Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 60
  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    92
    Like
    0
    Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
    Being in the right car is, and has always been, the most important thing in F1. Getting yourself in that car is how Champions are made.

  2. Likes: airshifter (29th March 2023)
  3. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Used to be Starter View Post
    Being in the right car is, and has always been, the most important thing in F1. Getting yourself in that car is how Champions are made.
    Vettel was in a dominant Ferrari in 2018. He did not win the championship but Hamilton in a less dominant car won it.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  4. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,124
    Like
    635
    Liked 668 Times in 466 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Used to be Starter View Post
    Being in the right car is, and has always been, the most important thing in F1. Getting yourself in that car is how Champions are made.
    But even with the talent luck plays a big part as well. Look how many drivers moved at the wrong time and the team rebounded, or the team they were heading to tanked suddenly in comparison to others.



    As for the whole GOAT thing, really the only thing we can compare is drivers in equal machinery. And often they shuffle enough that it's rare to see the very top drivers in equal machinery. Over time they might spend a season or two together, but usually it doesn't last long. And if you do compare the drivers on the same team, often the "greatest" suddenly is proven to be "greatest" only when teamed with lesser drivers. The ones that are really on top fare just as well when put up against the best at the same team.

  5. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    But even with the talent luck plays a big part as well. Look how many drivers moved at the wrong time and the team rebounded, or the team they were heading to tanked suddenly in comparison to others.

    As for the whole GOAT thing, really the only thing we can compare is drivers in equal machinery. And often they shuffle enough that it's rare to see the very top drivers in equal machinery. Over time they might spend a season or two together, but usually it doesn't last long. And if you do compare the drivers on the same team, often the "greatest" suddenly is proven to be "greatest" only when teamed with lesser drivers. The ones that are really on top fare just as well when put up against the best at the same team.
    Unfortunately, that is an impossible way of determining greatness. In any equipment-based competition, competitors would use different equipment of various degrees of performance. This is usually due to poor choices or a lack of adequate funding. The level of funding available to competitors mostly translates to perceived talent by the backers of the competitor. Even among those with the best equipment, one individual always stands out and dominates his category. And he is respected and revered for his achievement. That has always been the nature of competition through the ages. And that is also how the world we live in works. Where some with advanced technology, sophisticated military might and wealth dominate and undermine others with lesser in comparison. You would not hear anyone saying if you give every nation the same technology, military capability and the same wealth, then we would be able to determine which is really the greatest nation ever.

    While that is clearly nonsensical, it is clear that competitors that succeed do so because they have inherent exceptional talent, a judgement that is calculated to ensure success and an ability to deliver exceptional performances when the opportunity to shine presents itself. That is the common attribute of the greatest in whatever equipment-based sport there is. But you would not know this as you have not achieved anything of that stature else you would not say these things. There is luck and there is pure genius, l hope one day you can see the difference.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 29th March 2023 at 08:11.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2022
    Posts
    92
    Like
    0
    Liked 22 Times in 16 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Vettel was in a dominant Ferrari in 2018. He did not win the championship but Hamilton in a less dominant car won it.
    If you'll check, I said "most important" and not "only".

  7. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Used to be Starter View Post
    If you'll check, I said "most important" and not "only".
    yes you did :-)
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  8. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,124
    Like
    635
    Liked 668 Times in 466 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Unfortunately, that is an impossible way of determining greatness. In any equipment-based competition, competitors would use different equipment of various degrees of performance. This is usually due to poor choices or a lack of adequate funding. The level of funding available to competitors mostly translates to perceived talent by the backers of the competitor. Even among those with the best equipment, one individual always stands out and dominates his category. And he is respected and revered for his achievement. That has always been the nature of competition through the ages. And that is also how the world we live in works. Where some with advanced technology, sophisticated military might and wealth dominate and undermine others with lesser in comparison. You would not hear anyone saying if you give every nation the same technology, military capability and the same wealth, then we would be able to determine which is really the greatest nation ever.
    Impossible? Maybe for those that didn't follow the sport, but in reality often the great drivers will at some point find themselves in equal machinery over time. Right now Verstappen is the only WDC on the grid to have not faced another previous or future WDC in the same car. So no, it's not even close to any impossible comparison. With any car superiority taken out of the picture, often they suddenly become much more equal, so fans of any particular driver tend to shy away from such comparison.

