car vs driver

[Flat.tyres]

People are quite dismissive these days about the skill of the drivers in todays F1. all the driver aids means that any monkey can win in the right car. Yes?

well, looking at it, this season would fly in the face of this claim.

on balance, the Ferrari has been the fastest car so far this season yet they are behind in both championships. ok, Massa has a problem in qualifying in Aus and Kimi had an electrical problem but apart from that, the cars have been superb.

so, the farraris are fastest but the mac's are killing them. Is the difference the drivers?

[ArrowsFA1]

on balance, the Ferrari has been the fastest car so far this season...
Can...open...worms...everywhere :p :

How is it possible to be sure which is the fastest car?

Also, while direct driver input into driving the car may be less now due to all the electronic controls, isn't it also true that improved driver fitness, and general preparation in comparison with years ago, means that a drivers contribution to the overall performance of the car is still substantial, but different to what it once was?

[Flat.tyres]

Can...open...worms...everywhere :p :

How is it possible to be sure which is the fastest car?

Also, while direct driver input into driving the car may be less now due to all the electronic controls, isn't it also true that improved driver fitness, and general preparation in comparison with years ago, means that a drivers contribution to the overall performance of the car is still substantial, but different to what it once was?

Well, ferrari have outqualifyied McLaren 2 to 1 and translated it to 50% of the wins this year. so, I think its fair to say that the ferrari, on balance, looks the faster car and was questioning whether the drivers / team strategy may be behind the lack of points.

ok, put it this way. if you swop the drivers to the other team, who thinks the ferrari would be leading both champs?

[ioan]

ok, put it this way. if you swop the drivers to the other team, who thinks the ferrari would be leading both champs?

You!

[Flat.tyres]

You!

Well, yes, I do. do you, or do you think the two drivers that ferrari have are getting the best out of the car?

[wedge]

I'd the cars are about equal. Ferrari probably has better aero (just), and McLaren probably has better mechanical grip.

[Racehound]

People are quite dismissive these days about the skill of the drivers in todays F1. all the driver aids means that any monkey can win in the right car. Yes?

well, looking at it, this season would fly in the face of this claim.

on balance, the Ferrari has been the fastest car so far this season yet they are behind in both championships. ok, Massa has a problem in qualifying in Aus and Kimi had an electrical problem but apart from that, the cars have been superb.

so, the farraris are fastest but the mac's are killing them. Is the difference the drivers?
what??????....i see youve been takin elocution lessons from young lewboy!!!!.....monkeys???!!!....and you read my post!!!!.....on balance the ferraris have been the fastest????.......look who`s set fastest lap in the last 6 gps.........its 3 apiece......so who is fastest on average overall after the thrashing ferrari got in monaco???...theres a stastistic you can work out and let us know...................and are tyres a euphamism for body parts??? :)

[akv89]

Well, ferrari have outqualifyied McLaren 2 to 1 and translated it to 50% of the wins this year.
You are using the fact that the Ferrari drivers have delivered wins and pole positions to prove that they are not as good as the McLaren drivers. Those wins can be attributed to the car or the drivers themselves, so there is no way to tell which cars or drivers are better. As a result, the gap in points between the two teams is due to the difference in the reliability of the cars and the current points system (which rewards reliability) than the difference in the abilities of the drivers. Don't get me wrong. It does seem as though the McLaren drivers are currently better than the Ferrari drivers, but I don't think that it can make as big of a difference in the standings as the one that currently exists.

[Racehound]

Well, ferrari have outqualifyied McLaren 2 to 1 and translated it to 50% of the wins this year. so, I think its fair to say that the ferrari, on balance, looks the faster car and was questioning whether the drivers / team strategy may be behind the lack of points.

ok, put it this way. if you swop the drivers to the other team, who thinks the ferrari would be leading both champs?
now thats a valid point but all guesswork unless we could make it happen!!! :) ..........ahhhhhhhhhh.....the joy of speculation!!!! :)

[Racehound]

I'd the cars are about equal. Ferrari probably has better aero (just), and McLaren probably has better mechanical grip.
sound good to me!! :)

[Flat.tyres]

You are using the fact that the Ferrari drivers have delivered wins and pole positions to prove that they are not as good as the McLaren drivers. Those wins can be attributed to the car or the drivers themselves, so there is no way to tell which cars or drivers are better. As a result, the gap in points between the two teams is due to the difference in the reliability of the cars and the current points system (which rewards reliability) than the difference in the abilities of the drivers. Don't get me wrong. It does seem as though the McLaren drivers are currently better than the Ferrari drivers, but I don't think that it can make as big of a difference in the standings as the one that currently exists.

the thread is about the influence the drivers have on the race versus the car.

Personally, i think both teams are very close in terms of performance and the difference this year is in the drivers. it was great for Kimi in Aus but where Massa has grown as the season has progressed (mentored by Schumacher), Kimi seems to have shrunk for some reason. Could it be the Massa /Schumacher relationship is playing on his mindbut he doesn't seem that motivated at the moment and the car is good.

so, where we have seen Alonso making mistakes and then battleing back, Kimi has made mistakes and lost interest.

so, the cars are equal on fastest laps, wins and Ferrari just have the edge on qualifying. My question is whether its the drivers thats making the difference. isnt it a fair question?

[ChickenMcNugget]

Personally, to be awkward, I'd simply suggest that the respective, direct car-to-driver relationships have influenced the direction the championship has gone in over the first six races - ie. that Alonso and Hamilton look to be wearing their cars like gloves, and truly prospering from it at that, comparative to the Ferrari where, for me in any case, both the speed and reliability levels have looked just too suspiciously patchy, and for too much of the time.

Psychologically, Raikkonen seems to have utter lethargy as his main enemy to win against at a time when he was probably expecting win after win to come rolling in, any low-scoring oddball races to be but mere blips en route to a reasonably consumate title - presumably, it seems, not so. And as for Massa, as a expressly billed 'title challenger' he still appears to be a slightly strange entity to me, but then so does any other driver/car combination, at the moment, not involving a McLaren... a direction the championship simply seems to have 'grown' in having been in a very different standpoint in Australia.

But yes, of course, in my view Ferrari would probably have had a little championship lead margin if there had been a swap. All the more reason, really, to say, alas...

[leopard]

I think so, as long as they use the right tires, and not the flat ones

[Cozzie]

Ferrari would only be faster of they had Lewis and Alonso!

[wmcot]

Ferrari reliability has been the problem this year making it almost impossible to compare. I think the race pace is too close to tell any difference. Neither team can exactly blow past the other on the track.

[Ranger]

Whichever team get their cars out of turn 1-2 first would probably win the race and, if they did so consistently, would be leading the title. I'm inclined to think Hamilton and Alonso are a better combination than Raikkonen and Massa, but I'm not so sure how to judge this one.

