To catching up and to make an overtake are two different things. Just read through your own comment: you said Kimi's pass was formality in Germany with his fresher and softer tyre, while in Korea Grosjean was not able to pass in similar situation. But there's a real difference in the 2 cases: in one case there was a team order applied (no real racing) and in the other case it was not (real racing).
Of course that catching up and overtaking are two different matters,but only real difference is that in Germany Raikkonen caught up to Grosjean in 2 laps,while in Korea Grosjean wasn't catching up at all as long as Raikkonen's tyres were in reasonable shape(even though Grosjean was on fresher tyres).
Faster laps: they are not alone on the track and Kimi put himself to those positions behind slower cars with bad qualies. Some flashing lap times in free air doesn't mean anything for race distance. Without lot's of luck (and Gro's engine failure) Kimi would have finished far away behind Gro in Singapore, Korea and Japan (in Japan it happened, he finished ~37s behind). Who is the quicker? Who drops some quick laps or who finishes the race distance in a shorter time frame? I would vote for the second one. Spa: don't care what Permane said about strategy: just check out how the 2 stoppers performed on that race. They were coming up in the order, while Gro was falling back with his 1 stop strategy. We don't know Kimi's strategy, so we don't know what was happening.
If you haven't noticed,my previous post was about race pace,which is not directly affected by bad qualifying(only Raikkonen's bad qualifying that was fault of his own was Japan),in other words,bad qualifying will affect final result,but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily indication of slower race pace,only time when it is possible to compare drivers' race pace is when drivers aren't close trailing other cars,and others circumstances are similar(tyres,fuel),finishing ahead doesn't have to mean that that driver was genuinly quicker in the race since the final result is strongly influenced by starting position,i.e., qualifying.Talking about driver being lucky is absurd when he had 4 troublesome races in a row,neither of these because of his own fault.
Regardin Belgium GP,it's you who started to talk about strategy,if you don't like what Permane is saying,your problem,only what matters is that Raikkonen overtook Grosjean on track,in similar conditions,even without DRS,fair and square(whatever strategy was,it didn't make difference at that point),what indicates much better race pace.
Monza: so you don't know which tyre was the better for the race. Then the team randomly bolted the medium ones 2 times on Kimi's car, right? Last year in Bahrain how was Kimi able to grab P2 from P11? Answer: with fresh tyre.
You said that Raikkonen's (medium) tyres were "better race tyres" as it was better race tyre for everybody,and that's the reason why Raikkonen looked quicker,but you can not know which tyre was better for different cars,since most of the cars were obliged to use hards for bigger part of the race,obviously mediums suited Raikkonen better,but among 4 cars that went for 2 pit stop race,2 of them prefered mediums and 2 prefered hards,and as I've already written in previous post,only advantage Raikkonen had was having fresh mediums while others were on used mediums,for one stint,and much of that advantage was lost because bigger part of that stint Raikkonen spent in traffic.
Points collected in the first 8 races: 98 vs 26
Points collected in the last 7 races: 79 vs 61
These numbers clearly indicate the trends. In the second half of the year they are close to each other in the points and also in the performances (I agree Kimi still has the edge, no question about this) and that was my only point while you are trying to state the opposite which is simply not true.
Relying on points to prove something that only regards drivers doesn't make sense if you ignore context,call it trend or whatever,unless everything is considered,it's futile.
