381 replies to this topic

[W03]

Bingo!!! So you have finally accepted that you are indeed karlth?

No but your obsession with him is disturbing.

[W03]

Nothing really to add, apart that it is far better to be roughly right then to be so precisely wrong as the poster your answered...

Simple ideas appeal to simple people. The poster you are praising is basing his ideas on nothing specific, he is claiming Massa, was faster back in 2007, than he is now simply because he thinks so, and you are taking it seriously?

Edited by W03, 29 February 2012 - 07:24.

[H2H]

Simple ideas appeal to simple people.

You don't know just how right you are in this regard ;)

[LiJu914]

We cannot be 100 percent certain which is different but this does not mean that most, including the experts, will always use this method that i described on the prior post to rank the performance of the cars in any given year.

Or would you claim that everytime autosport or any other reputable source writes an article which says team A is better than team B, you will always dismiss it because they do not know what they are talking about.. Was it or was it not a general consensuos last year that ferrari was the 3rd best car? If it was, are you telling me that this notion had nothing to do with comparing alonso's performance against lewis and button? But wait, they do not drive the same car - how does that work then?
Is everyone in the autosport circle therefore wrong.
If people use alonso as the barometer to judge the ferrari for two consecutive years arent they in a way taking alonso value add as a constant, which is what you are totally against or not even considering.

I think the point made is that you always start with this notion first and then add other factors around it to make a sound judgment instead of starting with drivers performance always fluctuating from year to year.

saying that massa is slower now would be like me saying that montoya became slower in mclaren or that fisichella became slower in 06 or that alonso became slower in 07 or that webber became slower now that he is teammed against vettel when he was always known as one of the fastest qualifiers and it has nothing to do with vettel being the fastest teammate that he went up against but the simple fact hat webber lost some of his speed.
Do you agree with all of this? Can it be possible, it should all be possible and very logical, that no one should question it, according to your idea.

You lost track of the original discussion between me and w03 and and put words in my mouth i never said.
He just pretended that it was basically a fact that McLaren wasn´t the faster car in Monaco 2007, because the gap between between Alonso and Massa is usually bigger 3 resp. 4 years later in the Ferrari. That´s where i raised my hand and said that one can´t pretend driver performances to be exactly the same over several years and under changing technical circumstances. It´s just a fact that individual performances fluctuate and i already showed some examples - there are many more of course, but the point is clear, i think.
What i didn´t say was, that one can basically hide behind some kind of Plato's allegory of the cave and just judge driver-perfomances anyway he wants for any given year by (ab)using the fact, that performances fluctuate.
You have to bring comprehensible reasons of course - e.g. Vettel vs. Webber: SV was always the faster driver (most of the time), but the gap increased significantly from 2010 to 2011. Why? Well the general opinion (with which i also agree) is, that a change of technical circumstances (especially tyres) caused an alteration in driver performances.
Regarding 2007 vs. 2010/2011 i already mentioned the huge changes of the car and tyre-characteristics - but to be more specific about the example between Massa and Alonso:
It was often reported that ALO didn´t cope so well with the bridgestone-groove-tyres - similiar thing with McLaren itself. It was a car with a pointy front, but a somewhat loose rear-end. Hamilton often basically turned that car by just by braking and letting the rear-end slide to let the car turn in (with very little steering input). But Alonso prefers a different style - turning in much more aggressive. So he had to adapt and of course a driver with his talent can adapt, but every driver loses a little bit of his performance, if the car is not 100% to his likings. As a result he couldn´t outperform an unexperienced Hamilton (in contrast to 2010/2011 one might say). The recent Ferraris on the other hand were reported to have a more planted rear at turn-in and the slight tendency to understeer (of course they seemed to lack overall-performance compared to other cars, but that´s another story) and therefore suiting ALO a little bit better in that regard.
With Massa it was basically the other way around: His style is similiar to e.g. MSC - preferring a "biting" front-end and a car with quick direction changes at the rear. I could furthermore assume that Massa is more of a one-dimensional driver in that regard and therefore suffers more, when the car isn´t exaclty to his likings (which would just basically mean he´s less talented), but that´s open to debate.
I never tried to pretend that Massa would´ve beaten Alonso in a 2007-Ferrari or 2007-McLaren. In my book Alonso is a much better driver in general and also adapts better, so i imho it´s very unlikely that Massa could beat him over a whole season under any technical (but identical) circumstances. But i´m also convinced that due to the factors i mentioned above, that the gap wasn´t exactly the same in 2007 as it is now, but closer.