[Ian McC]

It's always a combination of driver and car, mostly it's about a drivers ability to get the best performance out of the machine he is given and what he can do to assist in it's development. Kimi looked for happier in the McLaren than the Ferrari, if he had stayed where he was he maybe of been on top at this point in time.

[Corny]

Kimi looked for happier in the McLaren than the Ferrari, if he had stayed where he was he maybe of been on top at this point in time.
Oh no, not again..
If Kimi, If Kimi..

[Garry Walker]

on balance, the Ferrari has been the fastest car so far this season



What magical things did you use to come to that conclusion? Mushrooms :D ?

If we look through the races then what we will see is this:
Australia - Ferrari best car
Malaysia - McLaren best car
Bahrain - Equal best
Spain - Ferrari best car
Monaco - McLaren best car
Canada - Mclaren best car
so far its 3,5:2,5 for McLaren and you also have to remember both Ferrari drivers have had reliability problems, McLaren drivers have had issues with that.

oh and as an answer to your question - No, absolutely not. Ferrari would probably be further behind with Alonso and Hamilton against KR and FM in McLaren than they are now.


Kimi looked for happier in the McLaren than the Ferrari, if he had stayed where he was he maybe of been on top at this point in time.

Kimi is happier at Ferrari than he ever was at McLaren, he had said this to the finnish press.

[jens]

Kimi looked for happier in the McLaren than the Ferrari, if he had stayed where he was he maybe of been on top at this point in time.

But would McLaren be that good with Räikkönen? I can't believe that Kimi would have the fastest car AND no mechanical problems. That's like some kind of contradiction. :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

...as an answer to your question - No, absolutely not. Ferrari would probably be further behind with Alonso and Hamilton against KR and FM in McLaren than they are now.
Could you explain why?

IMHO the combination of a 2xWDC and the best rookie to ever enter F1 is more than a match for any other team combination on the grid, so I can only assume that, for some reason, you don't think Alonso/Hamilton would 'fit' at Ferrari.

[Garry Walker]

Could you explain why?

IMHO the combination of a 2xWDC and the best rookie to ever enter F1 is more than a match for any other team combination on the grid, so I can only assume that, for some reason, you don't think Alonso/Hamilton would 'fit' at Ferrari.

How do you know Hamilton is the best rookie to ever enter F1? Maybe Alonso is making him look good, because lets be honest, he has driven so far this year (out of 6 races) 3 really embarrasing races.
Alonso took advantage of the best car for the last 2 years, but remember, in 2004 the same guy had huge worries trying to match Trulli.

I dont think Alonso and Hamilton are any better drivers than Kimi and Massa. Nor do I think they are any worse really. They all have their pros and cons. In the longrun, Hamilton will probably turn out as the best of them all, but at the moment I dont see him being any better than Massa or even Kimi.

[Flat.tyres]

How do you know Hamilton is the best rookie to ever enter F1? Maybe Alonso is making him look good, because lets be honest, he has driven so far this year (out of 6 races) 3 really embarrasing races.
Alonso took advantage of the best car for the last 2 years, but remember, in 2004 the same guy had huge worries trying to match Trulli.

I dont think Alonso and Hamilton are any better drivers than Kimi and Massa. Nor do I think they are any worse really. They all have their pros and cons. In the longrun, Hamilton will probably turn out as the best of them all, but at the moment I dont see him being any better than Massa or even Kimi.

i find your logic confused and contradictory to say the least.

firstly you say that its likely that ferrari would be further behind and then you say that they are no better or worse than the currrent pairing. Explain please how you come to your decision which seem at odds on first reading.

then you claim that Lewis is not the best rookie to enter F1 when all the statistics point to the fact he is, all the results and the opinion from just about every respected figure in Motorsport from schumacher, to stewart, to hill, to walker (the one that know a bit about F1) etc would suggest otherwise.

im not trying to score a point here but fail to understand your reasoning.

What we are discussing is whether the ferrari pairing are getting the best out of the superb ferraris potential. the car is capable of winning races as its proved. it has done so for half the races this year. the car is capable of setting fastest laps in races as it has done so for half the races this year. the car is capable of qualifying on pole as it has done so for 2/3 of the races this year.

these figures suggest it has the edge on performance, albeit a slight one, over the McLaren but they are languishing a long way back in 2nd place. now, theyve had one problem with the car in qualifying and one retirement in the race but these things will even out over the season and do not explain why they are so far back.

massa has mad a few mistakes early on but bounced back well, kimi has made some basic mistakes and looks dispirited with his season already and alonso has been on the edge, a bit lucky at times, but has battled well and stuck it out. Lewis has been very consistant and made the difference for McLaren in an opposite way to Kimi at Ferrari.

i rate kimi, he is a fast driver although with limited experience but after his time in f1 now, that should not be an excuse.

I think there is an element of drivers influence that is being represented by the results this year. The best drivers out there are showing through.

[Viv]

It wasn't so bad with reliability in 2003 :p :
I think McLaren would've been leading with the driver swap. Kimi, even if he's happier at Ferrari, would've been more comfortable with the car at McLaren and would've been better off IMO. That would've made a lot of difference. Plus the fact that Hamilton woldn't have been as comfortable with his ferrari crew at this point atleast compared to McLaren.

[Viv]

PS: The first sentence was intended as a reply to Jens post stating

But would McLaren be that good with Räikkönen? I can't believe that Kimi would have the fastest car AND no mechanical problems. That's like some kind of contradiction. :p :
:)

[Flat.tyres]

It wasn't so bad with reliability in 2003 :p :
I think McLaren would've been leading with the driver swap. Kimi, even if he's happier at Ferrari, would've been more comfortable with the car at McLaren and would've been better off IMO. That would've made a lot of difference. Plus the fact that Hamilton woldn't have been as comfortable with his ferrari crew at this point atleast compared to McLaren.

thats a very good point.

i was looking at the drivers ability and not team familarity. how much has lewis's relationship with McLaren enabled him to slot into a positive working environment and would he have made such a smooth transition if he moved to Ferrari instead?

also, kimi has experience with McL but we have to remember that the experience was negative last year and he really didnt want to be there. when he moved to Ferrari, he was so much happier to start with but would likely have been unmotivated if he were still at McL if you ask me.

[ArrowsFA1]

How do you know Hamilton is the best rookie to ever enter F1?
6 races - 6 podiums - 1 win - 1 pole - 1 fastest lap. Those bare statistics alone support my opinion, but more than that is the manner in which Hamilton has stepped into F1 and made it seem so effortless. Can you suggest a better rookie?

Of course the car he's in has affected the level of his performance - he wouldn't have the same stats in a Spyker - but there's a reason McLaren felt he was ready. He's also racing alongside the 2xWDC which brings us to...

