planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:I do not agree with this logic, because if Hamilton wasn't there, then god knows what would have happened frankly. Whoever was Bottas's team mate could have won races, etc. Why is it a given that in a situation that Hamilton retired in 2018, the 2019 WDC would have panned exactly the same? It is impossible that they would have the same results as we had last year. So to say that Bottas would have won the WDC - or the opposite - is without much substance.

Wait what?

What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

Is it not called the butterfly affect, there's a kind of logic that gets played out it seems that if you change the players the races themselves still stay roughly the same?

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:I do not agree with this logic, because if Hamilton wasn't there, then god knows what would have happened frankly. Whoever was Bottas's team mate could have won races, etc. Why is it a given that in a situation that Hamilton retired in 2018, the 2019 WDC would have panned exactly the same? It is impossible that they would have the same results as we had last year. So to say that Bottas would have won the WDC - or the opposite - is without much substance.

Wait what?

What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

I don't understand how this does not boil down to a "Who could have beaten Valtteri Bottas if they were put in the #1 Mercedes seat".

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:I do not agree with this logic, because if Hamilton wasn't there, then god knows what would have happened frankly. Whoever was Bottas's team mate could have won races, etc. Why is it a given that in a situation that Hamilton retired in 2018, the 2019 WDC would have panned exactly the same? It is impossible that they would have the same results as we had last year. So to say that Bottas would have won the WDC - or the opposite - is without much substance.

Wait what?

What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

I never said that is how the races would have panned out, it was never the point to present what 2019 would have looked like had Bottas been partnered with a weaker driver. It's actually more likely Bottas would have done better than that because - for example - his fourth on the road finish at Monaco was due to colliding with Verstappen in the pits, an accident that only occurred because he was second in a Mercedes double stack from 1-2 on track.

The purpose of that recalculation was to show how misleading the points are if you don't take into account the 7 point win advantage of first over second compared to 3 for second over third. Wins - rightly - accelerate drivers who collect a lot of them away from the field, but when assessing a driver's relative performance points are not a good metric, relative finishing position is and consequently showing how the points table would have looked had Bottas been the best performing driver at each race gives an indiciation of the ballpark he would have been in had he been the lead Mercedes drivers.

Mort Canard wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:I do not agree with this logic, because if Hamilton wasn't there, then god knows what would have happened frankly. Whoever was Bottas's team mate could have won races, etc. Why is it a given that in a situation that Hamilton retired in 2018, the 2019 WDC would have panned exactly the same? It is impossible that they would have the same results as we had last year. So to say that Bottas would have won the WDC - or the opposite - is without much substance.

Wait what?

What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

I don't understand how this does not boil down to a "Who could have beaten Valtteri Bottas if they were put in the #1 Mercedes seat".

That's not the purpose of the thread. The news is full of people (Max Verstappen, Villeneuve, Jackie Stewart, Flavio) saying "loads of drivers would have been WDC had they had that car" - my question therefore is, who *couldn't* have been WDC had they had the car. I'm not interested in asking the question of "who is better than Bottas" - as we can find that out from the rate the drivers thread. So to stop it being that question, both drivers in Mercedes are replaced. The second driver may as well be me for all it matters, so long as it is a driver that the primary driver could beat.

Interestingly, I was curious what would have happened if Hamilton had had me as his teammate - ie non scoring in every race - and it would have made virtually no difference to his title chances against Verstappen and the Ferrari drivers, they all gain roughly the same by Bottas DNFs - so the second driver at Mercedes can be considered to be non existent in the title fight - they only have to beat the other teams drivers:

1	HAM	+29	432
2	VER	+33	311
3	LEC	+30	294
4	VET	+27	267

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: Wait what?

What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

I never said that is how the races would have panned out, it was never the point to present what 2019 would have looked like had Bottas been partnered with a weaker driver. It's actually more likely Bottas would have done better than that because - for example - his fourth on the road finish at Monaco was due to colliding with Verstappen in the pits, an accident that only occurred because he was second in a Mercedes double stack from 1-2 on track.

