Intentionally quoting half a sentence to prove your point is really, naive, and a poor debate ploy. Let me repost that for you :
Which it wasn't. Still, as I said I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were 'evenly' matched.
I see you're now resorting to petty tactics to score a point here and there instead of really debating.
From this we can actually conclude that the Ferrari was marginally better, however their qualifying issues in 2 races would mean its reasonable to peg the two teams as equal.
I did not use Massa's performances as proof that Ferrari had the better car. I used both drivers from both teams to illustrate my point.
How is it irrelevant when you attempted to use Massa's performances as 'proof' that Ferrari had the better car? I'm simply pointing out he did a better job.
Since you're so confident about grooves and tyre widths making Massa a super quick driver while while at the same time bringing Giancarlo Fisichella to the level of a mediocre also ran, you surely must have some sort of proof ?
Grooves and tyre widths are not fairytale stories, appalling that someone that posts on an F1 forum would deny the central role driving style, tyre characteristics, etc play in determining form and performance.
I've never denied Ferrari did not enjoy an advantage at certain tracks, that's the very point I was making: that car + tyre form was, like an other F1 season, dependent upon track characteristics as well. Which is why dividing the season into two halves is ridiculous, because as you have now admitted Renault did have an advantage at some races in the second part of the season as well. On balance, the R26 was the better car.
Renault had a tyre advantage at Hungary, negated by the fact that the championship contender Alonso suffered a mechanical failure.
They also had an advantage for about half of the Chinese Grand Prix when the conditions were wet. Which makes it 0.5/9 races in which Renault actually had the clear best car in the second half of the season.
Meanwhile, Ferrari took 7 wins in the second half of the season after their upgrade and Renault's loss of the Mass dampner.
Are you implying that a car that won 7 of the last 9 races was not the best car of the second half of the season ?
Do you have any evidence of this so called consistent pace deficit you keep bringing up ? Or do you just like making stuff up all the time ?
As I said, always easier to be consistent when you have the better, quicker, and more balanced package. Cue Button in 2009. Easier to cruise and collect (hoard, rather) with a car that has an unfair advantage than to push to overcome a pace deficit.
The Mass Dampner issue really requires a thread of its own, no point bringing that up here but the Renault did not have an illegal system, atleast not until it was proved so.
No, 'basically' I dont need to rewatch anything nor am I worried about anything being proved wrong since you really havent proved anything at all. Its a 'revisionist' theory, maybe in the Michael Schumacher thread. But in the real world the Ferrari was at the very least a match for the Renault.
So basically you refuse to rewatch the season or pay attention to the facts and developments as they unfolded, instead choosing to believe in a revisionist theory that you think is true. Probably because you're worried it'd prove you wrong and expose the season for what it really was: a lop sided season for the most part where one car had a big, unfair advantage and no issues, had momentum from the successful 2005 campaign in their favour while their closest challengers had to play catch up from the get-go, not to mention issues with the tyres, track characteristics, regs, ups and downs throughout the season, etc.
Repeating something over and over again doesnt make it true, even on the internet. The only theory thats actually revisionist is calling the Renault as the 'far and away' best package in 2006.
There's no need to 'admit' something that isn't true, but Renault certainly had the better car in 2006. There's plenty of annoying revisionists on the internet, I'm afraid I'll have to class this one into the same category. I've no interest arguing with a revisionist nor am I going to reason with you as you've made your mind up already, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Good luck.
I see you still have no facts at all to back up any of your points. Lets go over them again :
1. Massa > Fisichella in 2006
2. Ferrari was not the clear best car in the second half of the season.
3. Renault had far and away the best package of 2006.
Edited by SparkPlug, 17 October 2011 - 10:10.