    With so few choices on the grid, every driver makes their limited choices based on seats available to them and the attached conditions. None has just jumped team to team at will, but usually the best have at least some choices over time. Compare any driver you wish to the other top drivers in equal machinery, and show me domination. It really doesn't exist and if often the reason one of the drivers leaves a team.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    While that is clearly nonsensical, it is clear that competitors that succeed do so because they have inherent exceptional talent, a judgement that is calculated to ensure success and an ability to deliver exceptional performances when the opportunity to shine presents itself. That is the common attribute of the greatest in whatever equipment-based sport there is. But you would not know this as you have not achieved anything of that stature else you would not say these things. There is luck and there is pure genius, l hope one day you can see the difference.
    What is nonsensical is thinking that any driver on the grid is psychic. They make their choices and hope for the best. They might walk into a declining team, walk into a rising team, or walk into a stagnant team. If it were pure genius with such amazing insight, most would have as many WDC's as they have years in the sport.

    As for your personal jabs, you need to understand something. To insult someone they must give worth to your words. Being you know nothing about me or my personal accomplishments, I give your statement no worth, thus am not at all insulted. It just goes to show what a childish level you will go to when others differ in opinion from you.



    The F1 grid isn't going to turn sideways because your favorite driver is unhappy. If he reaches the point of looking elsewhere, he might get offers. But the same if true of most other drivers. If pure genius was involved, he would have left Merc before last year started.

  9. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    Impossible? Maybe for those that didn't follow the sport, but in reality often the great drivers will at some point find themselves in equal machinery over time. Right now Verstappen is the only WDC on the grid to have not faced another previous or future WDC in the same car. So no, it's not even close to any impossible comparison. With any car superiority taken out of the picture, often they suddenly become much more equal, so fans of any particular driver tend to shy away from such comparison.
    My impression of your level of understanding of the sport is not an insult, but an opinion. You can prove me wrong with a good argument to correct my opinion. Your argument here does not align with your previous statement which required all drivers to be in equal machinery to establish who is the greatest. If we go with your revised statement, only exceptional drivers will rise into competitive cars racing at the sharp end of the grid. Which incidentally was my argument. So by your revised statement, the greatest drivers are the drivers that dominate the sharp end of the grid consistently above any other before them.

    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    What is nonsensical is thinking that any driver on the grid is psychic. They make their choices and hope for the best. They might walk into a declining team, walk into a rising team, or walk into a stagnant team. If it were pure genius with such amazing insight, most would have as many WDC's as they have years in the sport.
    It is interesting that you think drivers do not plan their career paths carefully. In your view, they blindly move teams and hope for the best. Which is nonsense. The ability of drivers to move teams is dependent on their perceive worth which is based on the perceived or rated level of performance. Drivers rated highly would seek to join teams also rated highly [Verstapenn, Perez, Sainz etc]. Drivers with lower ratings would try to find the best possible seat available at the time they are on the market to move teams [Bottas, Albon etc]. But highly-rated drivers tend to cause a stir which usually causes a number of consequential moves resulting from their move [Vettel leaving for example].

    And these drivers have an army of advisors and career planners to steer them to where they have a good chance of fighting for the championship. If we take the career of two Mclaren drivers in 2004, both capable of being multiple world champions and both are one of the fiercest drivers on the grid. One becomes seven times world champion, and the other stagnated at double world champion with an open knowledge that if their career paths were reversed, the double world champion may likely be a nine-time world champion today. This did not happen by chance but by calculated risk.

