Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 86
  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    I wonder if any of you have seen the Mercedes Twitter podcasts after the Australian GP. They answer questions put to the team after the race and explain the reasons for why certain things happen during the race. They are the only team having a go at being very transparent with their fans at the moment. Initially, l thought it was brilliant but then later, l thought it took away from the speculative conversations that take place in forums about events during the race. While it appears great, l think it may hamper the dialogues of forum communities. If you are going to spoon fed the info, why bother chatting about it.

    I think Mercedes should not be too sensitive to the potential for forum threads to woefully get things wrong. That is the point of forums. Speculative to the point of conspiracy theories. But great fun to have the banter even when some are annoying and others are plain rude. But generally, a very respectful and and easy going racing communities. Hence, l think the podcast is an overkill. Let the people get it right or wrong, c'est la vie.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 26th March 2019 at 23:36.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  2. Likes: truefan72 (25th March 2019)
  3. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    But you were quick to defend Lewis yet trash Ricciardo. Surely a driver doing damage to the floor is driver error, just the same way as Daniel trashing the wing was his fault? Doesn't Lewis get paid enough to not smash into curbs and trash the car? Similar to DNF's you either take driver error as a factor or you don't. Though you claim to be seemingly trolling Journeyman Racer, it seems you have your own set of rules as well.
    We don’t know for certain what caused the damage to Lewis floor. But yes, I’m quite happy to put that down as a black mark against Lewis as, unless the kerb was loose, then it would be his fault for running wide to begin. I was viewing onboard with him the first ten laps and don’t remember seeing him go off but I may have missed it as wasn’t watching his onboard 100% of the time.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 25th March 2019 at 19:13.

  4. Likes: truefan72 (25th March 2019)
  5. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by truefan72 View Post
    And Remember, for the first half of the year, Ricciardo had Verstappen's Number and was ahead in the points. The Qualy stat is less meaningful to me than the race performances. And tbh on most race days in 2019 it was sorta evident that RBR had an unbalanced playing field. Verstappen may have better potential but as of right now I think Ricciardo is the better driver, given equal machinery etc. In 2019 that was absolutely not the case for Riccardo and he suffered because of that in the 2nd half of the season (coincidentally, after he announced his move from RBR to renault). Black Knight, you and I are pretty much on the same page in most cases, but I'll disagree with you on this one.

    Look at the points up until Hungary before the summer break:
    Ricciardo 118 with 2 wins - 4 ret.
    Verstappen 105 with 1 win - 3 ret.

    After the summer break (and after his august 3rd announcement)
    Ricciardo immediately has 2 back to back retirements then another pair of back to backs in USA and Mexico
    This resulted in a total of 8 retirements for the 2018 campaign, along with shaite strategies for him in the 2nd half of the year as the team really didn't care about him.
    You’re not really getting my point. The point is you can either take reliability into account or you can set it aside. If you’re taking it onboard, all of what you say is valid just as it’s valid to state that reliability decided the 2016 title. Otherwise, you must ignore the DNF’s and just look at the points conveniently ignoring the reasons behind it to reach the conclusions you want.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 25th March 2019 at 19:11.

  6. #74
    Senior Member truefan72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    5,943
    Like
    1,228
    Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    You’re not really getting my point. The point is you can either take reliability into account or you can set it aside. If you’re taking it onboard, all of what you say is valid. Otherwise, you must ignore the DNF’s and just look at the points conveniently ignoring the reasons behind it to reach the conclusions you want.
    Maybe we are 2 ships sailing past each other in the fog. I hear you and from my perspective, I take the reliability and other mitigating factors into account.
    It's funny how a certain unnamed member will defend Ricciardo's performance in 2018 and summarily dismiss the same points and reasons (most importantly reliability) for Hamilton in 2016.
    lol. Anyways, we are all good now that I get where you are coming from. cheers
    Last edited by truefan72; 25th March 2019 at 19:17.
    you can't argue with results.

  7. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by truefan72 View Post
    Maybe we are 2 ships sailing past each other in the fog. I hear you and from my perspective, I take the reliability and other mitigating factors into account.
    It's funny how a certain unnamed member will defend Ricciardo's performance in 2018 and summarily dismiss the same points and reasons (most importantly reliability) for Hamilton in 2016.
    lol. Anyways, we are all good now that get where you are coming from. cheers
    Bingo

  8. Likes: truefan72 (25th March 2019)
  9. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    To the right of the left
    Posts
    3,746
    Like
    3
    Liked 141 Times in 111 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by truefan72 View Post
    After the summer break (and after his august 3rd announcement)
    Ricciardo immediately has 2 back to back retirements then another pair of back to backs in USA and Mexico
    This resulted in a total of 8 retirements for the 2018 campaign, along with shaite strategies for him in the 2nd half of the year as the team really didn't care about him.
    I don't think it's quite accurate to say the team didn't care about him. After all there was a whole lot of money in play based on constructor's points. To say he was relegated to definite number two status is more on point.
    "Old roats am jake mit goats."
    -- Smokey Stover

  10. Likes: truefan72 (27th March 2019)
  11. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    To the right of the left
    Posts
    3,746
    Like
    3
    Liked 141 Times in 111 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    I wonder if any of you have seen the Mercedes Twitter podcasts after the Australian GP. They answer questions put to the team after the race and explain the reasons for why certain things happen during the race. They the only team having a go at being very transparent with their fans at the moment. Initially,. l thought it was brilliant but then later, l thought it took away from the speculative conversations that take place in forums about events during the race. While it appears great, l think it may hamper the dialogues od forum communities. If you are going to spoon fed the info, why bother chatting about it.

    I think Mercedes should not be too sensitive to the potential for forum threads to woefully get things wrong. That is the point of forums. Speculative to the point of conspiracy theories. But great fun to have the banter even when some are annoying and others are plain rude. But generally, a very respectful and and easy going racing communities. Hence, l think the podcast is an overkill. Let the people get it right or wrong, c'est la vie.
    Perhaps it's because I live on the west side of the Atlantic that I don't believe anything any person or organization puts out on the internet without seeing independent corroboration from other sources.
    "Old roats am jake mit goats."
    -- Smokey Stover

  12. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Starter View Post
    I don't think it's quite accurate to say the team didn't care about him. After all there was a whole lot of money in play based on constructor's points. To say he was relegated to definite number two status is more on point.
    Can you provide an example to support this claim?
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 25th March 2019 at 20:31.

  13. #79
    Senior Member journeyman racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,077
    Like
    256
    Liked 146 Times in 113 Posts
    Ok, you've twisted my arm. Taking into mechanical failures, Nico Rosberg wins the 2016 Monaco GP. If he didn't have a faulty car, MB wouldn't have applied team orders to benefit Hamilton. As Ricciardo proved last year, you can have a significantly faulty and still defend your position for a large portion of the race.

    To say that Ricciardo was hammered by Verstappen is to say that Ricciardo has been diminished. But he's not diminished, and is still recognised as a top tier driver.

    Feel free to analyse all of Ricciardo's dnf and speculate where he would/could've finished had they not occurred. I'll be interested to read it.

  14. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Like
    173
    Liked 308 Times in 206 Posts
    No way Ricciardo has diminished. .
    95%+ of it is all about the car so going to Renault won't do his reputation any favours. 45 million dollars is also a bit much (I'd rather spend that money on Neweys services..) but If I was a boss in a top team I'd seriously consider him. Put it this way.. I'd choose him before Vettel.

    I think Starter was bang on the money in saying Danny was relegated to No2 status at RB. Despite any concrete evidence/admissions its pretty clear to most people thats what happened

  15. Likes: truefan72 (27th March 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •