snip- As things get more black and white here, then we get more extreme. ...etc ....-snip
Good read, there should be more of that kind of balanced and informed postings.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 09:09
snip- As things get more black and white here, then we get more extreme. ...etc ....-snip
Advertisement
Posted 09 August 2010 - 16:11
If MP is a fan of Webber's, so what?
I get the feeling that some of the fanboys who infect this site believe that positive comments about anyone but Vettel are terrible and likely to cause the end of civilization as we know it.
I like MP's posts.
Always readable; always interesting.
In comparison, the fanboys display ignorance and malice.
The poison some of them have been advancing re the Le Mans flips defies understanding.
Edited by flyer121, 09 August 2010 - 16:14.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 16:23
Webber is not a bad driver obviously but if you really were being objective Seb has him beat this season and last. The only argument is that the points don't tell the same story but to me that is an aberration which hopefully will correct itself. And if not then it will still be alright - Mark would win fair and square even thou he was slower than Seb but made fewer mistakes. Thats fair.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 16:25
Posted 09 August 2010 - 17:54
Le Mans came up because Kovalonso kept inexplicably mentioning it as a reason why he thinks Webber is a bad driverLook - I don't care about neither LeMans nor his charities.. I am interested in what he does in F1 which he hasn't done much till this season quite frankly.
I guess LeMans came up because Webber fans used the excuse of him not landing in a top seat.
I also happen to believe that the car is 95% of the performance and the driver can only add the missing 5% .. I think that all the drivers are pretty much within half a sec or so and that varies from track to track + car suitability. So yeah Webber is not a bad driver obviously but if you really were being objective Seb has him beat this season and last. The only argument is that the points don't tell the same story but to me that is an aberration which hopefully will correct itself.
And if not then it will still be alright - Mark would win fair and square even thou he was slower than Seb but made fewer mistakes. Thats fair.
Edited by KateLM, 09 August 2010 - 17:54.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 17:54
Not satisifed to be the #1 in WDC rankings, MP is making a revisionism in Webber's career.Vettel lucked...
Alonso is great...
Hamilton did not even do what Vettel had to do. Hamilton jumped straight into a top car. So far, Hamilton's record is far from perfect IMO, form lying to the Stewards and lots of other stuff, perhaps causing a huge rift at McLaren that cost the team 100 million, and a championship too I recall.
Webber's not in that class of driver, not because of his talents IMO, but because he never got the breaks to have a fast car at a young age. Its as simple as that IMO.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 20:21
Posted 09 August 2010 - 20:55
Luck does not always even out over a season. That would imply a perfectly ideal world, and we all know that simply aint the case.WDC points are the perfect way to determine which intra team driver is better because things like reliability, luck etc they even themselves out over the course of a season.
Edited by Seanspeed, 09 August 2010 - 20:57.
Posted 09 August 2010 - 21:03
Posted 09 August 2010 - 23:33
Not satisifed to be the #1 in WDC rankings, MP is making a revisionism in Webber's career.
MP says that Webber never had the chance to get a fast car early in his career, but I contested him saying that he had three years at Mercedes Motorsports before the Lewis experiment.
Then, had the chance to drive Alonso's Phase I Renault and turned it down.
So, IMO, MP assessment about MW career is not true.
The guy could have been WDC many times through two different teams.
Edited by Melbourne Park, 09 August 2010 - 23:51.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 01:51
Sorry sean I missed quoting your rant before you edited it off but in response to it anyway yes why shouldn't Mark be seen as the better driver right now? He has more points therefore by virtue and measure of what is important he is overall doing a fundamentally better job than Seb, in much the same fashion Heidfeld and DC did a better job than Mark in 2005 and 2007, respectively.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:49
Posted 10 August 2010 - 06:59
I agree that Seb has more frequently looked faster in qualifying, but I think (this year) Mark has generally looked quicker in the races.See I am totally the opposite, I'd have taken Mark as a driver in 05 and 07 and Seb this year.
It's particularly dangerous in mid field cars where one good race means u end the year in front on points. I don't care what anyone says, Mark always looked faster than Nick and Vettel looks faster this year. Maybe Mark will get up but i'd still rate Seb in front of him.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 07:40
I agree that Seb has more frequently looked faster in qualifying, but I think (this year) Mark has generally looked quicker in the races.
The Grands Prix in which Seb has looked the speedier of the two in race mode have been Bahrain, China, Europe and Germany. In the other eight races, Mark has shown better pace.