    You are yet to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 31st March 2023 at 11:39.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,124
    Like
    635
    Liked 668 Times in 466 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    My impression of your level of understanding of the sport is not an insult, but an opinion. You can prove me wrong with a good argument to correct my opinion. Your argument here does not align with your previous statement which required all drivers to be in equal machinery to establish who is the greatest. If we go with your revised statement, only exceptional drivers will rise into competitive cars racing at the sharp end of the grid. Which incidentally was my argument. So by your revised statement, the greatest drivers are the drivers that dominate the sharp end of the grid consistently above any other before them.
    My actual statement was this....

    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post



    As for the whole GOAT thing, really the only thing we can compare is drivers in equal machinery. And often they shuffle enough that it's rare to see the very top drivers in equal machinery. Over time they might spend a season or two together, but usually it doesn't last long. And if you do compare the drivers on the same team, often the "greatest" suddenly is proven to be "greatest" only when teamed with lesser drivers. The ones that are really on top fare just as well when put up against the best at the same team.

    Nowhere do I say all drivers must be in the same machinery, but I do say that it's the best comparison. Nobody has disagreed that usually the best drivers end up with chances in the best cars, as their talents make them more desired. And we all know that at times lesser drivers end up in better cars for various reasons, as well as drivers that probably wouldn't be on the grid by pure merit, yet they have enough money to influence team desicions.

    I'll gladly stand by my comparison of the best in equal machinery. Even in lesser machinery it's well established that the first person you have to worry about beating in F1 is your teammate. And when compared in that manner, often the drivers are somehow much more equal, and the machinery part of the equation is brought more to the forefront.


    Your statement of.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    Even among those with the best equipment, one individual always stands out and dominates his category. And he is respected and revered for his achievement.
    ..... might be true of those that don't consider the car part of the picture. But since we all know the car IS a great part of the picture I'm sure the team bosses and such do as well. If you disagree that the car plays such a big part, name one driver in recent history that "dominated his category" when faced with another driver of high caliber in the same car. It hasn't happened any time recently. Often they don't really even dominate the lesser drivers that they share cars with.

    Lewis has teamed with Fernando and Jenson before moving to Merc. Which of the two did he dominate?






    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post

    It is interesting that you think drivers do not plan their career paths carefully. In your view, they blindly move teams and hope for the best. Which is nonsense. The ability of drivers to move teams is dependent on their perceive worth which is based on the perceived or rated level of performance. Drivers rated highly would seek to join teams also rated highly [Verstapenn, Perez, Sainz etc]. Drivers with lower ratings would try to find the best possible seat available at the time they are on the market to move teams [Bottas, Albon etc]. But highly-rated drivers tend to cause a stir which usually causes a number of consequential moves resulting from their move [Vettel leaving for example].

    And these drivers have an army of advisors and career planners to steer them to where they have a good chance of fighting for the championship. If we take the career of two Mclaren drivers in 2004, both capable of being multiple world champions and both are one of the fiercest drivers on the grid. One becomes seven times world champion, and the other stagnated at double world champion with an open knowledge that if their career paths were reversed, the double world champion may likely be a nine-time world champion today. This did not happen by chance but by calculated risk.

    You are yet to convince me that you know what you are talking about.
    "Calculated risk" is a best guess, based on a number of factors for any driver. From there it's the luck of the how the team performs, not just the driver. Alonso didn't lose any driving talent because he went to a lesser team, nor did Lewis gain driving talent by going to Merc. I've said upthread that many of them could have changed records based on the luck of their choices, and you are saying pretty much the same. Twisting words to try to make an argument does nothing for any real discussion, and obviously nobody has claimed that they take a blind stab in the dark. But just like the rest of us, they don't know who the top team will be next year on any regular basis. If they did, they could probably make all their fortunes in betting and not have to drive.