Maybe Alonso is making him look good, because lets be honest, he has driven so far this year (out of 6 races) 3 really embarrasing races.
There's an element of truth in that. Unquestionably Alonso has been rattled by Hamilton, and is not fully comfortable at McLaren yet. The latter happens to any driver moving from one F1 team to another, but the former is something he could not have anticipated. His botched first corners in Spain and Canada were an indication of the pressure he is experiencing, and being beaten by a team-mate is something Pat Symonds has mentioned that Alonso does not react well to. It is something Alonso will have to deal with and over the course of the season he will probably do just that.

Alonso took advantage of the best car for the last 2 years, but remember, in 2004 the same guy had huge worries trying to match Trulli.
Best car? Debateable. 2004? He outscored Trulli by a good margin (59pts to 46) and they were equally matched in qualifying before Jarno was replaced. Granted, that isn't someone 'destroying' a team-mate but he produced the results which provided the platform to go on and win titles.

I dont think Alonso and Hamilton are any better drivers than Kimi and Massa. Nor do I think they are any worse really. They all have their pros and cons. In the longrun, Hamilton will probably turn out as the best of them all, but at the moment I dont see him being any better than Massa or even Kimi.
I can live with disageeing with you :cool:

[Viv]

thats a very good point.

i was looking at the drivers ability and not team familarity. how much has lewis's relationship with McLaren enabled him to slot into a positive working environment and would he have made such a smooth transition if he moved to Ferrari instead?

also, kimi has experience with McL but we have to remember that the experience was negative last year and he really didnt want to be there. when he moved to Ferrari, he was so much happier to start with but would likely have been unmotivated if he were still at McL if you ask me.
Ability wise?
I think Lewis would've been in about a similar position to what Massa is now, maybe fewer points because he would have Alonso to compete with and Alonso would've been as motivated there as he's at McLaren I feel. At Monaco and to a lesser extent Canada, given Ferrari's performance I don't think Lewis would've had as good a race. McLaren was too strong there. Canada, I really cannot comment because his strategy might have been different in Ferrari maybe and who knows what would've happened then?
I do now know if Lewis already knew the McLaren pit crew when he was racing in lower formulae. If he did, then it'll be easier to work with a familiar pit crew and I think it might affect his transition.
I know Kimi was demotivated a bit probably but I also think he would've got it back seeing this year's McLaren. It's fast and reliable and he would've enjoyed driving it IMO. Ron I think always supported Kimi so that wouldn't have been a problem either. So I think Kimi would've definitely done much better in the McLaren than the Ferrari. So in the best case for Ferrari the difference might have been a bit lesser than now, but I feel that McLaren would've been leading the Championship nevertheless.

[Garry Walker]

i find your logic confused and contradictory to say the least.
I will not lose sleep over you thinking that.



firstly you say that its likely that ferrari would be further behind and then you say that they are no better or worse than the currrent pairing. Explain please how you come to your decision which seem at odds on first reading.
McLaren seems like the easier car to setup and handle than Ferrari, which a rookie would find a bit more challenging at the beginning. So thats why Hamilton is lucky to be at McLaren and not at Ferrari.



then you claim that Lewis is not the best rookie to enter F1 when all the statistics point to the fact he is, all the results and the opinion from just about every respected figure in Motorsport from schumacher, to stewart, to hill, to walker (the one that know a bit about F1) etc would suggest otherwise.
You mean murray walker? Murray walker is an idiot, always has been. Most people on internet forums have a better understanding of racing than him and that says a lot.

All the respected figures yeah, they praise him. He isnt the first rookie to get such praise, there are countless other examples. Im not sure they have said he is the best rookie to ever enter F1. You mind showing me a quote where Schumacher says that?

btw: I never said "lewis is not the best rookie to enter f1", I asked "how do you know he is the best rookie to enter f1". There is a distinct difference there, something that should be obvious to everyone with any education.

Let me ask another question - How many drivers have been lucky enough to get a seat in the best team and fastest car in their first season? That is what is without a doubt letting Hamilton build up those stats.



What we are discussing is whether the ferrari pairing are getting the best out of the superb ferraris potential. the car is capable of winning races as its proved. it has done so for half the races this year. the car is capable of setting fastest laps in races as it has done so for half the races this year. the car is capable of qualifying on pole as it has done so for 2/3 of the races this year.Jesus. You really fail to see the big picture. You attribute those achieved stats, out of which wins only count, to the car. Maybe it was the drivers making the difference? (At Bahrain, I think that was the case when McLaren and Ferrari were equal). Fastest laps and poles dont really mean that much. You arent taking into account reliability problems, which have cost Ferrari enourmously. McLaren has so far suffered no reliability problems.



these figures suggest it has the edge on performance, albeit a slight one, over the McLaren but they are languishing a long way back in 2nd place. now, theyve had one problem with the car in qualifying and one retirement in the race but these things will even out over the season and do not explain why they are so far back.

No, those figures dont suggest they have an edge on performance, in fact, im baffled how you came to such a conclusion. 3 wins vs 3 wins. I dont see an edge to anyone there, but upon closer examination, when Ferrari was at its fastest (spain and Australia), one of their drivers always had a problem. When McLaren were at its best and fastest, their drivers always had a car-problem free race (Malaysia, Monaco, Canada). Alonsos stupid mistakes at Canada cost them though. Those problems cost Ferrari many points. That is the fault of the team, not the drivers.



massa has mad a few mistakes early on but bounced back well, kimi has made some basic mistakes and looks dispirited with his season already and alonso has been on the edge, a bit lucky at times, but has battled well and stuck it out. Lewis has been very consistant and made the difference for McLaren in an opposite way to Kimi at Ferrari.

Massa has made one mistake so far, so why you put it in plural, I dont understand. Guess you need to exaggerate, because you have very weak case that you are trying to build.

Alonso has driven like a moron in 3 races, so its funny how you say "he battled well", when he has made more mistakes than Kimi and Massa put together.

Kimi has been somewhat unlucky and made one very costly error at Monaco.



i rate kimi, he is a fast driver although with limited experience but after his time in f1 now, that should not be an excuse.

I think there is an element of drivers influence that is being represented by the results this year. The best drivers out there are showing through.

The best car is showing through, that is without a doubt the McLaren.



6 races - 6 podiums - 1 win - 1 pole - 1 fastest lap. Those bare statistics alone support my opinion, but more than that is the manner in which Hamilton has stepped into F1 and made it seem so effortless. Can you suggest a better rookie?
Can you suggest another rookie who stepped into the best and fastest car in F1 as a rookie? Thanks :cool:

You have no idea what drivers like Senna or Schumacher could have done with a similar car. As a sidenote, in my view, Schumachers driving in 91 as a rookie was bit more impressive.



Of course the car he's in has affected the level of his performance - he wouldn't have the same stats in a Spyker - but there's a reason McLaren felt he was ready. He's also racing alongside the 2xWDC which brings us to...
McLaren felt he was ready because he is a very good driver. But people really need to stop the overhyping, I like the guy, so I dont want the hype to ruin it.