Analysis of lap times, (relative) gaps and race results supports this perspective.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:39
I do understand that race pace varies and is frequently difficult to quantify under the existing regulations, however, there are times and circumstances in a race when direct comparisons can be made and analysis is therefore valid.This analysis of "race pace" is practically worthless under the tight current regulations of limited engines and gearboxes.
How do you know Seb was not quicker in say Malaysia and was simply managing his track position after he had taken the lead from Mark? Conversely, do you really think Lewis had a chance against Mark at Silverstone because he finished 1.5s behind? All the drivers this season are managing their cars during the race, all the way up and down the grid order. The only real way to tell who was "faster" is when they are all NOT managing their cars and that is in Q3, and based on this Mark clearly loses out to Seb.
This "race pace" thing is nonsense under car-nursing regulations because you simply do not know when a driver is on the limit. By definition the faster driver is obviously the guy who finishes ahead because he has taken less time overall to complete the grand prix.
At the end of the day I still believe Mark is doing a better job overall than Sebastian so far, in the way that Heidfeld and DC did a better job overall than Mark when they paired in 05/07.
Edited by Redback, 10 August 2010 - 08:42.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:45
I have to agree, I cant see that much of a point in comparing totals fastest lap times and race pace this year, or at least not as much as has been done so. Looking at it so generally will just skew it. If you look more at peak pockets of performance when it matters at a certain point of time in a race though, then yes.This analysis of "race pace" is practically worthless under the tight current regulations of limited engines and gearboxes.
How do you know Seb was not quicker in say Malaysia and was simply managing his track position after he had taken the lead from Mark? Conversely, do you really think Lewis had a chance against Mark at Silverstone because he finished 1.5s behind? All the drivers this season are managing their cars during the race, all the way up and down the grid order. The only real way to tell who was "faster" is when they are all NOT managing their cars and that is in Q3, and based on this Mark clearly loses out to Seb.
This "race pace" thing is nonsense under car-nursing regulations because you simply do not know when a driver is on the limit. By definition the faster driver is obviously the guy who finishes ahead because he has taken less time overall to complete the grand prix.
At the end of the day I still believe Mark is doing a better job overall than Sebastian so far, in the way that Heidfeld and DC did a better job overall than Mark when they paired in 05/07.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 09:09
I agree that Seb has more frequently looked faster in qualifying, but I think (this year) Mark has generally looked quicker in the races.
The Grands Prix in which Seb has looked the speedier of the two in race mode have been Bahrain, China, Europe and Germany. In the other eight races, Mark has shown better pace.
Analysis of lap times, (relative) gaps and race results supports this perspective.
Edited by flyer121, 10 August 2010 - 09:17.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 10:00
Yes, - qualifying is a measure of raw speed, but it's just one lap. For those with attention deficit disorder, it's probably all that matters, - but a race is 300+ kms...The reason Q is the real measure of speed is because there are no variable factors involved. All cars are on the same fuel load, same set of fresh tyres , and hopefully similar traffic conditions (almost none in Q3).
I agree race craft is a valid skill , but Race pace IMO is just a throwback to previous years race fuel qualifications .. This season there is no reason to not go flat out in Q3 and race pace as a concept cant be applied.
People talk about differing Q3 set ups to justify the speed differential - but tell me who in the right mind would sacrifice Q speed for race pace on a track like Hungary where there is virtually no chance of overtake even if "race pace" wise you are 2 secs up? You could argue that pit-stop jump may be attempted but it is only useful for jumping other rival cars not your teammate in an equal car.
Raw speed is simply raw speed and is most clearly evident in Q3 (not even in Q1 or 2).
Posted 10 August 2010 - 10:57
Yes, - qualifying is a measure of raw speed, but it's just one lap. For those with attention deficit disorder, it's probably all that matters, - but a race is 300+ kms...
A good driver can continue to pump out competitive laps for 2 hours rather than just 2 minutes.
By that measure, Mark has had the better of Seb so far this year.
Edited by flyer121, 10 August 2010 - 10:59.
Advertisement
Posted 10 August 2010 - 11:05
If the "faster guy" is only faster for one lap (before falling asleep) then maybe you can keep him behind over the whole season...?No a good driver manages his race pace just so he can maintain or better his position - And maybe pump up a blinding lap to clinch the Fastest Lap towards the end.
Its a little bit like the Overtaking argument
If you put yourself in a position where you will need to overtake - then of course you are going to have more overtakes over the season. But you will still lose the WDC to the guy who didnt make a single overtake. In other words - they dont mean anything at all.
Same with race pace - you only need it if you are in a bad position compared to others.