Edited by LiJu914, 29 February 2012 - 12:40.

[Kingshark]

Sorry for bumping this rather old thread, but I do have some reasoning to why. I see that lately the best car debate has been hot, with people claiming Vettel didn't deserve this championship, but that's not what I'm here about.

In my opinion people often talk about 2001-2004 as the Ferrari dominant era. While I can agree on 2001, 2002 and 2004; people seriously overestimate the F2003GA.

Link: 2003 Cars Analyzed

Williams had a dominant car on at least two or three race weekends, and a car capable of winning from Round 6 onward on every circuit. Mclaren were not as good or extreme as Williams, but were up there as well. Ferrari struggled on many tracks. Renault too all too often took the challenge to the big 3 teams.

Therefore, when everything is analyzed. I come to a conclusion that Williams had the best car in 2003, and Ferrari and Mclaren were tied for second, with Renault not that far behind. Hence I question, why do people call all of Schumacher’s cars dominant, let alone 1995 or 2000. Likewise, why are people so quick to jump to conclusions that Ferrari and Schumacher had the best machinery in 2003, simply because they are Ferrari and Schumacher?

[mattferg]

I would start by looking for someone who won the WDC when the WCC was won by a different team.

Except this doesn't factor open an underperforming teammate or reliability issues. Alonso+Massa in a Ferrari that's only slightly better than Vettel+Hamilton in a Red Bull, this would mean Alonso would win the WDC but not the WCC, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN the Red Bull was the better car.

Example: Hamilton 2008. Clearly the best car but Kovalienen did poorly.

[Kingshark]

Example: Hamilton 2008. Clearly the best car but Kovalienen did poorly.

What makes you think Mclaren had the best car in 2008, let alone it being clearly?

Races such as in Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Turkey, France, Europe, Singapore and Brazil; Ferrari were clearly ahead.

In Monaco, Canada, Hungary, Belgium, Italy and Japan they were about equal.

In Australia, Britain, Germany, and China; Mclaren were ahead.

All in all, I count more in favor of Ferrari.

[Winter98]

Double Post

Edited by Winter98, 05 January 2013 - 08:00.

[Winter98]

From what I've read on the forum, I think this would be a very accurate way of measuring a car's "actual" speed:

1. Rank the drivers on the grid from most loved to most hated.

2. Put a +1 beside the most loved driver, -1 beside the most hated, 0 to the driver in the middle of the list.

3. Now, to get the "actual" speed of a car, simply add that number onto the cars actual lap time, or qualifying time, your choice.

For example:

Lets say you want to compare the qualifying speeds of the Mercedes and McLaren in Australia. Nico is your favourite driver, so he has +1.0 rating, and you don't like Hamilton at all, so he has a -1.0 rating.

The Mercedes Q3 time was 1:25.686. Add Nico's rating, and the Mercedes actual speed was 1:26.686
The McLaren Q3 time was 1:24.922. Add Hamilton's rating, and the McLaren's actual speed was 1:23.922.

Voila! The McLaren is almost 3 seconds per lap quicker! Heck of a good job by Nico in qualifying! And Hamilton only got the pole because of the car.

Edited by Winter98, 05 January 2013 - 08:08.

[Kingshark]

[Henri Greuter]

Sorry for bumping this rather old thread, but I do have some reasoning to why. I see that lately the best car debate has been hot, with people claiming Vettel didn't deserve this championship, but that's not what I'm here about.

In my opinion people often talk about 2001-2004 as the Ferrari dominant era. While I can agree on 2001, 2002 and 2004; people seriously overestimate the F2003GA.

Link: 2003 Cars Analyzed

Williams had a dominant car on at least two or three race weekends, and a car capable of winning from Round 6 onward on every circuit. Mclaren were not as good or extreme as Williams, but were up there as well. Ferrari struggled on many tracks. Renault too all too often took the challenge to the big 3 teams.

Therefore, when everything is analyzed. I come to a conclusion that Williams had the best car in 2003, and Ferrari and Mclaren were tied for second, with Renault not that far behind. Hence I question, why do people call all of Schumacher’s cars dominant, let alone 1995 or 2000. Likewise, why are people so quick to jump to conclusions that Ferrari and Schumacher had the best machinery in 2003, simply because they are Ferrari and Schumacher?

