489 replies to this topic

[Walsingham]

You are ignorant (of the facts).

Look, I dont want to start war with Nick's fans. I respect Nick and I think he is very good driver, great overtaker and starter. I know very well what is the nature of Nicks qualifying problems and I watched this q session on life timing and TV.

but...

before calling me ignorant ask yourself whether Nick shouldnt be fast enough in his first attempt in q2.

[metz]

Originally posted by Walsingham



Look, I dont want to start war with Nick's fans. I respect Nick and I think he is very good driver, great overtaker and starter. I know very well what is the nature of Nicks qualifying problems and I watched this q session on life timing and TV.

but...

before calling me ignorant ask yourself whether Nick shouldnt be fast enough in his first attempt in q2.

By asking this question you show that you DON'T know the nature of his qualifying problems.

[pullings]

I dont want blame Robert. I dont care of him because he isnt my favour driver but I dont hate him. So Im 100 % neutral to him.

For me Kubica isnt God as some people (most of them are Polish) want to see.
Kubica show nothing in Monaco. He was much slower than Hamilton and slower than Masa on the wet part of race.
Raikonen and Kova have bad luck so he could stand on podium.

Heidfeld destroyed Kubica last year. Both in qual and races. You can say he hasnt luck but for God sake is Kova better than Hamilton ?
Heidfeld can drive very good. He is cosistent like hell and now he has mechanical problem with tyres.
In Monaco he had bad luck. First in qual when he could be close to Kubica or even better with heaver car. In race he was 5 while Kubica go up only one position in this part of race (by bad luck of Kova only). Than Alonso ruined Heidfeld race...

[metz]

Massa had the best car of the day.
He started from pole on a track you can't pass.
He made 2 significant errors during the race.
He lost 2 positions.
Robert on the other hand made no mistakes and capitalized on the conditions.
Excellent drive...

[jimm]

Originally posted by pullings
I dont want blame Robert. I dont care of him because he isnt my favour driver but I dont hate him. So Im 100 % neutral to him.

For me Kubica isnt God as some people (most of them are Polish) want to see.
Kubica show nothing in Monaco. He was much slower than Hamilton and slower than Masa on the wet part of race.
Raikonen and Kova have bad luck so he could stand on podium.

Heidfeld destroyed Kubica last year. Both in qual and races. You can say he hasnt luck but for God sake is Kova better than Hamilton ?
Heidfeld can drive very good. He is cosistent like hell and now he has mechanical problem with tyres.
In Monaco he had bad luck. First in qual when he could be close to Kubica or even better with heaver car. In race he was 5 while Kubica go up only one position in this part of race (by bad luck of Kova only). Than Alonso ruined Heidfeld race...

would not say he was better than anyone but he is certainly very good. In the team he is in, when he has a podium in the bag he is probably told to be conservative unless he knows he has a great shot at a win. Let's put it this way, I bet BMW was happier with distant 2nd then they would have been with him crashing out while challenging for the win....and he "destroyed" his teammate by a gap that appears to increase each race...and I think Heidfeld is a good driver.

[fukkinen]

Originally posted by metz
Robert on the other hand made no mistakes and capitalized on the conditions.
Excellent drive...

I think Robert is the only one who hasn't made a mistake in the 2008 season, so far.

[pullings]

Australia, Bahrain (start, and than he go out track)

[Walsingham]

Australia, Bahrain (start, and than he go out track)

Shall we count all the mistakes of Massa, Raikkonen and Hamilton in this season?

And according to you at least one of them drives like God.

I mean when God hits the wall, drives on wrong side of the track during q3, pushes wrong button and crash into other car two minor off track excursions without any consequences are nothing.

If you consider the fact that God drives faster car and is only 6 points in front of Kubica in WDC standings after 6 races I call it good enough performance. For a mortal men.

[308]

Originally posted by pullings
Kubica show nothing in Monaco.

TROLL

[Clatter]

Originally posted by pullings
I dont want blame Robert. I dont care of him because he isnt my favour driver but I dont hate him. So Im 100 % neutral to him.