The purpose of that recalculation was to show how misleading the points are if you don't take into account the 7 point win advantage of first over second compared to 3 for second over third. Wins - rightly - accelerate drivers who collect a lot of them away from the field, but when assessing a driver's relative performance points are not a good metric, relative finishing position is and consequently showing how the points table would have looked had Bottas been the best performing driver at each race gives an indiciation of the ballpark he would have been in had he been the lead Mercedes drivers.

But you did just that, removed Hamilton and rearranged the points as if the races would end up in the same order. With little thinking of who would Bottas's co-driver be and how it would affect the points. I get you wanted to show the ballpark figure if he was the leading driver and it is exactly this point that I expressed my scepticism, that we do not even know if he would be the lead Merc driver. But ok, let's not argue about this, I do take your point as an indication.

I actually wonder what would be the case if Vettel partnered Bottas actually. Would Leclerc beat them if he was leading the Ferrari charge with a weaker team mate on his side? Would Vettel take points off Bottas (likely by crashing onto him, he does like that specific manoeuvre)?

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: What is confusing you exactly?

This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

I never said that is how the races would have panned out, it was never the point to present what 2019 would have looked like had Bottas been partnered with a weaker driver. It's actually more likely Bottas would have done better than that because - for example - his fourth on the road finish at Monaco was due to colliding with Verstappen in the pits, an accident that only occurred because he was second in a Mercedes double stack from 1-2 on track.

The purpose of that recalculation was to show how misleading the points are if you don't take into account the 7 point win advantage of first over second compared to 3 for second over third. Wins - rightly - accelerate drivers who collect a lot of them away from the field, but when assessing a driver's relative performance points are not a good metric, relative finishing position is and consequently showing how the points table would have looked had Bottas been the best performing driver at each race gives an indiciation of the ballpark he would have been in had he been the lead Mercedes drivers.

But you did just that, removed Hamilton and rearranged the points as if the races would end up in the same order. With little thinking of who would Bottas's co-driver be and how it would affect the points. I get you wanted to show the ballpark figure if he was the leading driver and it is exactly this point that I expressed my scepticism, that we do not even know if he would be the lead Merc driver. But ok, let's not argue about this, I do take your point as an indication.

I actually wonder what would be the case if Vettel partnered Bottas actually. Would Leclerc beat them if he was leading the Ferrari charge with a weaker team mate on his side? Would Vettel take points off Bottas (likely by crashing onto him, he does like that specific manoeuvre)?

The original post explicitly states that the drivers being voted for would be the lead driver in the team, that's the whole point of the thread.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: This is a hypothetical thread for people to put forward their cases for who wouldn't be able to win the championship in the Merc. Of course Hamilton not being there would affect the results, but that's kind of the whole point of the thread. If we knew what would happen, then we wouldn't need to hold a Formula 1 championship in the first place.

We have had hundreds of threads of this nature on the forum (eg, what would happen if driver X drove for Team A instead of Team B) - these kind of discussions are one of the main points of a discussion forum - I don't understand how you can suddenly declare a whole topic of thread as being anti logic!!

Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

I never said that is how the races would have panned out, it was never the point to present what 2019 would have looked like had Bottas been partnered with a weaker driver. It's actually more likely Bottas would have done better than that because - for example - his fourth on the road finish at Monaco was due to colliding with Verstappen in the pits, an accident that only occurred because he was second in a Mercedes double stack from 1-2 on track.

The purpose of that recalculation was to show how misleading the points are if you don't take into account the 7 point win advantage of first over second compared to 3 for second over third. Wins - rightly - accelerate drivers who collect a lot of them away from the field, but when assessing a driver's relative performance points are not a good metric, relative finishing position is and consequently showing how the points table would have looked had Bottas been the best performing driver at each race gives an indiciation of the ballpark he would have been in had he been the lead Mercedes drivers.

But you did just that, removed Hamilton and rearranged the points as if the races would end up in the same order. With little thinking of who would Bottas's co-driver be and how it would affect the points. I get you wanted to show the ballpark figure if he was the leading driver and it is exactly this point that I expressed my scepticism, that we do not even know if he would be the lead Merc driver. But ok, let's not argue about this, I do take your point as an indication.

I actually wonder what would be the case if Vettel partnered Bottas actually. Would Leclerc beat them if he was leading the Ferrari charge with a weaker team mate on his side? Would Vettel take points off Bottas (likely by crashing onto him, he does like that specific manoeuvre)?