I think that the major reason for the difference were the Mi"Cheat"elin tires which were used by Williams, McLaren and Renault. During the Summer when the Ferrari was at its weakest the Michelin teams had the upperhand thanks to those tires. Once the Michelins were legal again Ferrari was up to par with McLaren, Williams and Renault again.
Without those trick tires it may have been another matter. But I do agree with you that the F2003GA definitely wasn't close to the F2002 and F2004. But if one of the Michelin cars is rated above the Ferrari, it is largely because of the illegal Michelin tires.

Henri

[Mauseri]

Sorry for bumping this rather old thread, but I do have some reasoning to why. I see that lately the best car debate has been hot, with people claiming Vettel didn't deserve this championship, but that's not what I'm here about.

In my opinion people often talk about 2001-2004 as the Ferrari dominant era. While I can agree on 2001, 2002 and 2004; people seriously overestimate the F2003GA.

Link: 2003 Cars Analyzed

Williams had a dominant car on at least two or three race weekends, and a car capable of winning from Round 6 onward on every circuit. Mclaren were not as good or extreme as Williams, but were up there as well. Ferrari struggled on many tracks. Renault too all too often took the challenge to the big 3 teams.

Therefore, when everything is analyzed. I come to a conclusion that Williams had the best car in 2003, and Ferrari and Mclaren were tied for second, with Renault not that far behind. Hence I question, why do people call all of Schumacher’s cars dominant, let alone 1995 or 2000. Likewise, why are people so quick to jump to conclusions that Ferrari and Schumacher had the best machinery in 2003, simply because they are Ferrari and Schumacher?

Ferrari not having dominant car in 2003 does not equal of it not being the best still. Particularly if you consider reliability and other factors as well.

[scheivlak]

I think that the major reason for the difference were the Mi"Cheat"elin tires which were used by Williams, McLaren and Renault. During the Summer when the Ferrari was at its weakest the Michelin teams had the upperhand thanks to those tires. Once the Michelins were legal again Ferrari was up to par with McLaren, Williams and Renault again.
Without those trick tires it may have been another matter. But I do agree with you that the F2003GA definitely wasn't close to the F2002 and F2004. But if one of the Michelin cars is rated above the Ferrari, it is largely because of the illegal Michelin tires.

Henri

Hi Henri,

Did you miss the great interview Pierre Dupasquier gave to Bira in 2004? Part 1: http://atlasf1.autos...ov17/goren.html
He made it pretty clear that (i) the tyres were not illegal, (ii) the FIA accepted that and (iii) Michelin didn't change their tyres at all!

Michelin didn't cheat. And, as you might remember, the FIA only gave a clarification of the rule.

[Rikhart]

I guess you could classify 2012 as one of those, since the championship was mclaren´s to lose (which they promptly did). Rewatching the season, especially those early races were a sad to watch case of team meltdown, especially those pit stops, oh dear. Red bull were better than mclaren, but the mclaren car was better considering the whole season imo.

[AnR]

I guess you could classify 2012 as one of those, since the championship was mclaren´s to lose (which they promptly did). Rewatching the season, especially those early races were a sad to watch case of team meltdown, especially those pit stops, oh dear. Red bull were better than mclaren, but the mclaren car was better considering the whole season imo.

+1 Vettel splitting the McLaren duo in Melbourne looked like a miracle drive, and McLaren was the fastest car but McLaren was not the best team.
I believe they will come back strong in 2013.

[2ms]

I guess you could classify 2012 as one of those, since the championship was mclaren´s to lose (which they promptly did). Rewatching the season, especially those early races were a sad to watch case of team meltdown, especially those pit stops, oh dear. Red bull were better than mclaren, but the mclaren car was better considering the whole season imo.

Good point. Was a bit astonishing. And then I think they thought Hamilton was asking too much of them in negotiations, so got a little cocky thinking they'd call his bluff in switching teams, but of course ended up with Perez, who in my view has every one of Hamilton's weaknesses and no greater strengths :/

[Henri Greuter]

Hi Henri,

Did you miss the great interview Pierre Dupasquier gave to Bira in 2004? Part 1: http://atlasf1.autos...ov17/goren.html
He made it pretty clear that (i) the tyres were not illegal, (ii) the FIA accepted that and (iii) Michelin didn't change their tyres at all!

