Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Would it be fair to say all the top drivers except Verstapenn, under-performed at this race. Hamilton had a bad start, Vettel got overtaken by Verstapenn, Ricciado stuffed it on the first lap. The rookies were luke warm l felt. Though, Norris impressed but fell out of the top ten, Russell quietly out-qualified and finished ahead of his more experienced teammate. Gasly was poor at this race by his Torro Rosso standards even. Albon and Giovinazzi finished outside the points while their more experienced teammates were in the top ten positions.

    I think Gasly in particular need to up his game or Redbull may well think he is not ready and put Kyvat in his seat.
    Think you’re being a bit harsh on Gasly there. RBR messed up his qualifying so he was always on the backfoot from the start. And RBR have admitted it was their error as they underestimated track evolution. Ricciardo, for me, was the real embarrassment. He is being paid $49 million dollars a year and, for that kind of money, you don’t want to self inflict a wing loss on yourself before the first corner of the first race of the season and your new team, especially since you’ve never been a title contender and only won 7 races in an 8 year career. He has a lot to prove after the hammering he received from his teammate last year and, really, you have to question Renault’s sanity paying out that kinda money for him.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,437
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    Think you’re being a bit harsh on Gasly there. RBR messed up his qualifying so he was always on the backfoot from the start. And RBR have admitted it was their error as they underestimated track evolution. Ricciardo, for me, was the real embarrassment. He is being paid $49 million dollars a year and, for that kind of money, you don’t want to self inflict a wing loss on yourself before the first corner of the first race of the season and your new team, especially since you’ve never been a title contender and only won 7 races in an 8 year career. He has a lot to prove after the hammering he received from his teammate last year and, really, you have to question Renault’s sanity paying out that kinda money for him.
    I hear your point and have taken that into consideration. I think the team made up for that by operating a strategy that put him ahead of Kyvat. He came out of the pits ahead of Kyvat but was not aggressive enough to hang on to the position advantage. He spent the rest of the race behind Kyvat which was what was poor about his race. That said, l think he would bounce back and show his real pace and racecraft. But that event did not go unnoticed and he has to do better next time l think.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  3. #63
    Senior Member journeyman racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,077
    Like
    256
    Liked 146 Times in 113 Posts
    lol Ricciardo has never been a title contender. Sure, but he hasn't had the advantage of being in title contending cars at any stage in his career. He's up there with Hamilton as the best performed driver since the hybrid turbos have been introduce. He's has had seasons where he's driven better than Hamilton, it's just that Hamilton has had a better car. Most notably in 14 & 16, and possibly 17&18 as well. Some great wins last year hampered by chronic unreliability (not 1 or 2), and the only RB to set PP last year.

    The initial broken wing was obviously due to his error. But after that I think he should be acknowledged for showing an awareness and skill to avoid a calamity in the first corner. No front wing, cold tyres, and the dirty side of the track. Yet he didn't cause a first corner crash. That cannot be underestimated.

    edit: Also, the hammering he copped from his team mate was solely due to reliability. In races they both finished, Ricciardo outscored Verstappen.
    Last edited by journeyman racer; 23rd March 2019 at 23:59.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Verstappen out qualified Ricciardo 15-5. And he had more points than him at the end of the season. That’s a hammering.

    And if you’re not willing to take reliability into account for the reasons behind the destination of the 2016 WDC with Hamilton and Rosberg, where Hamilton had worse reliability, then you can’t cite reliability as a reason for Ricciardo not beating Verstappen simply because it suits you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    I hear your point and have taken that into consideration. I think the team made up for that by operating a strategy that put him ahead of Kyvat. He came out of the pits ahead of Kyvat but was not aggressive enough to hang on to the position advantage. He spent the rest of the race behind Kyvat which was what was poor about his race. That said, l think he would bounce back and show his real pace and racecraft. But that event did not go unnoticed and he has to do better next time l think.
    Still only his first race of the season. Yes, he’ll have to do better. But both cars have same engine and are relatively sinilar by design. Again, wouldn’t be too harsh on him. Taking these factors into account he hadn’t the sort of advantage Max had on Sebastien when he passed him. The rule changes may have aided following a car buy not enough to be very harsh on Gasly imo.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 25th March 2019 at 08:25.

  5. #65
    Senior Member journeyman racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,077
    Like
    256
    Liked 146 Times in 113 Posts
    Hmm, yes. It's a peculiar type of fan who can compare Hamilton's single mechanical dnf in 2016 (In a race where Rosberg was unfairly impeded on being poleaxed by Vettel, and in a year only Hamilton benefitted from team orders) to the SEVEN mechanical failures Ricciardo copped compared to Verstappen's two.

    In Ricciardo had one or two extra mechanical failure and the points margin were still the same, then you could make a point. But as you've demonstrated many time over the years, you have no clue. It's embarrassing, and I'm embarrassed for Lewis Hamilton that a person bereft of motorsport knowledge is attracted to him.

    Because you have the limited abilty to put performances in context. I'll show you how an intelligent, knowledgeable motorsport fan summarises the performance and results of the RB drivers in 2018.

    Max Verstappen drove mostly well for 2018. He wasn't perfect, but it was his first season where he added a certain consistency to the flair that excites some fans. 4th place with 2 wins was a good effort, and it's something to build on for the future.

    Daniel Ricciardo drove well in 2018. He had so many mechanical and non-driver error dnf compared to his rivals above him (8 for him, 10 for the 5 rivals above him), that it clouds the judgment of his output of results.