The original post explicitly states that the drivers being voted for would be the lead driver in the team, that's the whole point of the thread.

Only to then produce a table of what would happen if Bottas was ahead of his team mate, which contradicts your explicit original post. And it's the one I commented after. So which one is it? It got a bit confusing.

But anyway, forget it, I'm not interested in this any more than you are. Have a great weekend

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Then you missed my point or I didn't present it very well. I didn't insult your thread by declaring it anti-logic, just pointed out that if you remove Hamilton it does not mean that the races would pan out exactly the same way. You can still have a hypothetical discussion about it obviously.

But it would depend who would be Bottas's co-driver. All I'm saying is that it is not a defacto "if Hamilton didn't finish first in Bahrain then Bottas would have won" scenario, we need to establish if Bottas would be better than his team mate. So if - say - Ricciardo was his team mate I'd say that Bottas would still be second, I feel that by saying "I went through the championship and for every time that Hamilton finished ahead of Bottas (when both finished) I moved Hamilton behind Bottas and recalculated all the positions" you are not really covering that situation.

I never said that is how the races would have panned out, it was never the point to present what 2019 would have looked like had Bottas been partnered with a weaker driver. It's actually more likely Bottas would have done better than that because - for example - his fourth on the road finish at Monaco was due to colliding with Verstappen in the pits, an accident that only occurred because he was second in a Mercedes double stack from 1-2 on track.

The purpose of that recalculation was to show how misleading the points are if you don't take into account the 7 point win advantage of first over second compared to 3 for second over third. Wins - rightly - accelerate drivers who collect a lot of them away from the field, but when assessing a driver's relative performance points are not a good metric, relative finishing position is and consequently showing how the points table would have looked had Bottas been the best performing driver at each race gives an indiciation of the ballpark he would have been in had he been the lead Mercedes drivers.

But you did just that, removed Hamilton and rearranged the points as if the races would end up in the same order. With little thinking of who would Bottas's co-driver be and how it would affect the points. I get you wanted to show the ballpark figure if he was the leading driver and it is exactly this point that I expressed my scepticism, that we do not even know if he would be the lead Merc driver. But ok, let's not argue about this, I do take your point as an indication.

I actually wonder what would be the case if Vettel partnered Bottas actually. Would Leclerc beat them if he was leading the Ferrari charge with a weaker team mate on his side? Would Vettel take points off Bottas (likely by crashing onto him, he does like that specific manoeuvre)?

The original post explicitly states that the drivers being voted for would be the lead driver in the team, that's the whole point of the thread.

Only to then produce a table of what would happen if Bottas was ahead of his team mate, which contradicts your explicit original post. And it's the one I commented after. So which one is it? It got a bit confusing.

But anyway, forget it, I'm not interested in this any more than you are. Have a great weekend

Well clearly I am interested in it given that I took the time to start a thread on the matter.

I don't see what is so confusing?

The thread is in response to the comments by many that many drivers could have won the title if they were driving the Mercedes W10.

The premise for this opinion is that the W10 had such a large advantage over the field that the driver skill was not that important.

Therefore, the poll is to ask at what point is the driver skill so low, that the driver wouldn't be able to win the championship.

For this to thread to find that driver, it requires that the driver be the better performing driver of the season - otherwise it's just a poll of "who is worse than Bottas" as there are likely drivers who are not as good as Bottas who would be able to win the WDC if they weren't up against him.

I really don't know how to explain it any better than this.

Siao7 wrote:Only to then produce a table of what would happen if Bottas was ahead of his team mate, which contradicts your explicit original post. And it's the one I commented after. So which one is it? It got a bit confusing.

But anyway, forget it, I'm not interested in this any more than you are. Have a great weekend

The question was who would win, assuming they were the lead driver. So putting Bottas ahead of A. N. Other in the sister Merc is perfectly in line with this way of thinking.

P-F1 Mod wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Only to then produce a table of what would happen if Bottas was ahead of his team mate, which contradicts your explicit original post. And it's the one I commented after. So which one is it? It got a bit confusing.