On the contrary - there is no excuse to be beaten in Q.. you are just slower. But F1 being the sort of sport where other factors may still let you be ahead for a while. But its damn hard to keep the faster guy behind over the whole season.
Posted 10 August 2010 - 13:31
If the "faster guy" is only faster for one lap (before falling asleep) then maybe you can keep him behind over the whole season...?
Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:19
Posted 10 August 2010 - 18:49
Posted 11 August 2010 - 03:48
Which isn't the case, and your argument about Webber being faster because he has to be is a bit of bunk really isn't it. Simple fact of the matter is that Webber leads the WDC because of Vettel's poor judgment, poor luck and poor mechanical reliability combined into one Red Bull/Vettel cluster of a season. Mark hasn't been averse to suffering, but he hasn't suffered as bad as Vettel even with the mistakes he's made on his own.If the "faster guy" is only faster for one lap (before falling asleep) then maybe you can keep him behind over the whole season...?
Edited by Ricardo F1, 11 August 2010 - 03:49.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:00
Which isn't the case, and your argument about Webber being faster because he has to be is a bit of bunk really isn't it. Simple fact of the matter is that Webber leads the WDC because of Vettel's poor judgment, poor luck and poor mechanical reliability combined into one Red Bull/Vettel cluster of a season. Mark hasn't been averse to suffering, but he hasn't suffered as bad as Vettel even with the mistakes he's made on his own.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:03
No, that's made up.At least Vettel's failures have been mostly his. Even his engine blow up came because he ran too hard and was running out of fuel. Last race, Webber did 20 extra laps and won, but he could have gone faster - he just did what was necessary to win. Webber lost points early due to the cars instablity in aero wake. He'd only have foung that out in that particular situation. He's been bulletproof from the front, except when he did not agressively defend against his team mate. Since then, he's been a tougher driver. His harder setup is slower in qualifying, but faster in the races. That is obvious.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:07
Like the..At least Vettel's failures have been mostly his.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:08
Webber being able to use 10Kg less of ballast hasn't assisted in the last season and a half....sorry 9kg - he's got the lighter chassis.And Vettel driving around with a cracked chassis for three races didn't really help his cause.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:10
That's bull.Last race, Webber did 20 extra laps and won, but he could have gone faster - he just did what was necessary to win.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 04:11
Not sure if English is your first language, but your comprehension of what I said appears lacking.Which isn't the case, and your argument about Webber being faster because he has to be is a bit of bunk really isn't it. Simple fact of the matter is that Webber leads the WDC because of Vettel's poor judgment, poor luck and poor mechanical reliability combined into one Red Bull/Vettel cluster of a season. Mark hasn't been averse to suffering, but he hasn't suffered as bad as Vettel even with the mistakes he's made on his own.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 06:16
Posted 11 August 2010 - 06:59
Webber exited after his pitstop 6.1 seconds ahead of Alonso - if Alonso was 3 seconds closer to Webber at the restart, Webber still would have exited the pits after his pitstop 3.1 seconds ahead of Alonso.
Webber was faster than Alonso on 54 of the 70 laps of the race.
Of the 16 laps Alonso was faster - 6 of them Webber was less than a second from Alonso and couldn't go faster, 3 of them were due to traffic and the last 5 due to Webber turning his engine down. Alonso had essentially 2 faster laps than Webber - 1 was the lap where Webber came in, and the other the first part of Webber leaving the pits.
Had Webber and Alonso pitted on the same lap, Webber would have done all 70 laps faster than Alonso.
Suggesting Alonso deserved to win a race given those circumstances is being a little optimistic.
...to say the least.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:04
No, that's made up.
And Vettel driving around with a cracked chassis for three races didn't really help his cause.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:07
If the other teams are close, then losing one or two tenths in Q3 compared to Vettel could cost him more than one position on the grid. Optimising for a better race package is not always better when several teams are competitive.If the other teams are closer to RBR, then IMO Webber will be more competitive.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:19
The only real thing I got out of Webbers performance was that for 25 laps after the restart he was about a second per lap faster than Alonso - on option tyres that had already done 18 laps on a maximum fuel load. Suggesting that someone doesn't deserve to win a race after than type of performance is just announcing to the world that you're a total ****wit.To really know that is going on though, one has to know the traffic conditions, the tyre issues, and what opportunities are out there, and also the fuel issues too.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:36
Webber exited after his pitstop 6.1 seconds ahead of Alonso - if Alonso was 3 seconds closer to Webber at the restart, Webber still would have exited the pits after his pitstop 3.1 seconds ahead of Alonso.