    The difference as I see it is that I accept it's a roll of the dice for their choices when all is said and done. You seem to think that those choices are brilliance when they work, and poor decisions when they don't. But you make exceptions to when a driver you likes ends up in other than a top car.... suddenly then it's the teams fault. If any driver was brilliant enough to always have the answer, they would probably have a lot more titles than anyone on the grid currently does. That applies to all of them.


    I know your logic is often skewed by your driver preferences, but if the drivers decisions are so calculated as you say, why would Hamilton suddenly be worth ten times what they pay him when by comparison his teammate and four other drivers apparently made much more brilliant decisions last here. Wouldn't it be more logical that those making better decisions would go up in value? I'm sure no logical discussion will convince you that anyone other than your opinion knows what they are talking about. So we'll all just assume that Ferrari is getting ready to offer Lewis the half a billion contract...

  11. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by airshifter View Post
    My actual statement was this....




    Nowhere do I say all drivers must be in the same machinery, but I do say that it's the best comparison. Nobody has disagreed that usually the best drivers end up with chances in the best cars, as their talents make them more desired. And we all know that at times lesser drivers end up in better cars for various reasons, as well as drivers that probably wouldn't be on the grid by pure merit, yet they have enough money to influence team desicions.

    I'll gladly stand by my comparison of the best in equal machinery. Even in lesser machinery it's well established that the first person you have to worry about beating in F1 is your teammate. And when compared in that manner, often the drivers are somehow much more equal, and the machinery part of the equation is brought more to the forefront.


    Your statement of.....



    ..... might be true of those that don't consider the car part of the picture. But since we all know the car IS a great part of the picture I'm sure the team bosses and such do as well. If you disagree that the car plays such a big part, name one driver in recent history that "dominated his category" when faced with another driver of high caliber in the same car. It hasn't happened any time recently. Often they don't really even dominate the lesser drivers that they share cars with.

    Lewis has teamed with Fernando and Jenson before moving to Merc. Which of the two did he dominate?








    "Calculated risk" is a best guess, based on a number of factors for any driver. From there it's the luck of the how the team performs, not just the driver. Alonso didn't lose any driving talent because he went to a lesser team, nor did Lewis gain driving talent by going to Merc. I've said upthread that many of them could have changed records based on the luck of their choices, and you are saying pretty much the same. Twisting words to try to make an argument does nothing for any real discussion, and obviously nobody has claimed that they take a blind stab in the dark. But just like the rest of us, they don't know who the top team will be next year on any regular basis. If they did, they could probably make all their fortunes in betting and not have to drive.

    The difference as I see it is that I accept it's a roll of the dice for their choices when all is said and done. You seem to think that those choices are brilliance when they work, and poor decisions when they don't. But you make exceptions to when a driver you likes ends up in other than a top car.... suddenly then it's the teams fault. If any driver was brilliant enough to always have the answer, they would probably have a lot more titles than anyone on the grid currently does. That applies to all of them.


    I know your logic is often skewed by your driver preferences, but if the drivers decisions are so calculated as you say, why would Hamilton suddenly be worth ten times what they pay him when by comparison his teammate and four other drivers apparently made much more brilliant decisions last here. Wouldn't it be more logical that those making better decisions would go up in value? I'm sure no logical discussion will convince you that anyone other than your opinion knows what they are talking about. So we'll all just assume that Ferrari is getting ready to offer Lewis the half a billion contract...

    I am sorry to say that it is you who is heavily biased against Hamilton in particular. While we talk generally about drivers, you pointedly direct your arguments at Hamilton. And you feign innocence when that aspect of your argument is pointed out and rebuffed. The very essence of what we were discussing is that the best drivers get the best cars owned by the best teams. The best teams with the best cars would only want the best drivers in their cars and your argument goes against this very normal and traditional aspect of F1. What you are doing is faulting drivers and Hamilton in particular for being such a talent that deserves and has attained a great car in a great team. Your argument does not make any sense and is clearly very biased.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

Posting Permissions

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