But anyway, forget it, I'm not interested in this any more than you are. Have a great weekend

The question was who would win, assuming they were the lead driver. So putting Bottas ahead of A. N. Other in the sister Merc is perfectly in line with this way of thinking.

would not win

Alienturnedhuman wrote:... The premise for this opinion is that the W10 had such a large advantage over the field that the driver skill was not that important...

I'd argue that the team and drivers (as a pairing) had as much impact on this as the car itself. Yes, overall the Merc was the better car. The Mercedes team, over the season, operated better than its nearest rival (Ferrari) and the driver pairing was not such that they didn't make too many errors and they weren't taking points off each other to the extent that the Ferrari duo did. Car alone? I don't think that the advantage was that large that driver skill did not play a decent part.

tootsie323 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:... The premise for this opinion is that the W10 had such a large advantage over the field that the driver skill was not that important...

I'd argue that the team and drivers (as a pairing) had as much impact on this as the car itself. Yes, overall the Merc was the better car. The Mercedes team, over the season, operated better than its nearest rival (Ferrari) and the driver pairing was not such that they didn't make too many errors and they weren't taking points off each other to the extent that the Ferrari duo did. Car alone? I don't think that the advantage was that large that driver skill did not play a decent part.

Indeed, you could make a case for Hamilton winning 9 races in the Ferrari, whilst Verstappen beat both Ferrari drivers in I believe a slower car and similarly I believe would have won many races in the Ferrari, it seems when transported into the Mercedes then some of these drivers magically become error free.

tootsie323 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:... The premise for this opinion is that the W10 had such a large advantage over the field that the driver skill was not that important...

I'd argue that the team and drivers (as a pairing) had as much impact on this as the car itself. Yes, overall the Merc was the better car. The Mercedes team, over the season, operated better than its nearest rival (Ferrari) and the driver pairing was not such that they didn't make too many errors and they weren't taking points off each other to the extent that the Ferrari duo did. Car alone? I don't think that the advantage was that large that driver skill did not play a decent part.

I should add, it's not my personal premise this is the case, but rather the one that is implied when people routinely say "many people could have won in that car"

One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

I think we know who!

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I think you can definitely say there’s not a chance when it comes to Kubica. What was his average gap to Russell, 6/7 tenths?

Kubica would have been at least 6/7 tenths off Hamilton’s pace (based on his match up with Russell) which wouldn’t have been enough for him to beat Verstappen/Ferrari’s enough to win the WDC.

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I think you can definitely say there’s not a chance when it comes to Kubica. What was his average gap to Russell, 6/7 tenths?

Kubica would have been at least 6/7 tenths off Hamilton’s pace (based on his match up with Russell) which wouldn’t have been enough for him to beat Verstappen/Ferrari’s enough to win the WDC.

I agree, Kubica would not be a contender given his performance last year, but that is 1 out of 19 other drivers. Far from "not a chance" that anyone other than Hamilton would have won in the 2019 Merc.

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I think you can definitely say there’s not a chance when it comes to Kubica. What was his average gap to Russell, 6/7 tenths?

Kubica would have been at least 6/7 tenths off Hamilton’s pace (based on his match up with Russell) which wouldn’t have been enough for him to beat Verstappen/Ferrari’s enough to win the WDC.

I agree, Kubica would not be a contender given his performance last year, but that is 1 out of 19 other drivers. Far from "not a chance" that anyone other than Hamilton would have won in the 2019 Merc.

That’s not what Poker said, but ok.

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I think you can definitely say there’s not a chance when it comes to Kubica. What was his average gap to Russell, 6/7 tenths?

Kubica would have been at least 6/7 tenths off Hamilton’s pace (based on his match up with Russell) which wouldn’t have been enough for him to beat Verstappen/Ferrari’s enough to win the WDC.

I agree, Kubica would not be a contender given his performance last year, but that is 1 out of 19 other drivers. Far from "not a chance" that anyone other than Hamilton would have won in the 2019 Merc.

That’s not what Poker said, but ok.

I may have misread it then; I thought that Poker's answer was "not a chance" on a post that said that any one of two drivers for Mercedes (excluding Hamilton of course) would have won the WDC.

I do disagree with this statement myself partly, in a sense that any one of two could (not definitely would) have won the WDC, but I just think that saying "not a chance" to anyone else winning in the Merc is putting down the capabilities of the car and the Merc team.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I clearly was referring to Kubica and Stroll, this is beginning to go down the road of even my granny could have won the title in the 2019 Mercedes although I do believe that was not the intention of the thread starter.

