was incredible. It’s been 12 years since then, but you might want to go back and watch how closely contested that season was from start to finish. Had either Ferrari Or McLaren produced slightly lesser cars, the other would have won by a landslide. Those cars were simply the class of the field and only had each other to contend with.

They nearly swept the podium for the entire season with just 5 podium positions not going to one of the 4 cars. If that’s not dominant, idk what would qualify as such in your book. For me those 4 cars rank among the absolute greatest of all time.

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:Really?

Verstappen and Ricciardo both overtook Bottas several times in 2018 and they weren't the only ones.
All you have to do to realize which driver is better is look at the number of poles and wins comparative to Hamilton as his teammates.
Rosberg 1,000x out of 100 for me.

You've got to be kidding, how many of Hamilton's teammates have had some of the most dominant cars in F1 history? 1, just 1.

Of course Rosberg has more wins and poles than Button and Bottas while teammates with Hamilton but as we know that's not a good indicator of how good a driver is.

I rate Button easily better than both of them and while I would rank Rosberg ahead of Bottas I don't think there's much between them.

Actually, 2007's McLaren was one of the best cars ever. Problem is, their car was just one of 4 Ferraris on the grid that season. But Hamilton and Alonso both enjoyed a tremendously elite car and both teams allowed both drivers to race one another and both teams squabbled it out to the very end.

Button was an excellent driver, but about equal to Bottas, but CERTAINLY not as good as Rosberg. Button was for years called the so called tire whisperer, but once the silly putty tires were introduced, that misnomer was exposed immediately. The only season where Button looked supreme was 2009 when he was lucky enough that Brawn bought the Honda program for all of $1.00 and the chassis, which is to date, the most thoroughly developed of all time, and the makeshift adaptation of the Mercedes engine, as off kilter as it was, actually worked! And even then he only looked supreme for the first half of the season. From there he tapered off significantly as the car advantage was clawed back by other teams. Button was lucky to hang onto the 2009 title.

The Brawn was so stellar right out of the gate that even not having the funds to develop it at all throughout the season, they still won the constructors and drivers championship.

On the other hand, Rosberg looked solid in the first half of his career, but not elite, and certainly still not there when Mercedes acquired the team. However, that's precisely when he really began to improve, and by the time Hamilton came one board, he was reaching his full potential. In their 2nd season together is when Rosberg finally reached elite status. Button always just was the same driver throughout his entire career in terms of speed, but in his last 5-6 seasons he nailed down the consistency, which was his biggest issue.

Just like Valteri stated this season, he's as fast as anyone but the difference between him and Hamilton is consistency, in that while he can put together the perfect lap, Hamilton can produce perfect laps consistently. And if you analyze Hamilton vs Rosberg vs Bottas, Hamilton is the most consistent, followed by Rosberg, with Bottas trailing behind. Rosberg and Bottas in this years car would have seen either Rosberg win the title or Vettel win the title, but Bottas would have yielded pretty much the same results. It would be a closer battle, but Rosberg would still prevail.

Excellent post apart from the claim that the 2007 McLaren was one of the best cars ever, there are some of us who don't even think it was the best car in 2007 and of course it was a far cry from being dominant, how many dominant cars have there been if F1, quite a few, so the 2007 McLaren is a long way from being considered one of the best cars ever.

The way both McLarens and both Ferrari traded blows throughout 2007 was incredible. It’s been 12 years since then, but you might want to go back and watch how closely contested that season was from start to finish. Had either Ferrari Or McLaren produced slightly lesser cars, the other would have won by a landslide. Those cars were simply the class of the field and only had each other to contend with.

They nearly swept the podium for the entire season with just 5 podium positions not going to one of the 4 cars. If that’s not dominant, idk what would qualify as such in your book. For me those 4 cars rank among the absolute greatest of all time.

A dominant car means a sole dominant car which neither the McLaren or Ferrari were, history shows that the Ferrari drivers, Kimi and Massa, are not as quick as either Alonso and Hamilton to the tune of about 3 tenths, so that may lay claim to the McLaren being the second best car, far from actually being a dominant car.

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote: Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

That is what I think when we compare seasons from a while ago. As the cars are not the same, the driver just may have been different that season. Like Vettel didn't seem to like his car in 2014. But if we base Vettel just from that season and judge Ricciardo from the next by the points they got, we could say Kvyat is better than Vettel. As Ricciardo beat Vettel then Kvyat beat Ricciardo. But I think Vettel just had a bad year and Kvyat was just a little lucky the following year.