Best car? Debateable. 2004? He outscored Trulli by a good margin (59pts to 46) and they were equally matched in qualifying before Jarno was replaced. Granted, that isn't someone 'destroying' a team-mate but he produced the results which provided the platform to go on and win titles.
In what year was it debateable? 2005 when McLaren was breaking down so often for Kimi? or maybe even 2006 for you?

as for 2004 - It was 8:6 in qualis for Jarno, excluding the Indy race where he couldnt take part in qualifying. That isnt equally matched :)

As for outscoring - After France gp, when Trullis and Briatores situation deteriorated, Trulli was leading Alonso by 13 points. Even if you include all the races they both did at Renault, then Trulli was still leading by 1 point.


I can live with disageeing with you :cool:
Im not planning to put a rope around my neck just because you disagreed with me either.

[ArrowsFA1]

Can you suggest another rookie who stepped into the best and fastest car in F1 as a rookie?
Answering a question with another question is not an answer. It's evasive.

You have no idea what drivers like Senna or Schumacher could have done with a similar car. As a sidenote, in my view, Schumachers driving in 91 as a rookie was bit more impressive.
Agreed. I have no idea what they could have done. Nor do you. The point is Hamilton has exceeded expectations, and produced results. If a rookie driver steps into a midfield car then there is greater margin for highlighting talent or masking errors. Hamilton has no such margin. He's in a race winning car.

McLaren felt he was ready because he is a very good driver. But people really need to stop the overhyping, I like the guy, so I dont want the hype to ruin it.
Fair point. It's easy to get carried away by just how good Hamilton is and how well he is performing, but hype is only hype if it cannot be backed up on the race track.

In what year was it debateable? 2005 when McLaren was breaking down so often for Kimi? or maybe even 2006 for you?
I don't believe you can clearly state the Renault was the "better car". Also saying that was the case conveniently discredits the contribution of the drivers and the team in making the car competitive enough to challenge for and win titles.

as for 2004 - It was 8:6 in qualis for Jarno, excluding the Indy race where he couldnt take part in qualifying. That isnt equally matched.
At a quick glance I made it 8:8 :dozey: but if you want to examine every detail of each session for each driver I'm sure you could make it 16-0 to Trulli if you wanted to :D

Alonso v Trulli just shows how many factors there are involved in going towards making a WDC, any one of which can make or break a winner, but the fact (which you do seem to have difficulty accepting) is that Alonso has 2 WDC's on his record.

[ArrowsFA1]

All the respected figures yeah, they praise him. He isnt the first rookie to get such praise, there are countless other examples. Im not sure they have said he is the best rookie to ever enter F1. You mind showing me a quote where Schumacher says that?

"He's a quality driver, very strong and only 16. If he keeps this up I'm sure he will reach F1. It's something special to see a kid of his age out on the circuit. He's clearly got the right racing mentality."
—Michael Schumacher, speaking in 2001.
Not quite what you were looking for but it seems that MS recognised Hamilton's ability early on as well :cool:

[Flat.tyres]

not very good at all this quote stuff but forgive me for cutting and pasting Gary.

"McLaren seems like the easier car to setup and handle than Ferrari, which a rookie would find a bit more challenging at the beginning. So thats why Hamilton is lucky to be at McLaren and not at Ferrari."

can you provide any proof for the handleing and set-up please. the thing was on rails in Aus but suddenly is difficult to set up and drive?

"You mean murray walker? Murray walker is an idiot, always has been. Most people on internet forums have a better understanding of racing than him and that says a lot."

Murray is hugely respected and has forgotten more about F1 than most people know. dont mistake his slightly bumbleing enthusiasm for a lack of knowledge or experience. i have never met anyone in the sport with anything but utmost respect for his professionalism and integrity. if you ever meet the bloke, i hope you apologise for this statement.

"btw: I never said "lewis is not the best rookie to enter f1", I asked "how do you know he is the best rookie to enter f1". There is a distinct difference there, something that should be obvious to everyone with any education."

read my sig. your playing games. I may not be Mensa material but I understand the sport and know what my eyes see. silly point scoring and insulting people intelligence wont change that.

"Let me ask another question - How many drivers have been lucky enough to get a seat in the best team and fastest car in their first season? That is what is without a doubt letting Hamilton build up those stats."

and

"Can you suggest another rookie who stepped into the best and fastest car in F1 as a rookie?"

i thought the best team was Ferrari ;) . thats a big claim to acknowledge that Ron and his boys are the best team. as for the best car, thats debatable. however, other drivers have joined top teams such as montoya and Villneuve for example.

"Jesus. You really fail to see the big picture. You attribute those achieved stats, out of which wins only count, to the car. Maybe it was the drivers making the difference? (At Bahrain, I think that was the case when McLaren and Ferrari were equal). Fastest laps and poles dont really mean that much. You arent taking into account reliability problems, which have cost Ferrari enourmously. McLaren has so far suffered no reliability problems."

first, in my very next sentence, I mentioned the reliability so why post I hadnt? as for the full picture, I quoted every concivable result and stat. there are other things in f1 apart from points although thats how it finishes at the end of the season. i was being comprehensive where you just cherry pick. be reasonable and fair otherwise why bother.

im not going to bother with the rest but will just point out these snips to illustrate how unbalanced and illogical your posts are.

"No, those figures dont suggest they have an edge on performance, in fact, im baffled how you came to such a conclusion. 3 wins vs 3 wins. I dont see an edge to anyone there,"

"The best car is showing through, that is without a doubt the McLaren."

:D

[jens]

I answered NO, because I think the difference between McLaren and Ferrari drivers skills is not that big, if the Mc drivers are better at all.

This thread actually shows once again, how driver ratings are based on machinery. Before the start of the season and after Australia many thought that Räikkönen is the fastest driver. Then after Massa's comeback and back-to-back wins made him look like the fastest and now it has suddenly turned out that McLaren drivers are the best ones.

Where's the truth? When will F1 fans find some consistency in their opinions?

[RaikkonenRules]

Here's my order for overall driver skills then

1. Hamilton
2. Raikkonen
3. Alonso
4. Massa

btw I think McLaren would still lead with Kimi and Massa. There's no way Alonso would survive in that Ferrari.

[Ranger]

In this case I agree with Garry Walker - Statistics don't prove that Hamilton is the best rookie ever, as he was put in the fastest car in the grid to start off with. If by some strange twist of fate he does a Jacques Villeneuve many people certainly won't be saying so then.

Not that it detracts from a ripper season he's having. More than 95% of drivers wouldn't be able to jump in a car and beat a WDC. Several drivers could do pretty decently (i.e. Hill in his 1st full season, Coulthard, to some extent Verstappen) against WDC's in their 1st season but their are only a handful of drivers in that upper echelon who could do what Hamilton is done as a rookie if they were given the best car on the grid, given their talents.

