If somebody is blind, it's you. You were insisting Kimi had better pace in Singapore. I've provided you lap time chart which clearly shows that it wasn't the case (in fact, you didn't even need this chart to realise this, but you were still insisting otherwise), then you're silent about Singapore and switching on other races. Need I really to analyse every single GP, providing lap times, numbers etc.? I'm not going to, it would take too much from my time.
thats why, you are blind!!
In Silverstone do you noticed the fastest tyre was hard????
Romain didn;t compromised by pitting earlier, instead he benefitted by running more laps on fastest tyre and clean air. Kimi was on worn out slower tyre and stuck on traffic. The team reluctantly pit him earlier unlike what rbr did for Vettel which hurt kimi by running too long on the slow tyre. They nvr thought of undercut the schumacher train. Which is why the gap remain 7 when kimi finally got clean air and pitted with hard compound.
And nope, i disagree with your false claim on kimi clinging 3rd because others underperforming.
And your claim on kimi losing little point is laugable!! 18 point in shanghai, 7 points in bahrain, 3 points in spain, 15 points in canada (differntial failure and brundle strategies), 10 points in monaco (provide kimi undrivable power steering) ...i havent count the points loss due to KERS issues. Allan Mcnish said the other teams question their strategies as it clearly hurt kimi on every race so far.
No way in hell kimi could finished 4th on Suzuka. You claim you read the live timing, i dont think lotus has the pace of mclaren - button. Kimi could hv finished 5th if the team didnt perform a 4 sec pit stop.
In conclusion, you got no facts because you cant reason with stats.
Great Britain, ok you may have the point about hard tyre, but read this:
Since lap 35 Kimi had both hard tyres and clean air. On lap 35 he had 5 seconds advantage over Grosjean. He finished the race with 7 seconds advantage over Grosjean. Grosjean had 8 laps older tyres which was significant disadvantage. But he had lost only 2 seconds on 17 laps compared to Raikkonen. 2 seconds lost on 17 laps despite much more worn tyres. I don't think it counts as a much better pace from Raikkonen.
Grosjean's strategy was compromised, because after early pit stop his strategy was ultimately like one stop strategy, which certainly wasn't the quickest strategy around Silverstone.
Kimi is only 5 points in front of Hamilton in the standings. Are you really trying to say that Hamilton didn't lose more points due to car failures, team mistakes etc. than Kimi?
I've never written where Kimi should've finished on Suzuka, I don't know what are you talking about.
You're also overestimating the amount of points that he has lost. He didn't lose 18 points in China. He was on 2nd place with some laps to go because of early 1st and 2nd pit stop and no 3rd pit stop. That' why his tyres gave up, but it's also that' why he was there on second. Was he on other strategy, he would have been at least 1 position lower at that point. I also don't know why he wasn't able to manage his tyres, Senna made his 2nd stop only one lap later and managed to keep the pace to the end of the race.
Don't know from what you take the amount of points lost in Monaco, Canada, he clearly could've finish lower than you assume. And I don't know what problem do you have with his strategy in Canada, it was basically the same strategy on which Perez has finished on podium...
What's the excuse for Bahrain? They didn't undercut Vettel? Maybe they tried? Both have made their last pit stop quite early. RBR have some clever people onboard, they could well predicted what Lotus was going to do and react. It's like accusing the team that they didn't give him the edge over Vettel. It's not fair way of counting lost points, when Hamilton for example retired from the lead due to mechanical failure...
Spain is arguable, when he was on the same tyres with Maldonado and Alonso didn't really look like a match for them, bar the last stint when he benefitted from fresher tyres and from the fact they were focusing on each other instead of trying to lap as quick as possible.
In conclusion, if I can't reason with stats, then I don't know what should I do. I certainly don't rate judging by impression as a better way than judging by lap times. If you have some points why lap times shouldn't be interpreted in the way which I do, then OK, post it. But take note that I can disagree with your reasoning as I did with Singapore and Silverstone, as you clearly try to interprate everything in favour of Raikkonen. I'm not Kimi's hater and I was over the moon when he has scored the WDC in 2007 so I don't have the reason to rate his driving lower than what can I read from facts, lap times etc. I consider his driving this season not on the level of Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton and you haven't convinced me so far that I should think otherwise.