Siao7 wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I think you can definitely say there’s not a chance when it comes to Kubica. What was his average gap to Russell, 6/7 tenths?

Kubica would have been at least 6/7 tenths off Hamilton’s pace (based on his match up with Russell) which wouldn’t have been enough for him to beat Verstappen/Ferrari’s enough to win the WDC.

I agree, Kubica would not be a contender given his performance last year, but that is 1 out of 19 other drivers. Far from "not a chance" that anyone other than Hamilton would have won in the 2019 Merc.

I clearly did not say that.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I clearly was referring to Kubica and Stroll, this is beginning to go down the road of even my granny could have won the title in the 2019 Mercedes although I do believe that was not the intention of the thread starter.

Ok, this makes more sense. It wasn't clear that you were talking only about Kubica and Stroll, not to me anyway. Otherwise yeah, agreed fully

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I clearly was referring to Kubica and Stroll, this is beginning to go down the road of even my granny could have won the title in the 2019 Mercedes although I do believe that was not the intention of the thread starter.

Ok, this makes more sense. It wasn't clear that you were talking only about Kubica and Stroll, not to me anyway. Otherwise yeah, agreed fully

Cheers I often misread posts myself.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I clearly was referring to Kubica and Stroll, this is beginning to go down the road of even my granny could have won the title in the 2019 Mercedes although I do believe that was not the intention of the thread starter.

No, that was not my intention - however it was in response to that implication as that was being made by the comments that so many people could have won if they were driving it. I think that when Verstappen says that many people could have won driving the Merc, is more in response to the fact Hamilton dominated everyone else so much. He's not saying that Hamilton isn't an elite driver, he's saying that the 11 - 3 win split between the two of them is a factor of the car - however this can be spun to suggest that Hamilton only won because of his car, which is often something people say.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:One of any two drivers would have won in the Mercedes during it's reign these past few years. I don't agree the pole is answerable really because it discounts the car too much. For example, a couple of random drivers at/near the bottom were Stroll and Kubica. If they had been in Merc together, one of them would have taken the WDC. The car was just that much better. But, which one? Now that is the question. The more evenly matched the drivers, the harder the question.

Not a chance, the Mercedes was the best car but it wasn't a dominant car, some people are still living in 2014-16 it seems.

Not a chance? I agree it is not a given, but I'd say that with the 2019 Merc there's a huge chance that other drivers could have taken the WDC.

I clearly was referring to Kubica and Stroll, this is beginning to go down the road of even my granny could have won the title in the 2019 Mercedes although I do believe that was not the intention of the thread starter.

No, that was not my intention - however it was in response to that implication as that was being made by the comments that so many people could have won if they were driving it. I think that when Verstappen says that many people could have won driving the Merc, is more in response to the fact Hamilton dominated everyone else so much. He's not saying that Hamilton isn't an elite driver, he's saying that the 11 - 3 win split between the two of them is a factor of the car - however this can be spun to suggest that Hamilton only won because of his car, which is often something people say.

I actually believe this is what Verstappen means, it's a reference to himself but mindful of how it might come across he then expands it to other drivers without actually mentioning who these drivers might actually be.

The Mercedes is crazily dominant at some tracks. I think any driver on the grid could win in it at Abu Dhabi, Barcelona etc. Bottas had 9/10ths advantage over nearest non merc at Barca then F2 driver topped the test in it the next day.

After seeing how badly Gasly did in the Red Bull though...
Stroll, Kubica, Gasly, Albon, Giovanazzi, magnussen, grosjean, magnussen, kvyat.

Zazu wrote:The Mercedes is crazily dominant at some tracks. I think any driver on the grid could win in it at Abu Dhabi, Barcelona etc. Bottas had 9/10ths advantage over nearest non merc at Barca then F2 driver topped the test in it the next day.

After seeing how badly Gasly did in the Red Bull though...
Stroll, Kubica, Gasly, Albon, Giovanazzi, magnussen, grosjean, magnussen, kvyat.

A F2 driver who was that?