[aryan]

Personally, I am surprised to see that most people have answered yes.

[Garry Walker]

Answering a question with another question is not an answer. It's evasive. Habit of the profession. Nevertheless, your point about statistics showing he is the "best ever" rookie prove nothing. They only show he is the most successful rookie, stats wise. Most drivers start their careers in lesser cars, so a valid comparison cannot be made. Not for Hamilton, not against him.



Agreed. I have no idea what they could have done. Nor do you. The point is Hamilton has exceeded expectations, and produced results. If a rookie driver steps into a midfield car then there is greater margin for highlighting talent or masking errors. Hamilton has no such margin. He's in a race winning car.

If a rookie steps in a midfield car and midfield team, he will also have to deal with people who arent as competent as those who are in big teams - He will be disadvantaged in many ways.
Has Hamilton exceed expectations? Somewhat, but a rookie in the modern time isnt what a rookie used to be 15 years ago. The level of racing education and testing those guys have gotten, is huge.



Fair point. It's easy to get carried away by just how good Hamilton is and how well he is performing, but hype is only hype if it cannot be backed up on the race track. Lets hope he wont end up like Jacques, a 2 season man.


I don't believe you can clearly state the Renault was the "better car". Also saying that was the case conveniently discredits the contribution of the drivers and the team in making the car competitive enough to challenge for and win titles. I could/can very easily make a case for Renault being the best car in both year and make it stand.


At a quick glance I made it 8:8 Considering Trulli took part in 15 races, I reckon you should take another look :p


Alonso v Trulli just shows how many factors there are involved in going towards making a WDC, any one of which can make or break a winner, but the fact (which you do seem to have difficulty accepting) is that Alonso has 2 WDC's on his record. Would he have those titles if Flavio hadnt thrown a hissy and thrown out Trulli, in favour of a mentally weak driver :) ?


Not quite what you were looking for but it seems that MS recognised Hamilton's ability early on as well :cool:

Of course he did. But what I am waiting from the other poster is a quote where MS says LH is the best rookie to enter F1. DIRECT quote. Its up to him to either give it, or admit he was only bull****ting and making up things.





can you provide any proof for the handleing and set-up please. the thing was on rails in Aus but suddenly is difficult to set up and drive?
You mean the race where Kimi said both about the race and qualy that his car was difficult to handle?
My opinion is based on seeing the GPs this year - of course it cant be proven by data, but it is something you notice when you see the behaviour of the cars. Yesterdays practise session at Indy once again was very telling. Massa and especially Kimi were really struggling in the infield to keep the car on track, the McLaren was simply much more constant on the track.
You also have to remember that Kimi especially has many times this year said the car has been hard to handle, whereas Hamilton and Alonso have usually been very positive about the way their car has handled.



Murray is hugely respected and has forgotten more about F1 than most people know. dont mistake his slightly bumbleing enthusiasm for a lack of knowledge or experience. i have never met anyone in the sport with anything but utmost respect for his professionalism and integrity. if you ever meet the bloke, i hope you apologise for this statement.
He might know many facts (although when he went on a quizshow in UK a couple of years ago he got wrong even the most basic questions), but I said that he doesnt understand f1. That is different to not remembering who drove for what team in 1989. What I meant by that is that he was usually unable to read the race, unable to grasp the nuances and understand strategies.
I dont question his "integrity" or his enthusiasm for racing. But those two dont mean he understands racing, because unfortunately he doesnt.



read my sig. your playing games. I may not be Mensa material but I understand the sport and know what my eyes see. silly point scoring and insulting people intelligence wont change that. "your" [sic] playing games? LOL.
Dont try to weasel away. I said something, which you grossly misinterpreted and I called you up on it.

I also asked for a direct quote from you about Schumacher claiming Hamilton is the best rookie to enter F1. You claimed he has said it, so I would like to see it, or alternatively, you take back what you said and admit you were making up things to boost the credibility of your case.



i thought the best team was Ferrari Only if coolness is the deciding factor.



thats a big claim to acknowledge that Ron and his boys are the best team. as for the best car, thats debatable. Not really if you have watched races this year.


however, other drivers have joined top teams such as montoya and Villneuve for example. Montoya joined F1 at a really bad time - When Schumi was driving at his best, and winning everything. He didnt stand a chance. Besides that he never was anything special as a driver either.
As for Villeneuve, he was never anything special either and grossly overrated. I found it hilarious when back in 2000 people were claiming he, Schumi and Häkkinen are the top three drivers, then the injured Panis joined BAR and was pretty much Villeneuves equal. :D


i was being comprehensive where you just cherry pick. be reasonable and fair otherwise why bother. It is up to you to make an argument strong enough so that people wouldnt be able to take it apart point by point and destroy it. You failed to do that in this case, so I think I was being very fair and also very rational.



im not going to bother with the rest but will just point out these snips to illustrate how unbalanced and illogical your posts are.
:rotflmao:


"No, those figures dont suggest they have an edge on performance, in fact, im baffled how you came to such a conclusion. 3 wins vs 3 wins. I dont see an edge to anyone there,"

"The best car is showing through, that is without a doubt the McLaren."

You need to be able to differentiate. I will help you.

You claimed by using stats that Ferrari is stronger. Your "arguments" only important point in such a context, where you place such an importance on stats, would be the win category (Not fastest laps or poles, they are irrelevant and show nothing in the current F1). They are equal 3:3 in that category, so your arguments for the support of your case by default have no substance this time. I showed you that.

You also need to understand that by performance you meant the Fastest car, whereas I used the term "best car". Theoretically, those two could be different cars. In the case we have now, it isnt so, but even if it was, there is still no doubt that the best car, mostly due to reliability, but also due to speed, has been McLaren.

[Flat.tyres]

gary

there is very little point trying to have a reasoned debate with people like you but i have to answer one point where you accuse me of bull****ting.

i said "then you claim that Lewis is not the best rookie to enter F1 when all the statistics point to the fact he is, all the results and the opinion from just about every respected figure in Motorsport from schumacher, to stewart, to hill, to walker (the one that know a bit about F1) etc would suggest otherwise."

I did not claim that schumacher had said that Lewis was the best rookie to enter F1. I said that the statistics and results to date point to that conclusion and the opinions of people like Schumacher and others suggested you were wrong in claiming he wasn't.

but, have your silly little game. twist words and score points all you want. this isnt a court of law and i dont give a toss that someone like you derives some sort of perverted pleasure by trying to win some childish game.

my opinion is that Lewis is the best rookie to enter F1. results back that up. your opinion is whatever you choose it to be and your very welcome to it.

[Garry Walker]

gary

there is very little point trying to have a reasoned debate with people like you
I was being very reasonable, I wish you would manage to write the name correctly though



i said "then you claim that Lewis is not the best rookie to enter F1 when all the statistics point to the fact he is, all the results and the opinion from just about every respected figure in Motorsport from schumacher, to stewart, to hill, to walker (the one that know a bit about F1) etc would suggest otherwise."