Regarding Vandoorne, I'm not sure how hard the car is to drive, but do you think it handles worse than last year. I don't think Alonso is better than he was at all. But I think it is clear than Vandoorne has got a little worse and this is his 2nd season. I do think Alonso is one of the best drivers out there, but I've seen so little from Vandoorne that is impressive. I expected much more.

I myself do think Massa looked far better than Vandoorne last year. And Bottas was a fair way ahead of Bottas the majority of the time. Perhaps both Bottas and Vandoorne could be having a dip in performance at the moment as neither have looked impressive lately. But I've seen plenty of races where Bottas has looked pretty good against Hamilton and a few where he was clearly better. There are very few races that I can think of that Vandoorne did much better Alonso. I know that Vandoorne had far less experience, but I personally think Bottas suddenly coming up against Hamilton will have been about as challenging. Vandoorne also seemed to have much more hype than Bottas at the time. I think he's been the most disappointing driver on the grid for the last 2 seasons given what some people seemed to expect from him.

pokerman wrote: A dominant car means a sole dominant car which neither the McLaren or Ferrari were, history shows that the Ferrari drivers, Kimi and Massa, are not as quick as either Alonso and Hamilton to the tune of about 3 tenths, so that may lay claim to the McLaren being the second best car, far from actually being a dominant car.

I disagree with how you perceive dominance… According to history, Kimi holds the record for fastest laps in his career. Massa is just a hair off these days but before his accident, his speed was growing and his consistency was there, and even upon his return he took a couple of races to get back to where he was before being relegated to #2 status.

Those 4 cars were about as similar to one another as it gets so they were all equally dominant. Not just one team. Given both teams’ cars were a half a second faster than every other teams’ cars, and they were neck and neck with one another, they were dominant. Both the Ferraris and the McLarens.

By your assessment just one Red Bull was dominant during Vettels reign with Ted Bull, but only for 3 of his 4 championship seasons, and possibly just 2 seasons.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:Bottas is vulnerable but circumstances could work in his favour longer term. Ocon is waiting in the wings, But Toto is very matey with Jos Verstappen and Mercedes will want to land a number one calibre driver for when Hamilton calls it a day.

If Mercedes do make that move then MV will not be too keen on Ocon partnering him. That could prompt them to keep employing the steady Bottas.

I could see a situation where Ocon is given 2020 to partner Hamilton where Mercedes will be able to judge if Esteban really is their future while Bottas is back to Williams. If a retiring Hamilton outperforms Ocon comfortably then Merc will look elsewhere which would potentially be Seb or Max with Bottas back as number 2.

Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote: Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

pokerman wrote: A dominant car means a sole dominant car which neither the McLaren or Ferrari were, history shows that the Ferrari drivers, Kimi and Massa, are not as quick as either Alonso and Hamilton to the tune of about 3 tenths, so that may lay claim to the McLaren being the second best car, far from actually being a dominant car.

I disagree with how you perceive dominance… According to history, Kimi holds the record for fastest laps in his career. Massa is just a hair off these days but before his accident, his speed was growing and his consistency was there, and even upon his return he took a couple of races to get back to where he was before being relegated to #2 status.

Those 4 cars were about as similar to one another as it gets so they were all equally dominant. Not just one team. Given both teams’ cars were a half a second faster than every other teams’ cars, and they were neck and neck with one another, they were dominant. Both the Ferraris and the McLarens.

By your assessment just one Red Bull was dominant during Vettels reign with Ted Bull, but only for 3 of his 4 championship seasons, and possibly just 2 seasons.

Fastest laps don't mean anything and it's a poor metric for deciding who are the quickest drivers nowadays, midfield cars can get fastest laps by making a late pit stop. When Kimi was setting fastest laps it was at a time when indeed this would go to the fastest driver/car combination and Kimi made hay particularly in 2005, 2007 and 2008.

Massa was perceived as an elite driver because he had the fastest car in 2007 and 2008 and a teammate who at that time was thought to be elite.

What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Exediron wrote: Or Bottas out entirely and Russel and Ocon in the car. I think both Bottas and Ocon should view Russel as a serious threat considering how quick he was in junior categories.

That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

I'm comparing relative performance as opposed to actual results.

pokerman wrote:What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

I believe he's going on the assumption that the 2007 McLaren and Ferrari were identical because of Spygate (I don't agree) and saying that the pair of them had a Mercedes-like advantage over anyone else.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote: That’s exactly the same story we heard about Vandoorne and it all meant absolutely squat against the big dawgs.