Mazepin, Helmut Marko went on his usual rant after it

I was at the Hungary test a few years ago when Russell set a new lap record when he was testing for them post race as well

The cars been completely dominant since the hybrids came in. People talk about this season being more competitive because of a few errors from other teams and Ferrari being quick on qualifying mode. Merc 1-2 all the races at the start and even without any team orders Hamilton won the title by 135points

Zazu wrote:Mazepin, Helmut Marko went on his usual rant after it

I was at the Hungary test a few years ago when Russell set a new lap record when he was testing for them post race as well

The cars been completely dominant since the hybrids came in. People talk about this season being more competitive because of a few errors from other teams and Ferrari being quick on qualifying mode. Merc 1-2 all the races at the start and even without any team orders Hamilton won the title by 135points

Yeah I knew it was him but for some reason I was thinking it was in 2018, I'm surprised you would take mid season testing so seriously were lap times mean very little.

Mazepin is not even a Mercedes junior, he's the son of a billionaire who paid for the test, you put the softest tyres on, turn the engine up to 11, run on low fuel and then say look how good my son is whilst other drivers are doing what their supposed to be doing that being testing the cars and not going for front page lap times.

The car was dominant from 2014-16 after that take Hamilton out of the car and it doesn't win the titles in 2017 and 2018, last year granted it was the best car but hardly dominant just made to look better by the human failings of others.

Exediron wrote:

wire2004 wrote:Bottas. He wouldn't have won the the championship. Because he is a good number 2. And nothing more. (Eddie Irvine level) the only way he would have a outside chance of winning is if we had a hulkenberg troe of driver supporting him

Bottas was second. That literally means he would have won the title if Hamilton hadn't been there.

Actually the only certain option is that Bottas wouldn't have won it. Because if the scenario is like OP explained, that there were two Bottases in team Mercedes, it would practically make it impossible for either of them to win it, as the two Bottases would always have the same racing line and hence it would cause them to inevitably collide and retire in every single race.

I would say, the following 7 drivers would definitely not have won: Kubica, Stroll, Grosjean, Magnussen, Gasly, Kvyat, Giovinazzi.
They were either too slow or made too many errors. Some of them would definitely have taken a couple of wins, but no WDC, for sure.

The next 3 drivers are rookies, and so, they are pretty hard to measure: Russel, Norris, Albon.
I would say they would have won quite a few races, but still not enough to win the WDC. They are rookies, and winning a WDC as a rookie with all the pressure is surely tough.

The next group of 4 is so-so. They might have won it, in some scenarios, but it's not a given:
Perez, Raikkonen, Hulkenberg, Sainz

The remaining 5 drivers I think would have won it. I go under the assumption that the toughest competition of the "Hamilton Merc replacement" is RBR's Max Verstappen. So here goes:
Ricciardo: - I think that even if Verstappen beat him in '18, the Merc advantage over the RBR would have been enough for Ricciardo to beat Verstappen in the RBR.
Vettel: - Having a car that has an advantage over the competition in the races, a team fully focused on him that also makes fewer mistakes, no team mate to challenge him, and also not being put under pressure and frustrated during the races, he would have won the WDC.
The next 3, for me are obvoius winners:
Leclerc: - was very near in points to Verstappen, so having a car better than his Ferrari and the RBR is enough for him to win
Bottas: - well, he actually came 2nd in the WDC, behind Hamilton, so he actually did beat all the other drivers he would have to beat in the proposed scenario. So it's an obvious yes.
Verstappen: - the biggest competition for the Merc drivers' WDC came from Verstappen in the RBR. So, as I see the Merc being better than the RBR in '19, I would say Merc's Verstappen would beat RBR's Verstappen to take the WDC. The other drivers don't even matter in this scenario.

paul85 wrote:I would say, the following 7 drivers would definitely not have won: Kubica, Stroll, Grosjean, Magnussen, Gasly, Kvyat, Giovinazzi.
They were either too slow or made too many errors. Some of them would definitely have taken a couple of wins, but no WDC, for sure.

The next 3 drivers are rookies, and so, they are pretty hard to measure: Russel, Norris, Albon.
I would say they would have won quite a few races, but still not enough to win the WDC. They are rookies, and winning a WDC as a rookie with all the pressure is surely tough.