I did not claim that schumacher had said that Lewis was the best rookie to enter F1.Yes you did claim exactly that, you can ask anyone with a good understanding of english to give you their interpretation of what you said, and if they agree with my view or your view. I suspect most will take my view :)


I said that the statistics and results to date point to that conclusion and the opinions of people like Schumacher and others suggested you were wrong in claiming he wasn't. So now you take back what you said just a few lines back and claim again that Schumacher said he is the best rookie in F1?
Make up your mind dude!

btw: I never claimed he isnt the best rookie to enter F1. Find me a quote where I said that he isnt the best rookie to enter F1.



but, have your silly little game. twist words and score points all you want. this isnt a court of law and i dont give a toss that someone like you derives some sort of perverted pleasure by trying to win some childish game.
LOL. Look, I wish it was a court of law, then it wouldnt be so easy for you weasel out of replying to the points I made in my earlier writings here, which were quite harmful to your case.
Debating, what I would consider to be the main reason behind forums, is about details and weakening the other persons arguments which he has used to support his opinions. Thats what I have done and, I have been very detailed about it. It is not twisting words, I have simply picked you up on the things you have said and now when I have done so and destroyed you without any remorse, you claim I am being "perverted".



my opinion is that Lewis is the best rookie to enter F1. results back that up. your opinion is whatever you choose it to be and your very welcome to it. And please tell me, when did I say he isnt the best rooke to enter F1 :) :cool:

[Ranger]

Prost thinks it is the car that is more important:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59947

Fifty-five year-old Prost, who retired from the sport in 1993, admitted he is not happy with Formula One's current status, and he believes too much technology is ruining the racing.

"Now it's not the same. Back in my days, the driver was more important than the car; now, it's technology first and then the driver's hands," Prost said.

"The cars are so equally matched because of the limitations and the technological advances that make overtaking so hard.

"The races are decided in the pits. The strategies are decisive in Formula One, the only thing that the teams can't take into account is driving errors."

[ioan]

Answering a question with another question is not an answer. It's evasive.

But his question was more realistic than your answer.

And also there were rookies who won heir first ever F1 race, I say they were better than Hamilton because of that. :cool:

[ioan]

Prost thinks it is the car that is more important:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/59947

It sums it up pretty well.
It also gives a hint to why a rookie can come on the podium 6 times in his first 6 races, win 2 out of those and lead his 2 times WDC team mate.
Not to mention the fact that all those reasons brought F1 to the point where we get drivers as young as Vettel on the grid. Were there drivers under 20 in F1 back in the 80s or even at the beginning of the 90s?

[aryan]

It sums it up pretty well.
It also gives a hint to why a rookie can come on the podium 6 times in his first 6 races, win 2 out of those and lead his 2 times WDC team mate.
Not to mention the fact that all those reasons brought F1 to the point where we get drivers as young as Vettel on the grid. Were there drivers under 20 in F1 back in the 80s or even at the beginning of the 90s?

And that has nothing to do with karting laws which allow kids as young as 8 to drive them, rather than the previous age limit which was 11?

Heikki, Lewis, Vettel and Sutil are the first generation to have benefited from this rule change.

[ioan]

And that has nothing to do with karting laws which allow kids as young as 8 to drive them, rather than the previous age limit which was 11?

Heikki, Lewis, Vettel and Sutil are the first generation to have benefited from this rule change.

You are right about the karting rules, but if it was not for all the electronic aids I fear that the young ones would need more years in lower formulae before being able to measure up with the seasoned mercenaries of F1.

[airshifter]

Face facts, all the statistics in the world don't prove or disprove raw talent when the car factor is a big part of the equation.

If drivers were switched, I think McLaren would still be leading the WCC, and likely Kimi would be leading the WDC.

Reliability alone weighs things in McLarens favor, and it seems to be combined with a car at least equal to the Ferrari, if not better. The same happened in recent past years with Ferrari cars being bulletproof, as well as Renault having the upper hand at times.

Sooner or later, the McLarens will break, or their drivers will fail. It's rare to have a Formula 1 season with complete dominance.

[OTA]

Nadal got into proffesional tennis and he's yet to lose a match in Paris. Tiger got into golf and from day 1 was ranked at the top of the game. Don't remember well, but I'm pretty sure it didn't take Michael Jonhson many years to kill the world in the 400 and 200. Boris Becker won Wimbledon being an unknown and so forth and so on.
So LH ain't the first and won't be the last rookie to set the world on fire given the opportunity.
As for the topic thread, there are still 22 drivers on the grid triying to win, with 4 to 6 with machinery to do it, and every 2 of them with the same car. You allways have to beat someone to be first, and as in every sport in the world the very difficult part is to win, not to play.
It is obvious that F1 is a complicated business and it has become more and more a team effort, but I doubt Mac would be leading with Ron at the wheel. Drivers are as important as allways, maybe in a different way, but still as important.

Cheers
David

[Flat.tyres]

Face facts, all the statistics in the world don't prove or disprove raw talent when the car factor is a big part of the equation.

If drivers were switched, I think McLaren would still be leading the WCC, and likely Kimi would be leading the WDC.

Reliability alone weighs things in McLarens favor, and it seems to be combined with a car at least equal to the Ferrari, if not better. The same happened in recent past years with Ferrari cars being bulletproof, as well as Renault having the upper hand at times.

Sooner or later, the McLarens will break, or their drivers will fail. It's rare to have a Formula 1 season with complete dominance.

Fair point. i think that the Ferrari was the better package for the first few races but McLaren have improved faster and now have at least an equal package. What makes up the package is car, team and drivers.

The Ferrari is possibly the best car out there but the team and the drivers dont seem to be getting the best out of it for whatever reason. this surprises me as the Ferrari team are hugely experienced. Massa has 18 years in the sport with 5 years of f1 behind him in race and test roles so should be very capable of working to set up the car for optimum performance. kimi is a very fast pilot but does not have the depth of knowledge Massa has but this should not be an excuse.

i really fail to comprehend why they are struggleing :confused: Could it be that they were so focused on a #1 driver strategy that they are still suffering the Schumcher hangover and struggleing to adapt?

[ArrowsFA1]

Could it be that they were so focused on a #1 driver strategy that they are still suffering the Schumcher hangover and struggleing to adapt?
That, and the many staff changes, have inevitably had an effect. Massa represents some kind of continuity, but he is having to deal with different circumstances within the team and good though he is, he doesn't strike me as someone who will pull the team together. Combine that with the newcomer Kimi who gives the impression of someone who is interested in driving fast but not much else, and you have an unsettled period for Ferrari.

