OMFG dude! you say this as if the Toro Rosso is, and has been the class of the field in Wet weather, that's a pretty outrageous claim!!
It could be, right? I mean it's not like you have anything to prove that it wasn't. That doesn't mean I'm implying that it is though, just so you don't have a heart attack.
lol You claim that Fuji 07, and Monaco 08 are proof that it's a demon in the wet,
I didn't, I said it looked handy. If you actually read what I wrote I doubt you'd be so confused right now.
but then fail to consider the other denominational factor of who was driving it.Why does that matter? You're putting way too much emphasis on the driver than the car, that's the problem wit hyou.
You not only make this outrageous claim that the Toro Rosso is the best car in the wet
Do you hear voices in your head or something?
but go as far as to claim Hamilton's McLaren somehow becomes an HRT in the wet in that race,
Is there a point to this if you keep putting words into my mouth?
and have the balls to lecture me about different conditions, car's characteristics, and yet, claim that an event that happened to ANOTHER DRIVER in ANOTHER TRACK, under DIFFERENT CONDITIONS is proof that your speculation is true!
Which is silly, because I never called it proof. I was suggesting that it
could be used as evidence to prove that the RB/TR chassis was good in the wet. Get it yet?
You presume to lecture me, yet, I bet you've never even set your left cheek in a racing car, by the outrageous things you write. Let me tell you something, I have actually RACED some of the drivers that you DISCUSS in this forum, I know a thing or two about motorsport, so, don't presume to lecture me.
So why is your view so simplistic? There are a huge amount of variables involved in F1, yet you in your own mind have ignored this fact and have come to premature conclusions which you get angry about if they're questioned.
Up until this point, I have been really nice to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt, but, Just the slightest racing knowledge will make you understand that Toro Rosso, in no way is a match for Hamilton's McLaren,
Nice? That's ridiculous. All you've been doing is ignoring facts and accusing me of posting claims which I have not. Your reading comprehension is
appalling.
Racing knowledge is knowing two different F1 cars from the inside out? Don't pretend like you've driven both of them to know, you haven't. And there hasn't been a single driver who has driven the both of them to know for a fact, or do you know any better?
And just so you don't hyperventilate, I do believe the McLaren was quicker than the Toro Rosso in dry conditions at least. But then, like you, I have nothing to
prove it for sure.
not in the 08 Brazilian GP, and that it takes a special kind of talent to do what Vettel had done in that car.
Overly simplistic view on things that are complex. If I should use your logic then Kubica is by far better than the both of them, but then you'll ignore that it seems...
Why unlikely? do you even understand Formula 1? or motorsport in general? you claim you account for car performance difference yet fail to see it the other way around. You talk about that Toro Rosso as if it were the class of the field,
And that's your problem, you're the one going absolutely ape over things I haven't said. Are you going to stop it or what?
and have the gutts to stand by this speculation that you have. I'd like to see you discuss Formula 1 with David Coulthard and have this conversation with him, I think you might send him to the hospital gasping for air from the laughter.
Is there anything wrong with not coming to conclusions early until there is enough evidence available?