Michelin didn't cheat. And, as you might remember, the FIA only gave a clarification of the rule.

hey Scheivlak,

To me it was cheating: Being legal before the start and after the race in Parc ferme but then showing signs of having been illegal for a prolongued time during the race is cheating in my book. Incidetally, Ok, but systematically as what happend with those trick tires, that is a different matter. No matter if it is with deformating tires or running underweight like Tyrrell did in 1984.
But feel free to differ in opinion and of course FIA has its own manners of avoiding a scandal by proclaiming somene they needed to run their series.

Henri

[sheepgobba]

Hamilton's championship in 2008 and Alonso's in 2006 springs to mind.

Edited by sheepgobba, 05 January 2013 - 16:51.

[olliek88]

Hamilton's championship in 2008 and Alonso's in 2006 springs to mind.

Renault was the car to have in the first half of the season, Alonso did his usual trick of maximising its chances but i think, overall, the R26 was the best car that year, close with the fezza though.

[Kingshark]

Ferrari not having dominant car in 2003 does not equal of it not being the best still. Particularly if you consider reliability and other factors as well.

Reliability?
Williams was very reliable that year. Only two mechanical failures all season. However, problem is, they both came at the worst possible time - when JPM was leading.

I think that the major reason for the difference were the Mi"Cheat"elin tires which were used by Williams, McLaren and Renault. During the Summer when the Ferrari was at its weakest the Michelin teams had the upperhand thanks to those tires. Once the Michelins were legal again Ferrari was up to par with McLaren, Williams and Renault again.
Without those trick tires it may have been another matter. But I do agree with you that the F2003GA definitely wasn't close to the F2002 and F2004. But if one of the Michelin cars is rated above the Ferrari, it is largely because of the illegal Michelin tires.

Henri

Even when Michelin changed their tyres to the old 2001 spec, Williams were still equal to Ferrari in Monza, faster (in the dry) at Indianapolis, and faster in Suzuka.

I still haven't came across a single reason to believe why the F2003GA Ferrari should be considered the best car that season.

Edited by Kingshark, 05 January 2013 - 18:01.

[Henri Greuter]

Renault was the car to have in the first half of the season, Alonso did his usual trick of maximising its chances but i think, overall, the R26 was the best car that year, close with the fezza though.

2006: Another case of a sudden rule change. Renault was about the only team that had the mass dampers fully working and optimized to the max. Once, halfway the season the mass dampers got forbidden, Renault lost a lot of the performance advantage it had in the early part of the season. The field closed up from then on.
Makes it difficult to me to make up what was the best car of the year. The car with a questionable feature during a part of the season or the other car that was better once the `questionable`feature being removed.


Henri

[np93]

With regards to the best car of 2006, Renault won the Constructors Championship and was voted by Autosport as the 'Racing Car of the Year.' I know that may not be the best barometer of performance to use, but it's something. Incidentally, the MP4-23 was also voted Racing Car of the Year by Autosport in 2008, though in my opinion, the F2008 was slightly better, by virtue of taking more wins, and having a couple stolen from them (Hungary and Canada spring to mind).

[Kingshark]

Regarding 2006;

Bahrain - Ferrari
Malaysia - Renault
Australia - Renault
San Marino - Renault
Europe - Ferrari
Spain - Renault
Monaco - Equal
Britain - Renault
Canada - Renault
America - Ferrari
France - Ferrari
Germany - Ferrari
Hungary - Renault
Turkey - Ferrari
Italy - Ferrari
China - Renault
Japan - Ferrari
Brazil - Ferrari

Very little to split the two at the end IMO.

Edited by Kingshark, 05 January 2013 - 18:09.

[PretentiousBread]

With regards to the best car of 2006, Renault won the Constructors Championship and was voted by Autosport as the 'Racing Car of the Year.' I know that may not be the best barometer of performance to use, but it's something. Incidentally, the MP4-23 was also voted Racing Car of the Year by Autosport in 2008, though in my opinion, the F2008 was slightly better, by virtue of taking more wins, and having a couple stolen from them (Hungary and Canada spring to mind).