[Flat.tyres]

That, and the many staff changes, have inevitably had an effect. Massa represents some kind of continuity, but he is having to deal with different circumstances within the team and good though he is, he doesn't strike me as someone who will pull the team together. Combine that with the newcomer Kimi who gives the impression of someone who is interested in driving fast but not much else, and you have an unsettled period for Ferrari.

I think your righ Arrows.

before it was MS, MS, MS. He had the ability to focus the team and get everyone, including his team mate, pulling in his direction. It was easy for the team to see and understand their purpose lead by some great leaders.

now, there have been some fundemental changes to personnel, Massa seems like some pet dog in that he's likeable but no way a team leader and Kimi feels that his job is to get in the car and drive like the wind but not much else.

i really think they need Schumacher now more than ever to have a point of focus again but this whishy, washey consultant role isn't strong enough. If the team cannot get behind the drivers, then get behind Schumacher and let him direct them.

[Garry Walker]

Fair point. i think that the Ferrari was the better package for the first few races but McLaren have improved faster and now have at least an equal package.

At least equal? Is that why McLaren were clearly dominant in the last 3 races?



The Ferrari is possibly the best car out there but the team and the drivers dont seem to be getting the best out of it for whatever reason.

and how did you come to the conclusion that the Ferrari is possibly the best car there? Looking at this season sure makes that opinion sound rather stupid, considering all the reliability and speed problems they have been having.



this surprises me as the Ferrari team are hugely experienced. Massa has 18 years in the sport with 5 years of f1 behind him in race and test roles so should be very capable of working to set up the car for optimum performance. kimi is a very fast pilot but does not have the depth of knowledge Massa has but this should not be an excuse. Kimi and Massa both are very good test drivers. Not as good as Schumi or Wurz, but at least as good as someone like alonso. So too is Badoer, he is possibly the best test driver in F1.



i really fail to comprehend why they are struggleing :confused:
Could it be that the car simply isnt as quick as the McLaren, especially on one lap pace :confused: :cool:


Could it be that they were so focused on a #1 driver strategy that they are still suffering the Schumcher hangover and struggleing to adapt? nonsense. They are lacking Schumis speed, but in comparison to McLaren they are giving away nothing on the driver front. So the problem lies within the cars speed and reliability.

[Flat.tyres]

gary [sic]

do you just like baiting people for fun? Do you realise it makes you look stupid and childish?

OK, grand master of Logic. Here is my response.

1. The McLaren looks faster? Why is that when Ferrari looked faster at the start of the season. Have McLaren just had a new engine that delivers more HP? A whole new Aero package thats more efficient?

Both cars are limited to 19k. Agreed? The Ferrari was better at the start of the season. Agreed? So, the question is what is the difference. Could it possibly be that McLaren have refined the car better and the drivers are doing a better job? or is that impossible? Could that be why theyre doing better now?

Point 2. I have no problem you calling me stupid but the Ferrari was the better car at the start (on results) and possibly is still the better car (if you understand the meaning of the word possibly). I said that McLaren are doing a better job as a team and getting better results from their package. Isnt it stupid to claim that the Ferrari isnt the best car when you have no proof and as you have previously claimed, the Ferrari team is having challenges setting the car up. Is it not a possibility that these issues with setting the car up may stem from not getting the dynamics right within the team and translating that into performance.

So, please clarify how you come to the conclusion that it is my stupidity rather than your own ignorance?

3. I take it your next point is pure opinion and conjecture. the way you phrased it, it looks like you can back up that statement with facts. please clarify because if you are stating as fact that Kimi is at least as good at testing than Alonso, if not better, but neither is as good as Luca or Alex, then you must be able to back it up. Cant you?

4. Again, you are making incorrect statements. How can you claim that the Ferrari isn't as good as the McLaren on 1 lap pace? Your talking nonsense again.

5. It was a question. It was raising a theory. How can that be nonsense? I think its a valid question that may be correct or may be wrong but do be so single bloody minded as to just dismiss a valid question as nonsense just because of your blinkered viewpoint. Again, very immature.

so Gary. before calling people stupid and their question nonsense, take a good hard look in the mirror because I know far more about this sport than you ever will and if you continue this pathetic point scoring feud of yours to batter legitimate discussion into the ground, then I will make it a point to pick apart every one of your points and expose them for the meaningless, unsubstantiated, error ridden fantasy they are.

[trumperZ06]

:D YEEOOUU... think I'll open a new bottle of Jack Daniels, grab a good cigar, put my feet up, and enjoy the rapier like comments !!! ;) :s mokin:

[ioan]

gary [sic]

do you just like baiting people for fun? Do you realise it makes you look stupid and childish?

OK, grand master of Logic. Here is my response.

1. The McLaren looks faster? Why is that when Ferrari looked faster at the start of the season. Have McLaren just had a new engine that delivers more HP? A whole new Aero package thats more efficient?

Both cars are limited to 19k. Agreed? The Ferrari was better at the start of the season. Agreed? So, the question is what is the difference. Could it possibly be that McLaren have refined the car better and the drivers are doing a better job? or is that impossible? Could that be why theyre doing better now?

Point 2. I have no problem you calling me stupid but the Ferrari was the better car at the start (on results) and possibly is still the better car (if you understand the meaning of the word possibly). I said that McLaren are doing a better job as a team and getting better results from their package. Isnt it stupid to claim that the Ferrari isnt the best car when you have no proof and as you have previously claimed, the Ferrari team is having challenges setting the car up. Is it not a possibility that these issues with setting the car up may stem from not getting the dynamics right within the team and translating that into performance.

So, please clarify how you come to the conclusion that it is my stupidity rather than your own ignorance?

3. I take it your next point is pure opinion and conjecture. the way you phrased it, it looks like you can back up that statement with facts. please clarify because if you are stating as fact that Kimi is at least as good at testing than Alonso, if not better, but neither is as good as Luca or Alex, then you must be able to back it up. Cant you?

4. Again, you are making incorrect statements. How can you claim that the Ferrari isn't as good as the McLaren on 1 lap pace? Your talking nonsense again.

5. It was a question. It was raising a theory. How can that be nonsense? I think its a valid question that may be correct or may be wrong but do be so single bloody minded as to just dismiss a valid question as nonsense just because of your blinkered viewpoint. Again, very immature.

so Gary. before calling people stupid and their question nonsense, take a good hard look in the mirror because I know far more about this sport than you ever will and if you continue this pathetic point scoring feud of yours to batter legitimate discussion into the ground, then I will make it a point to pick apart every one of your points and expose them for the meaningless, unsubstantiated, error ridden fantasy they are.

What the h*ll is going on today? Personal attacks over personal attacks!
Got a problem with his views, challenge them with facts not with personal attacks. :s

[Flat.tyres]

:D YEEOOUU... think I'll open a new bottle of Jack Daniels, grab a good cigar, put my feet up, and enjoy the rapier like comments !!! ;) :s mokin:

chuck me a slog over here. I could do with a bit of the smooooth stuff :D

[nigelred5]

It's always a combination of driver and car, mostly it's about a drivers ability to get the best performance out of the machine he is given and what he can do to assist in it's development. Kimi looked for happier in the McLaren than the Ferrari, if he had stayed where he was he maybe of been on top at this point in time.