For me Kubica isnt God as some people (most of them are Polish) want to see.
Kubica show nothing in Monaco. He was much slower than Hamilton and slower than Masa on the wet part of race.
Raikonen and Kova have bad luck so he could stand on podium.

Heidfeld destroyed Kubica last year. Both in qual and races. You can say he hasnt luck but for God sake is Kova better than Hamilton ?
Heidfeld can drive very good. He is cosistent like hell and now he has mechanical problem with tyres.
In Monaco he had bad luck. First in qual when he could be close to Kubica or even better with heaver car. In race he was 5 while Kubica go up only one position in this part of race (by bad luck of Kova only). Than Alonso ruined Heidfeld race...

And you say your 100% neutral.

Can't wait to see what you write when your biased.

[Atreiu]

Originally posted by metz
Massa had the best car of the day.
He started from pole on a track you can't pass.
He made 2 significant errors during the race.
He lost 2 positions.
Robert on the other hand made no mistakes and capitalized on the conditions.
Excellent drive...

You'll be amazed when you discover how much an off the mark strategy regarding both fuel and tyres can cost a pilot on a race with variable conditions.

Massa's race wasn't perfect, but the calls from the pit did nothing to help his cause.

[Walsingham]

You'll be amazed when you discover how much an off the mark strategy regarding both fuel and tyres can cost a pilot on a race with variable conditions.

Thats what played part in ruining Kubicas race in Australia.

[cardin]

Originally posted by metz


You are ignorant (of the facts).
From shonguiz post.

In particular Heidfeld had a tyre warming problem once again, but that is not the reason why he failed to get into Q3 for the first time in 24 attempts, instead it was because he saw the red flag when Coulthard crashed in the harbour chicane and aborted the run. Team manager Beat Zehnder reported to Charlie Whiting and was told that Button also saw the red flag, even though race control had ordered yellows only. So, for both men, qualifying was finished.

Originally posted by metz
Massa had the best car of the day.
He started from pole on a track you can't pass.
He made 2 significant errors during the race.
He lost 2 positions.
Robert on the other hand made no mistakes and capitalized on the conditions.
Excellent drive...

These two posts together is the best case study of bias I ever seen. The first is a very detailed story, with quotes, names and an obvious care in fact finding. The second is what a half drunk TV viewer would summarize after having slept for most of the race.

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by fukkinen

I think Robert is the only one who hasn't made a mistake in the 2008 season, so far.

i surely remember robert throwing away a pole in australia by going incredibly wide

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by wingwalker
How can Kubica get a lower ranking than Massa? Massa was beaten fair and square.



edit: fixed.

you mean by useless and extra long second pit stop?

[Walsingham]

i surely remember robert throwing away a pole in australia by going incredibly wide

SAying he made no mistake was exeggeration. He made less mistakes than other guys from top 4 and was most consistent of them.

[fukkinen]

Originally posted by MikeTekRacing

i surely remember robert throwing away a pole in australia by going incredibly wide

Ok, it cost him one spot, but had no effect in the race outcome.
Still BMW and Nakajima ruinned his race.

But you know... taht could be good sign.
There is the wall of the champions in Canada, but there is also the backmarker of the champions, that would be the Nakajima's [Naka Sr. ruinned Senna's race in Interlagos].

So let me reduce the statement by saying Robert haven't made a mistake in the races.

[MikeTekRacing]

robert is indeed the driver that made the smallest number of mistakes, this year at least

[Italiano Tifoso]

Peter Saubers view on Lewis's win.

http://en.f1-live.co...602093913.shtml

I think that is a very fair assessment. Lewis was extremely fortunate. Kubica deserved the win more then anyone.

[rodlamas]

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso
Peter Saubers view on Lewis's win.

http://en.f1-live.co...602093913.shtml

I think that is a very fair assessment. Lewis was extremely fortunate. Kubica deserved the win more then anyone.

Luck without ability is useless. Lewis won fair and square. Can't we just move on to Canada?