    While he was denied the glory from getting the glory result. There's nothing in his performances otherwise that demonstrate a diminished ability or worthy of being derided. In races they both finished, he outscored Verstappen 158-142. Even though he fell behind in the head to head qualifying 15-5, he was the only one to demonstrate key optimal pace by being the only RB driver to score a PP, and it was 2 PP he scored. 2018 is stop gap year in his career.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    You either take the DNF’s into account or you don’t. There’s no in between. The points difference between Hamilton and Rosberg was 5 in the end and Hamilton lost much more than that to Rosberg over the seasons course due to reliability. If you want to be inconsistent in your position, pluck an arbitrary number out of your head, like 1 or 2 for DNF’s not mattering as you just did just because, once again, it suits your narrative, you just come across biased.

    So, the DNF’s can either be taken into account evenly across the board or they can be ignored completely, not just taken onboard as and when it suits your narrative.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 25th March 2019 at 14:19.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,114
    Like
    628
    Liked 660 Times in 460 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    You either take the DNF’s into account or you don’t. There’s no in between. The points difference between Hamilton and Rosberg was 5 in the end and Hamilton lost much more than that to Rosberg over the seasons course. If you want to be inconsistent in your position, pluck an arbitrary number out of your head, like 1 or 2 for DNF’s not mattering as you just said just because, once again, it suits your narrative, you just come across inconsistent and biased.

    So, the DNF’s can either be taken into account evenly across the board or they can be ignored completely, not just taken onboard as and when it suits your narrative.
    Any sane person would always take (non driver related) DNFs into account when viewing driver performance. And for that reason, it's rather ridiculous to state that Riccardo took a hammering. His car broke a lot, and he couldn't overcome the points delta with such an unreliable car. It's really that simple. Kimi had the same fate in the Ferrari, but if you account for the car problems was about at an equal average points per race to Seb. So based on your own twisting of the stats from your statement, maybe Lewis should have retired in 2017. After all, he received a hammering from Nico in 2016.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,857
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    Any sane person would always take (non driver related) DNFs into account when viewing driver performance. And for that reason, it's rather ridiculous to state that Riccardo took a hammering. His car broke a lot, and he couldn't overcome the points delta with such an unreliable car. It's really that simple. Kimi had the same fate in the Ferrari, but if you account for the car problems was about at an equal average points per race to Seb. So based on your own twisting of the stats from your statement, maybe Lewis should have retired in 2017. After all, he received a hammering from Nico in 2016.
    Agreed and that’s my point. You have to take them into account but you then can’t pick and choose when you take them into account. So if you take them into account with Ricciardo, it follows you must take them into account for Lewis and Rosberg. Journeyman doesn’t do that, simply plucks some arbitrary number of retirements that don’t matter off the top of his head (whatever suits him) and carries on.

    The point is, if you want to evaluate using this approach you must apply it to all evaluations consistently, especially for teammates.

    So if it should be taken into account for Ricciardo last year, it also follows that it should be taken into account when evaluating why the 2016 drivers title ended up where it did and that would be a consistent evaluation.


    Since Journeyman is desparate for my attention the last year and a half, all I did here was take the logic he took towards Hamilton and Rosberg and applied it to Ricciardo and Verstappen knowing wholly that he would rush to Ricciardo’s defence using reliability as an excuse. I gave the poor fella the tidbit he has been vying for, just for my own temporary entertainment. As he’s super predictable he took the bait. Angry people are the easiest to manipulate, you see.

    So he can either apply his approach consistently, in which case, if he takes reliability into the equation, he must concede it also played a part in the 2016 title, otherwise he must concede that it played no part in which case it cannot be used for evaluating Verstappen and Ricciardo last year either.

    I’m happy with either approach. I’ve had my bit of fun with him either way.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 26th March 2019 at 08:31.

  9. Likes: truefan72 (25th March 2019)
  10. #69
    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 airshifter View Post
    Any sane person would always take (non driver related) DNFs into account when viewing driver performance. And for that reason, it's rather ridiculous to state that Riccardo took a hammering. His car broke a lot, and he couldn't overcome the points delta with such an unreliable car. It's really that simple. Kimi had the same fate in the Ferrari, but if you account for the car problems was about at an equal average points per race to Seb. So based on your own twisting of the stats from your statement, maybe Lewis should have retired in 2017. After all, he received a hammering from Nico in 2016.
    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 can't argue with results.

  11. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,114
    Like
    628
    Liked 660 Times in 460 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    Agreed and that’s my point. You have to take them into account but you then can’t pick and choose when you take them into account. So if you take them into account with Ricciardo, it follows you must take them into account for Lewis and Rosberg. Journeyman doesn’t do that, simply plucks some arbitrary number of retirements that don’t matter off the top of his head (whatever suits him) and carries on.

    The point is, if you want to evaluate using this approach you must apply it to all evaluations consistently, especially for teammates.

    So if it should be taken into account for Ricciardo last year, it also follows that it should be taken into account when evaluating why the 2016 drivers title ended up where it did and that would be a consistent evaluation.


    Since Journeyman is desparate for my attention the last year and a half, all I did here was take the logic he took towards Hamilton and Rosberg and applied it to Ricciardo and Verstappen knowing wholly that he would rush to Ricciardo’s defence using reliability as an excuse. I gave the poor fella the tidbit he has been vying for, just for my own temporary entertainment. As he’s super predictable he took the bate. Angry people are the easiest to manipulate, you see.

    So he can either apply his approach consistently, in which case, if he takes reliability into the equation, he must concede it also played a part in the 2016 title, otherwise he must concede that it played no part in which case it cannot be used for evaluating Verstappen and Ricciardo last year either.

    I’m happy with either approach. I’ve had my bit of fun with him either way.

    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.

Posting Permissions

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