I don't see that anyone who actually watched the 2008 season could have concluded that the MP4-23 was better than the F2008, it simply wasn't. Generally it warmed up its tyres better for a single lap and it was better in the wet, but it only had a handful of weekends where it looked decidedly better than the Ferrari (Silverstone, Hockenheim) whereas the Ferrari had a whole heap of weekends where it was definitely stronger (Malaysia, Bahrain, Barcelona, Istanbul, Monaco, Valencia, Singapore, Brazil), and the rest were quite evenly matched over the course of the weekend.

[mattferg]

With regards to the best car of 2006, Renault won the Constructors Championship and was voted by Autosport as the 'Racing Car of the Year.' I know that may not be the best barometer of performance to use, but it's something. Incidentally, the MP4-23 was also voted Racing Car of the Year by Autosport in 2008, though in my opinion, the F2008 was slightly better, by virtue of taking more wins, and having a couple stolen from them (Hungary and Canada spring to mind).

Factor in Hamilton's mistakes and Kovalienen's poor performances aaaand.... Bam, McLaren win the constructors. If Jenson or Mark were Hamilton's team mate that year, they would've won the double.

[np93]

Regarding 2006;

Bahrain - Ferrari
Malaysia - Renault
Australia - Renault
San Marino - Renault
Europe - Ferrari
Spain - Renault
Monaco - Equal
Britain - Renault
Canada - Renault
America - Ferrari
France - Ferrari
Germany - Ferrari
Hungary - Renault
Turkey - Ferrari
Italy - Ferrari
China - Renault
Japan - Ferrari
Brazil - Ferrari

Very little to split the two at the end IMO.

I think a big issue in deciding the best cars between 2001-2006, as has been mentioned before, is the tyre war. For example, it has been said that the advantage enjoyed by Ferrari at Brazil in 2006 was down to the Bridgestones, and the dominance of Williams in summer 2003 was because of the Michelins. Ferrari also utilised the Bridgestones as an excuse for their 2005 performance. Apart from 01,02 and 04 it is difficult to pinpoint the best car. With regards to 08, It must also be said that when the Ferrari was on form, particularly in Felipe Massa's hands, it held a large performance advantage over the MP4/23, his quali laps at Valencia and Singapore were miles ahead, though it must be said, Raikkonen didn't achieve that kind of margin over the competition.

Edited by np93, 05 January 2013 - 18:31.

[np93]

Factor in Hamilton's mistakes and Kovalienen's poor performances aaaand.... Bam, McLaren win the constructors. If Jenson or Mark were Hamilton's team mate that year, they would've won the double.

True, though Kovalainen did suffer a lot of reliability problems, such as Monaco and Spa, and general bad luck (e.g the puncture with Raikkonen at Turkey). Mistakes by Kovalainen at Australia (activating the pit lane speed limiter after passing Alonso) and Silverstone (spinning twice or three times) also cost valuable points, as did his lack of speed when the Mclaren was quicker than the Ferrari (Hockenheim for instance)

[RockyRaccoon68]

With regards to 08, It must also be said that when the Ferrari was on form, particularly in Felipe Massa's hands, it held a large performance advantage over the MP4/23, his quali laps at Valencia and Singapore were miles ahead, though it must be said, Raikkonen didn't achieve that kind of margin over the competition.

I still firmly believe that the F2008 had the potential to be miles ahead of the competition and would have dominated the season in the hands of Vettel, Alonso or Hamilton.

[Mauseri]

I still firmly believe that the F2008 had the potential to be miles ahead of the competition and would have dominated the season in the hands of Vettel, Alonso or Hamilton.

Maybe also if they had supported Kimi in the car development.

[George Costanza]

I still firmly believe that the F2008 had the potential to be miles ahead of the competition and would have dominated the season in the hands of Vettel, Alonso or Hamilton.

Had Michael Schumacher been in the F2007 and F2008, he would have won rather easily.

[Ragingjamaican]

I think the F2008 didn't suit either of their drivers for the full season.

The majority of the season it played into Massa's hands. The Ferrari on a normal day was the quicker car, but that season was a strange one, as we had several wet and cool races where the McLaren excelled in, making up for the deficeit, plus they were equal in many races too.

[SpaMaster]

I think we have to go a long way back to find a driver winning championship that was not close to best. The 2006 and 2008 cars were close enough. It almost happened in 2003. Otherwise we have to go beyond mid 80s.