Webber was faster than Alonso on 54 of the 70 laps of the race.
Of the 16 laps Alonso was faster - 6 of them Webber was less than a second from Alonso and couldn't go faster, 3 of them were due to traffic and the last 5 due to Webber turning his engine down. Alonso had essentially 2 faster laps than Webber - 1 was the lap where Webber came in, and the other the first part of Webber leaving the pits.
Had Webber and Alonso pitted on the same lap, Webber would have done all 70 laps faster than Alonso.
Suggesting Alonso deserved to win a race given those circumstances is being a little optimistic.
...to say the least.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 07:48
...apparently not.Not if your an Alonso fan!
Posted 11 August 2010 - 08:47
I'm talking about the human side of the Mercdes le Mans project.
The CLR-LMs is not a self-creationary Transformer.
It had a long and well documented Project Management.
MP said that Webber told the Mercedes engineers about the front end misbehaviour.
Then prove it.
So the project managers knew about it ?
Advised by Webber ?
It takes courage to kill a project if it is proven to have a fundamental error, but it is the right thing to do.
It takes courage to stop a manufacturer to run a car that puts life in danger.
Why does Webber remained silent after his second flip, right before the race ?
When Webber suffered the accident, he said he was OK.
Then, in the midle of testing he "realized" also a broken collarbone.
MP said that MW had medical care still in Australia on the collarbone.
At that time Webber fans defended the lie.
But MP knew it ?
Somebody is not playing fair in this forum, people saying/hidding lies then or now.
All I read is deflect by changing the focus on subjects.
Edited by NeilR, 11 August 2010 - 08:48.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 10:17
The only real thing I got out of Webbers performance was that for 25 laps after the restart he was about a second per lap faster than Alonso - on option tyres that had already done 18 laps on a maximum fuel load. Suggesting that someone doesn't deserve to win a race after than type of performance is just announcing to the world that you're a total ****wit.
Not referring to you at all MP.
Advertisement
Posted 11 August 2010 - 10:55
The real reason Webber won was the penalty Vettel received and that's why it was "undeserved".
Fact is Vettel was faster , but he screwed up and Webber got lucky.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 10:59
The real reason Webber won was the penalty Vettel received and that's why it was "undeserved".
Doesn't matter if he could run those softs till the second last lap and still be faster than Alonso by a second. His best chance was P2 and that too way behind Vettel.
Hungary is not that hard on tyres and these tyres are just too darn strong.
Fact is Vettel was faster , but he screwed up and Webber got lucky.
Again he won NOT because of his spectacular drive but because the forces of the universe conspired to make him win. Hope thats clear.
Webber himself has agreed that it was a "gift".
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:03
Yup, Seb screwed up. Mark didn't.
So tell me why Marks win was undeserved again??????
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:23
Yup, Seb screwed up. Mark didn't.
So tell me why Marks win was undeserved again??????
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:45
Because , anyway you cut it , he wouldn't have won solely relying on his speed. He had to rely on extraneous factors to win.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:46
It was something else.Because , anyway you cut it , he wouldn't have won solely relying on his speed. He had to rely on extraneous factors to win.
BTW - Mark had Seb beat in Monaco and Spain fair and square without being slower but please dont argue Hungary result was anything other than pure luck.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:47
Because , anyway you cut it , he wouldn't have won solely relying on his speed. He had to rely on extraneous factors to win.
BTW - Mark had Seb beat in Monaco and Spain fair and square without being slower but please dont argue Hungary result was anything other than pure luck.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 11:55
Thats about it. Great drive, ballsy call, just reward.It was something else.
A flawless execution of a brilliant strategy.
Combined with Seb giving his brains a rest just at the wrong moment.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 12:02
Because , anyway you cut it , he wouldn't have won solely relying on his speed. He had to rely on extraneous factors to win.
BTW - Mark had Seb beat in Monaco and Spain fair and square without being slower but please dont argue Hungary result was anything other than pure luck.
Edited by Melbourne Park, 11 August 2010 - 12:17.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 12:02
So, for clarity, who do you think did deserve to win the race? Certainly wasn't Vettel, and no one else would have won it on pace without RBR mistakes.Because , anyway you cut it , he wouldn't have won solely relying on his speed. He had to rely on extraneous factors to win.
BTW - Mark had Seb beat in Monaco and Spain fair and square without being slower but please dont argue Hungary result was anything other than pure luck.
Edited by GhostR, 11 August 2010 - 12:05.
Posted 11 August 2010 - 12:17