[archstanton]

>> I think that is a very fair assessment. Lewis was extremely fortunate. Kubica deserved the win more then anyone

kubica was slowest of the five all weekend, was "helped" by safety cars to keep in touch, couldn't pull any gap from massa after gaining a "lucky" first place, was scandalously light/early to pit in comparison with the people he was racing, and took "advantage" of the fact he didn't have a championship to worry about to gamble on tyre strategy.

slow and steady ... if you think the tortoises should be champions, then that's one thing, i prefer risky hares. i think f1 winners should be faster than the rest.


see how easy it is to spin any kind of race to make some sort of "point" ... the question of what is gained by such nonsense, who knows.
sauber sounds like a waste of a paddock pass when he talks like this ... why is he even still hanging about, he sold out years ago to people who have done his job properly. i doubt we'd lose much if this is the regular standard of his insider's analysis.

[fukkinen]

Originally posted by archstanton
kubica was slowest of the five all weekend, was "helped" by safety cars to keep in touch,

Maybe Kubica was the slowest of the five bcs he had the worst car among them all, or car quality doesn't have an effect in performance for you?

Originally posted by archstanton
couldn't pull any gap from massa after gaining a "lucky" first place,...

It wasn't 'lucky'. Kubica had a competitive pace enough to conquer a position in case the leader had a brain fade.

[Arion]

Originally posted by Italiano Tifoso
Peter Saubers view on Lewis's win.

Lewis was extremely fortunate. Kubica deserved the win more then anyone.

yeah...he'd say that, wouldn't he

[jimm]

If we took "luck" away from everyone then the WDC tables for the last 50 yrs would look very different. Luck is just opportunity, you have to be able to take advantage and that is what Lewis did.

[Gemini]

Originally posted by archstanton
>> I think that is a very fair assessment. Lewis was extremely fortunate. Kubica deserved the win more then anyone

kubica was slowest of the five all weekend, was "helped" by safety cars to keep in touch, couldn't pull any gap from massa after gaining a "lucky" first place, was scandalously light/early to pit in comparison with the people he was racing, and took "advantage" of the fact he didn't have a championship to worry about to gamble on tyre strategy.

slow and steady ... if you think the tortoises should be champions, then that's one thing, i prefer risky hares. i think f1 winners should be faster than the rest.


see how easy it is to spin any kind of race to make some sort of "point" ... the question of what is gained by such nonsense, who knows.
sauber sounds like a waste of a paddock pass when he talks like this ... why is he even still hanging about, he sold out years ago to people who have done his job properly. i doubt we'd lose much if this is the regular standard of his insider's analysis.

What a disrespectful piece of crap your writing is for both Kubica and Peter Sauber...

[Clatter]

Originally posted by fukkinen

Ok, it cost him one spot, but had no effect in the race outcome.

If it cost him a place, how is that not affecting his race outcome?

[MikeTekRacing]

Originally posted by Clatter


If it cost him a place, how is that not affecting his race outcome?

he was taken out later, so it didn't affect him

[archstanton]

Originally posted by Gemini




What a disrespectful piece of crap your writing is for both Kubica and Peter Sauber...

if you do want to talk about disrepectful, well let's do it ..... i suggest you start with the quotes from sauber in the original link. not sure the last time i saw a team principal try to so comprehensively and specifically piss-on the accomplishments of one of their rivals. it was an unsuitable, unworthy, tendentious piece of rubbish. (you'll probably need to look up tendentious)

what's all this luck garbage anyway? any and all drivers that somehow contrive to finish a wet-monaco grand prix are "lucky", so the basic premise of his attempted hatchet job is redundant. it's bad enough we've got to put up with superstition from the winners, we don't need anymore from the losers.

he should instead be concentrating on making the car fast enough so that it too is able to take advantage of any "luck" that comes its way.
he should be talking about why his cars are falling behind in development, are complicated to setup, in the hands of one of their drivers are not fit for purpose, how fuel adjusted this was one of their worst outings of the year, that they are going backwards, how in a wildcard track in complicated and dynamic race circumstance, where rivals are concerned about championships, they were unable to take any decisive advantage
.... yeah, given all that, i can see why he concentrated on rubbishing the efforts of others.
again, exactly what is his postion in that team, apart from taking up space in a crowded garage, apart from a marginal contractual obligation to have his name above the garage, what does he actually contribute to bmw efforts. i don't recall theissen being as classless as this in his responses, a lesson there perhaps?



as for fukkinens weird point? kubica was the slowest as he was in the slowest car ... so somehow, in the opinion of some posters here, this means he clearly deserved to win?
what kind of post-modern craziness is this. i'm old fashioned, i think the guys that do the fastest laptimes, and finish the agreed-upon race distance sooner than anyone else is the guy that "deserves" to win.
it's a system that has worked perfectly adequately up till now ... slower drivers in slower cars don't deserve to win races over faster drivers in faster cars .... it's a straightforward enough way of running things. eh?

[juary]

There are some news about the weather?

In weather.com it seems that there will be another wet race.....

[juary]

Originally posted by juary
There are some news about the weather?

In weather.com it seems that there will be another wet race.....

I'm sorry....it's the wrong forum...i was talking about Montreal...

[Walsingham]

First of all Sauber is not team principal of any team anymore. He has some shares in BMW Sauber F1 team but he has no official role in the team. You seem to know that so why all the bull?

Second of all if you read the article you shouldnt ask what it is about.

3. BMW is now 1 point behind McLaren, there are 12 races left, last race is in Brazil, so it remains to be seen yet who is falling with the development. Last year team did very well without Ferrari dossier, lack of which seem to hurt McLaren a lot. Again Peter Sauber wont be concentrating on making his cars faster because these are not his cars and not his role.

4. If you want to find some classles team principal go to McLaren team and read some ronspeak about racing against his own drivers or about some other drivers noses and so on.

[juary]

From f1-live.com

"Whether he was punted out of the race by Kimi Raikkonen or not, Adrian Sutil would not have banked five points at the recent Monaco Grand Prix.

It has emerged that, although the young German was merely reprimanded by stewards for earlier overtaking under yellow flags in the Monte Carlo race, the FIA representatives would have taken different action had the Force India driver actually reached the chequered flag.

Sutil was in tears after the Raikkonen crash, and his team bosses claimed that the reigning world champion's driving error cost Force India several million dollars for the lost points.

But according to the Swiss newspaper Blick, Sutil would have been demoted out of the points even if he had finished.


Steward Paul Gutjahr confirmed: "We would have had to give him a 25-second penalty, because he overtook three cars under yellow flags after the Alonso-Heidfeld collision at the hairpin."

A 25-second penalty would have dropped Sutil from fourth to at least 10th place".

[Gemini]

Originally posted by archstanton




how in a wildcard track in complicated and dynamic race circumstance, where rivals are concerned about championships, they were unable to take any decisive advantage




kubica was the slowest as he was in the slowest car ...

I just quote 3 statements from your latest post:

1/ you state BMW were unable to take advantage

2/ you state kubica had slowest car in top 5


So if Kubica had slowest car in top 5 and finished 2nd, how you can say BMW team is, your words, "unable to take any decisive advantage" Your logic is beyond my comprehension.

[archstanton]

Originally posted by Gemini

I just quote 3 statements from your latest post:

1/ ...

2/ ...

that pretty much sums you up as far as this debate is concerned, you keep coming up short.


why didn't sauber instead say that kubica was "lucky" that the driver in front, that he showed no possibilty of passing, had a wheel nut cross thread on the starting grid, the drive-through penalty being the only reason he was able to gain that place; that kubica was "lucky" another driver had a software/electrical problem and had to start from the pits, that he was "lucky" that another driver went off track, a driver he was only close enough to take advantage because of a "lucky" safety car period (which also helped to vaguely mask the poverty of the bmw's qualifying fuel load).