The next group of 4 is so-so. They might have won it, in some scenarios, but it's not a given:
Perez, Raikkonen, Hulkenberg, Sainz

The remaining 5 drivers I think would have won it. I go under the assumption that the toughest competition of the "Hamilton Merc replacement" is RBR's Max Verstappen. So here goes:
Ricciardo: - I think that even if Verstappen beat him in '18, the Merc advantage over the RBR would have been enough for Ricciardo to beat Verstappen in the RBR.
Vettel: - Having a car that has an advantage over the competition in the races, a team fully focused on him that also makes fewer mistakes, no team mate to challenge him, and also not being put under pressure and frustrated during the races, he would have won the WDC.
The next 3, for me are obvoius winners:
Leclerc: - was very near in points to Verstappen, so having a car better than his Ferrari and the RBR is enough for him to win
Bottas: - well, he actually came 2nd in the WDC, behind Hamilton, so he actually did beat all the other drivers he would have to beat in the proposed scenario. So it's an obvious yes.
Verstappen: - the biggest competition for the Merc drivers' WDC came from Verstappen in the RBR. So, as I see the Merc being better than the RBR in '19, I would say Merc's Verstappen would beat RBR's Verstappen to take the WDC. The other drivers don't even matter in this scenario.

I broadly agree, apart from the bolded part. He did beat the rest, but not as team mates, so not as straight forward for me

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Alcibiades wrote:

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Mercedes saw an opportunity to poach a disgruntled top driver from a rival team and they took it. Way back in 2012 Hamilton was not the clear best driver, although he was certainly in the top group.

And the first part of the question is a bit weird. Even if Mercedes have the best car, of course they'd want the best driver.

Alcibiades wrote:

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Best perhaps to not get as triggered, his view is that of a minority.

Exediron wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Mercedes saw an opportunity to poach a disgruntled top driver from a rival team and they took it. Way back in 2012 Hamilton was not the clear best driver, although he was certainly in the top group.

And the first part of the question is a bit weird. Even if Mercedes have the best car, of course they'd want the best driver.

I do think it's to Hamilton's credit that he took the chance with Mercedes though, joining a lesser team and ditching his race winning car.

I don't think an out of contract Alonso or Vettel would have taken that chance?

It's often been the F1 game for the top drivers to get themselves into the best cars, who would have thought that Hamilton would be able to play the game the best?

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Mercedes saw an opportunity to poach a disgruntled top driver from a rival team and they took it. Way back in 2012 Hamilton was not the clear best driver, although he was certainly in the top group.

And the first part of the question is a bit weird. Even if Mercedes have the best car, of course they'd want the best driver.

I do think it's to Hamilton's credit that he took the chance with Mercedes though, joining a lesser team and ditching his race winning car.

I don't think an out of contract Alonso or Vettel would have taken that chance?

It's often been the F1 game for the top drivers to get themselves into the best cars, who would have thought that Hamilton would be able to play the game the best?

Didn't Vettel do exactly that in 2014?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

motorfinger wrote:Bottas is a bit overrated nowadays as a consequence of Hamilton hype, so yeah, probably a lot of guys would have been able to match his level of performance.

So you think Hamilton is over hyped? So if Mercedes have the best car, why did they pay so much to put Hamilton in it if he is hyped?
Wouldn't you acknowledge that its just possible that you are wrong and Hamilton is the real deal? That Mercedes used all their data and knowledge to emply the best driver?

Mercedes saw an opportunity to poach a disgruntled top driver from a rival team and they took it. Way back in 2012 Hamilton was not the clear best driver, although he was certainly in the top group.

And the first part of the question is a bit weird. Even if Mercedes have the best car, of course they'd want the best driver.

I do think it's to Hamilton's credit that he took the chance with Mercedes though, joining a lesser team and ditching his race winning car.

I don't think an out of contract Alonso or Vettel would have taken that chance?

It's often been the F1 game for the top drivers to get themselves into the best cars, who would have thought that Hamilton would be able to play the game the best?

Didn't Vettel do exactly that in 2014?

Not quite. The 2014 Red Bull, while race-winning, didn't win at his hand, and was firmly outclassed by the Mercedes. Hamilton went to Mercedes because he saw McLaren sliding back and Mercedes climbing. And Niki convinced him it would continue.