I prefer to wait and see a few races to get a feel for how a young driver is adapting in order to make an informed assessment. I’d say Bottas and Ocon are just fine considering neither of them are going up against him in the same equipment and Russel needs to do his best in what is most likely going to be a less than top notch car, though I hope I’m wrong on the latter.

Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Well actually the numbers are from Motorsportmagazine.com, and your own guru Mark Hughes. By your own reasoning from previous discussions you can't disagree with him because you've agreed with him in the past. At least, that's what i remember you putting forward at the time.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... -dominance

But I'm not making a case for anyone, other than to say that just using the numbers I could see why the case was being made (by the previous poster). I fear you may have missed my final sentence where I said I personally didn't put too much stock in year on year figures taken in isolation? But I know you do, so these figures should carry some weight for you, surely?

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

I'm comparing relative performance as opposed to actual results.

Yes, I know that. I think it's easier for Bottas to be close to Hamilton in a quick car that's well set up and stable. Do you disagree? It seems common sense that it's easier to drive one of the best cars in the field compared to one of the worst.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:What you are saying doesn't really make any sense, a car can't be dominant if it's no quicker than another car, how can the 2007 McLaren be considered one of the fastest cars of all time in comparison to the 2014-2016 Mercedes cars?

I believe he's going on the assumption that the 2007 McLaren and Ferrari were identical because of Spygate (I don't agree) and saying that the pair of them had a Mercedes-like advantage over anyone else.

I know what he's saying but that's not how you perceive someone to have a dominant car, so after all Alonso had dominant cars both in 2005, 2006 and 2007, which would be a far cry from unlike Hamilton and Vettel, Alonso never had a dominant car?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote: Ocon and Bottas aren't exactly the big dawgs themselves. I'm sure Russel would look outclassed against Alonso, but I'm honestly not so sure Bottas wouldn't have fared similarly at McLaren this year.

No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Well actually the numbers are from Motorsportmagazine.com, and your own guru Mark Hughes. By your own reasoning from previous discussions you can't disagree with him because you've agreed with him in the past. At least, that's what i remember you putting forward at the time.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... -dominance

But I'm not making a case for anyone, other than to say that just using the numbers I could see why the case was being made (by the previous poster). I fear you may have missed my final sentence where I said I personally didn't put too much stock in year on year figures taken in isolation? But I know you do, so these figures should carry some weight for you, surely?

No that's what I said about yourself, you can't dismiss what Hughes says only to then use him again when it suits, and here we are again.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: No way would Bottas have been as bad as Vandoorne, Bottas beat Massa who did better than Vandoorne, Bottas did better against Hamilton then what Vandoorne did against Alonso, why do these things get ignored?

I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Well actually the numbers are from Motorsportmagazine.com, and your own guru Mark Hughes. By your own reasoning from previous discussions you can't disagree with him because you've agreed with him in the past. At least, that's what i remember you putting forward at the time.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... -dominance

But I'm not making a case for anyone, other than to say that just using the numbers I could see why the case was being made (by the previous poster). I fear you may have missed my final sentence where I said I personally didn't put too much stock in year on year figures taken in isolation? But I know you do, so these figures should carry some weight for you, surely?

No that's what I said about yourself, you can't dismiss what Hughes says only to then use him again when it suits, and here we are again.

so it's only applicable to me? You're somehow exempt? You've used him as expert witness before so doesn't that mean by your own rules you're duty bound to accept his word now?

Again, just for clarity, I'm not making a case for any driver. I'm just pointing out that your earlier assertion that Massa was closer to Alonso than Vandoorne was doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. That doesn't mean I think the evidence is conclusive.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:Bottas was driving a much better car. It's easier for an inferior driver to look good in a better car; I think Bottas would have struggled more in a difficult car like the McLaren.

I'm comparing relative performance as opposed to actual results.

Yes, I know that. I think it's easier for Bottas to be close to Hamilton in a quick car that's well set up and stable. Do you disagree? It seems common sense that it's easier to drive one of the best cars in the field compared to one of the worst.

I think you are hypothesising now, was the Williams an easy car to drive and that's the reason Bottas beat Massa, were all the Ferrari's easy to drive allowing Massa to be closer to Alonso that what Vandoorne has been, is it Vandoorne alone that had dogs of cars to drive?

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.

Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think it's arguable that Massa did better than Vandoorne, tbh. In their first years together their qualifying times relative to Alonso were:

-0.549s Kimi
-0.460 Massa
-0.195s Vandoorne

Vandoorne was only beaten by Hamilton, Button and Trulli. It took Massa three years to close the gap and we'll never know if Vandoorne would have been able to do the same. Not sure how Bottas fared vs Massa but I don't think the claim above is outlandish.

Having said that, I think it's wrong to read too much into these times, as driver performance will also depend on how difficult a car was to drive, for example. It's not an exact science

I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Well actually the numbers are from Motorsportmagazine.com, and your own guru Mark Hughes. By your own reasoning from previous discussions you can't disagree with him because you've agreed with him in the past. At least, that's what i remember you putting forward at the time.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... -dominance

But I'm not making a case for anyone, other than to say that just using the numbers I could see why the case was being made (by the previous poster). I fear you may have missed my final sentence where I said I personally didn't put too much stock in year on year figures taken in isolation? But I know you do, so these figures should carry some weight for you, surely?

No that's what I said about yourself, you can't dismiss what Hughes says only to then use him again when it suits, and here we are again.

so it's only applicable to me? You're somehow exempt? You've used him as expert witness before so doesn't that mean by your own rules you're duty bound to accept his word now?

Again, just for clarity, I'm not making a case for any driver. I'm just pointing out that your earlier assertion that Massa was closer to Alonso than Vandoorne was doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. That doesn't mean I think the evidence is conclusive.

No you first brought forward Hughes as an expert witness so to speak, with that in mind I then used Hughes to debunk something you said to which you said Hughes was wrong, so going forward I said don't be using Hughes as any kind of expert in the future then and that's my stance of you bringing Hughes into any of our discussions.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.

Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: I'm guessing you got these figures from Racefans who just use everything to hand without question including wet qualifying were teammates can be seconds quicker?

Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Well actually the numbers are from Motorsportmagazine.com, and your own guru Mark Hughes. By your own reasoning from previous discussions you can't disagree with him because you've agreed with him in the past. At least, that's what i remember you putting forward at the time.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... -dominance

But I'm not making a case for anyone, other than to say that just using the numbers I could see why the case was being made (by the previous poster). I fear you may have missed my final sentence where I said I personally didn't put too much stock in year on year figures taken in isolation? But I know you do, so these figures should carry some weight for you, surely?

No that's what I said about yourself, you can't dismiss what Hughes says only to then use him again when it suits, and here we are again.

so it's only applicable to me? You're somehow exempt? You've used him as expert witness before so doesn't that mean by your own rules you're duty bound to accept his word now?

Again, just for clarity, I'm not making a case for any driver. I'm just pointing out that your earlier assertion that Massa was closer to Alonso than Vandoorne was doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. That doesn't mean I think the evidence is conclusive.

No you first brought forward Hughes as an expert witness so to speak, with that in mind I then used Hughes to debunk something you said to which you said Hughes was wrong, so going forward I said don't be using Hughes as any kind of expert in the future then and that's my stance of you bringing Hughes into any of our discussions.

seems a bit of a double standard to me. Don't see why I can't disagree with him whereas you can. Seems to me you take that stance only when it suits.

Anyway, there's nothing really to agree or disagree. These are just stats, not opinions. And at the risk of repeating myself I'm not claiming them as evidence of anything other than that they don't appear to support the idea that Massa was closer than Vandoorne was.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.

Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.

I've no idea. Personally I think claiming some kind of scientific validity for any cross-driver comparisons based on who beat who when is dodgy at best. Vandoorne being worse in his 2nd year - I'll take your word for that - while Massa appeared to improve just goes to show that these stats are highly variable and relying on them as proof in this way is anything but scientific

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Basically the numbers are rubbish and I'll leave it at that, using these numbers you are not only trying to make a case for Vandoorne being better than Bottas but also I guess without thinking Vettel.

Why leave it at that? Why not supply your own figures for those years and what those imply instead?

I have done this numerous times, off the top of my head:-

Alonso > Kimi 0.28s
Alonso > Massa 0.27s
Alonso > Vandoorne 0.34s
Bottas > Massa 0.17s

These are all the years, I don't see the point in picking out individual years and ignoring the rest, this goes down the road of cherry picking.

Except is doesn't. If it took Massa three years to close the gap to Alonso, doesn't that strike you as relevant?

These are not my figures also why is Vandoorne slower in his second season against Alonso, this closing the gap has no scientific standing.

That's easy to answer. This years car was much more difficult to drive. Naturally in a trickier car the better driver can make more of a difference.