... that kubica was "lucky" that ferrari rain radar insisted on staying out a few more laps for tyres ... and with a proper championship to fight for, could not be lightly disregarded.
(the only positive that massa can take from sunday, was that no matter how badly he was being caned by a fuel-heavy hamilton for a critical number of laps, it was nothing compared to how slow kubica was in comparison to both of them).


i like bmw, and i especially like kubica, but this kind of disengenuous nonsense is aggravating. everyone enjoys seeing them jockey for position, but it is also acknowledged that they are in a special position with regards to championship aspiration and risk/reward ... that they could not take better genuine advantage of unusual circumstance last sunday for a "lucky" win is significant.
on current form, that is the only chance of a bmw-sauber victory, it will require a large quantity of "bad-luck" to simultaneously afflict all four of the faster rivals ... if such a circumstance does arrive, let's see if peter sauber is equally honest about "luck"


forget "lucky" ...
losers complaining about winners being lucky adds precisely nothing to the analysis.
that kind of analysis is irrelevant and pointless ... a bit like the man himself it seems.

[Walsingham]

What Sauber say in the article are facts. It is fact that Lewis hit the wall, it is fact that it was his own unforced mistake, it is fact that he did at the end of lap, it is fact that it was in best moment to change the strategy, it is fact that hits like thi very often end with damaged suspension, it is fact that SC help him to erase the loss and so on. It is the statistical fact that driver who made such a critical mistake very rarely is able to win the race after that. You can use the word you like to describe it but the fact is that circumstances beyond Hamilton's and McLaren's control played big role in helping him in recovering from situation in which he found himself because of his own mistake. Off course he drove great after that but so did Sutil.

All your list of Kubica's and BMW "lucks" is just a empty spin to prove your point, and you seem not to notice that half of those "lucks" heleped also Hamilton. If McLaren cant prepare Kovalainen car properly and BMW can prepare Kubica's car properly it is not lack it is better preparation. If Ferrari cant put the wheels on their car on time and BMW can it is not luck, it is better performance. If BMW has better weather forecast than Ferrari it is not luck, when BMW has faster and flawless pit stop it is not luck, If Massa cant stay on track while Kubica can it is not luck. All those things are human errors these are not events you cant control like SC periods. Using your definition of luck one could prove all the Schumacher tites were just matter of luck.

[wingwalker]

If Kubica was so slow how come he was trading Fastest laps with Massa at one point and the race and had no problems with keeping up with him? I have a feeling like I watched a different race.

Sorry for bringing facts to this, I see it's unpopular.



BTW: I hope FIA will notify the teams that Sutil was not to keep his points anyway. It's damn obvious that drivers should focus on what lies ahead of them when they see yellows, not on defending their positions, so they should now they can let someone pass if safety requires that, but they will get their place back.

[archstanton]

Originally posted by Walsingham
... Using your definition of luck one could prove all the Schumacher tites were just matter of luck.

you are not really very good at this are you ... that is exactly my point.
(you are sorta supposed to try and offer a contradictory position, not validate my argument).

it is not my definition of luck you are talking about, it is peter sauber's ...
selectively spinning a subset of events from a race as being luck, and ignoring an equally valid family of other events because it is inconvenient, is a pointless and ridiculous exercise that apart from noise, contributes nothing.

so why do it?

yeah, so we are all agreed it seems, with nothing better to offer, sauber should have kept his mouth shut.




facts, the blue line's angle of gradient is a fact:




BTW: passing cars under yellow is bad, unless all the cars in question have stopped on the track in front of you.
if a car hits something, pulls of to the side of the track and stops, are you saying everyone else behind should slam on the anchors and wait behind it to see if restarts ... how long are they all expected to wait?

that report is garbage or is inconsistent (fia stewards inconsistent, big surprise), bruno senna did the same sort of thing in the gp2 race, and kept his result

[Walsingham]

that is exactly my point.

What? That Schumacher won 7 championships because he benefited from factors that were beyond his and his team control and influence?

it is not my definition of luck you are talking about, it is peter sauber's ...

No. You say that it is luck when driver or team dont make mistake. Peter Sauber says it is luck when you hit the wall without negative consequences.

selectively spinning a subset of events from a race as being luck, and ignoring an equally valid family of other events because it is inconvenient, is a pointless and ridiculous exercise that apart from noise, contributes nothing.

If word "luck" somehow hurts you, you can parphrase it to some more politically correct phrase like "rare chain of low probablity events that one benfits from".

Chart is very nice but it adds nothing to the discussion. This discussion is not about who set fast laps and when. It is about whether certain driver escaped negative consequences of his mistake while others didnt and whether stating that fact is correct or should be considered "sore losing".

[fukkinen]

About the weather forecast, Ferrari trusts in FIA, all other teams don't.
What's new on that?

[OO7]

In my opinion, was Lewis lucky in Monaco? Yes. Was Lewis lucky to win in Monaco? No. Both Kubica and Massa had the possibility to win with their respective strategies, by maximising their first stints. Whatever happened in the second stint wasn't as important, as the first stint would give track position for the second stint.

Kubica had more than 27 - 28 laps less fuel than Lewis, Massa more than 21 laps less. The safety car came in at the end of lap 9 and as the cars crossed the S/F line to commence lap 10 Lewis was 0.645 secs behind Kubica. On lap 13 the gap was 5.996 and on lap 15 it was 9.692. In only 5 laps the gap to Hamilton was already almost 10 seconds. Kubica pitted at the end of lap 26 and he was 16.739 secs ahead of Hamilton at the end of lap 25. During the 10 laps after lap 15, Kubica only managed to gain 7.047 seconds on Hamilton, this works out as 0.7 seconds a lap. This is quite vaild also because Kubica took the lead practically at the start of lap 16. So with more than 27 - 28 laps less fuel than Hamilton, Kubica could only manage 1 second a lap average from lap 10 to 25 and 0.7 seconds average from lap 15 to 25. There is a similar theme with regard to Massa.

Originally posted by Walsingham
it is fact that hits like thi very often end with damaged suspension

The reason Hamilton didn't break his suspension was because:
a) he didn't hit the barrier hard enough
b) he didn't hit the barrier at the correct angle
c) a combination of a) and b)

Lewis and the MP4-23 cannot defy the laws of physics. In 07 Lewis mentioned hitting the barriers at Monaco several times and he suffered little or no suspension damage. Does that mean I can flip the argument and say Lewis was unlucky to puncture his tyre via barrier in 08? Onboard footage shows Hekki hitting the barrier entering the chicane after the tunnel, he suffered little or no suspension damage, why, because he didn't hit it hard enough. Alonso got away with what looked like a harder hit that Hamilton. There were probably others who hit the barriers but not hard enough to sustain damage.
With Kubica you could argue he wasn't pushing as hard as others so he was much less likely the hit the barriers. Given that Monaco in such conditions can be a lottery taking it easy is a canny strategy.

Originally posted by wingwalker
If Kubica was so slow how come he was trading Fastest laps with Massa at one point and the race and had no problems with keeping up with him? I have a feeling like I watched a different race.

Kubica in his first stint managed to close the gap to Massa when he was chasing. When the reverse was true as Kubica took the lead at the start of lap 16, Massa closed the gap from 2.5 secs to 1.9, it had even been as low as 1.5 secs. Both Kubica and Massa had similar pace but Massa was 7 -8 laps heavier than Kubica.

Regarding Kubica's tyre problems he said: "I mean we started the race by fighting too low pressures and I was struggling a lot with the first three or four laps." This made no difference because he was initially behind Kimi.

Kubica also stated: "In the second stint I got a lot of graining on the rear tyres and Felipe just came out after his one pit-stop in front of me and he was much heavier although he was pulling away and then the graining on the rear tyres got better and I was lapping two to three seconds quicker than him, but couldn't overtake him."

Because Kubica came out behind Massa the graining made no difference as he would have been stuck behind Massa either way. Assuming Kubica didn't suffer from graining and Massa was not infront of him he would still have had to stop again and Lewis was over 8 seconds ahead.

Thanks
Obi