I see another factor regarding the driver's emotions. McLaren has historically been known as a cold, deliberate, calculating but somewhat emotionless outfit. Ferrrari, despite Brawn and todt's presence is still a typically italian team, full of fire and emotion. I don't think it is a coincidence that the drivers that match their overall team personalities are the ones performing better and gettin better results. Also, the drivers that stayed with their respective teams are clearly the more comfortable of the lot. New car, same old shoes so to speak. Neither driver that switched is showing as well as I would have expected given their reptuation and past records. Kimi, fast laps or not, just doesn't seem to be as comfortable and almose seems to be going no where but backwards the last couple of races

Massa is clearly the more openly passionate, albeit maybe a little less consistent and precise of the two Ferrari drivers. Kimi has the cool, ice-man type on track persona, maybe slightly shy and quiet off track(until we mix a little party in anyway ;) ). I suspect he just hasn't meshed well to date with the team. I think the same can be said for the McLaren drivers. Clearly Hamilton (What a phenominal rookie!) is making better use of the team and car and blends quite well with the McLaren team where he has obviously been for some time. Alonzo just doesn't seem to be quite as fast or getting the same results out of the team, and his recent comments would suggest that maybe, a little of that firey latino personality and a not so little dose of a splendid rookie's success is getting the best of him right now.

[Garry Walker]

Here is my response. Oh I think I will enjoy this one :D


Have McLaren just had a new engine that delivers more HP? A whole new Aero package thats more efficient?
Actually, yes they had a new engine for Monaco, apparently gaining them around 20 HP. It was widely reported in German press. McLaren already said at the start of the year they aim to improve by 2 tenths every race and just after the Indy GP Whitmarsh said they have managed to improve by more than that. So far they have brought improvements/developments(yes, that actually includes new aero packages) to EVERY race, whereas Ferrari didnt bring any improvements to Malaysia, Bahrain and even Indy.



Both cars are limited to 19k. Agreed? The Ferrari was better at the start of the season. Agreed?
Ferrari was better at Australia, but worse at Malaysia. They were equal at Bahrain. So have your pick which was the better car at the start of the year



So, the question is what is the difference. Could it possibly be that McLaren have refined the car better and the drivers are doing a better job? or is that impossible? Could that be why theyre doing better now?

Of course McLaren have made their car better, thats the thing. But the drivers are the most likely to stay a constant through a period, so I would say its probably stupid to claim McLaren drivers are driving the car better than they were at Australia for example and Ferrari drivers havent improved their driving (which seems to be your argument), Id say the improvements have come from making the car better overall and making it easier for the drivers to drive.



Point 2. but the Ferrari was the better car at the start (on results) So is that why McLaren has been leading the WCC after every race this year and also been leading the WDC after every race since Malaysia? :rotflmao: Good argument dude



and possibly is still the better car (if you understand the meaning of the word possibly). Funny, all the data available to the public suggests otherwise.



Is it not a possibility that these issues with setting the car up may stem from not getting the dynamics right within the team and translating that into performance. The problem right now is that their car is simply harder to setup than the McLaren, which in Alonsos hands for example seemed extremely stable on the first lap already at Indy. That is undeniable.
But even when they manage to get it set up, then they lack performance in some areas compared to the McLaren. Especially when it comes to qualifying and starts.



3. I take it your next point is pure opinion and conjecture. the way you phrased it, it looks like you can back up that statement with facts. please clarify because if you are stating as fact that Kimi is at least as good at testing than Alonso, if not better, but neither is as good as Luca or Alex, then you must be able to back it up.
Hey dude, you are the one who claimed Kimi doesnt have the depth of knowledge, so why dont you find proof for that? Will it satisfy you if I tell you that his Ferrari race engineer himself said they are very happy with his feedback and similar things were said by Pierre Dupasquier and McLaren engineers?
As for Wurz - Sam Michael recently said Wurz is the best driver feedback wise he has ever had the pleasure of doing business with.
As for Badoer, his testing ability is well-known, as is his lack of speed on track. You will also have to reread what I said in my earlier post. I didnt say Badoer is better than Kimi or Alonso, but I said he is the best test driver (you know, driver who only tests as opposed to racing)



4. Again, you are making incorrect statements. How can you claim that the Ferrari isn't as good as the McLaren on 1 lap pace? Your talking nonsense again.
Have you seen any races this year? Ferraris problems with one lap speed is well known and well reported, by themselves and everyone who has seen races. It has gotten worse since they brought their updates to the Spanish GP, as it made the car even easier on the tyres, but due to that they are having even more problems with heating up the tyres. If you dont believe me and havent been paying attention to the last few races, then go and read automoto365.com, and their insider report on USA GP. To make it easier for you, as they require registration, I will quote some parts.


Ferrari’s main weakness at the moment is qualifying, coincidence or not but ever since the introduction of the updated F2007 in Barcelona they have been struggling to warm up the tyres, particularly the fronts. The greener the circuit, the colder the temperatures, the bigger the problem. It is resulting in understeer, which you could easily see on the onboard camera shots of Massa and Raikkonen. In Barcelona high temperatures and the nature of the track with its long corners concealed the problem, but from Monte Carlo onwards it has became more and more apparent. However, even the very high temperatures at Indy, where it reached over 50 degrees, could not cure this problem.

So the next time before dismissing the talk of someone more knowledgable as nonsense, as you have just done, think of the consequences :)



5. It was a question. It was raising a theory. How can that be nonsense? I think its a valid question that may be correct or may be wrong but do be so single bloody minded as to just dismiss a valid question as nonsense just because of your blinkered viewpoint. Again, very immature.

I called it nonsense, because it made no sense. Ferraris problems have nothing to do with Schumacher, their problems are engineering related.



I know far more about this sport than you ever willYeah, and Im elvis :D



and if you continue this pathetic point scoring feud of yours to batter legitimate discussion into the ground, then I will make it a point to pick apart every one of your points and expose them for the meaningless, unsubstantiated, error ridden fantasy they are.Point scoring feud? Go ahead, give it your best shot.Destroy my points. I love good arguments

[leopard]

Ferrari was fast in pre season tests and first few (4) races, including Malaysia if Massa didn’t do a mistake. It was obvious that Ferrari at that stage faster.

Catchy words to explain why is McLaren now in the front of Ferrari because research and development of F1 car is every second counts. Race in race out they perform with the progress, besides basically they have two strong divers, well accommodated drivers on the new car, new tires, and even at new races.

In the race McLaren won where Ferrari traditionally wins will be a not too good precedence and what have Massa said that Ferrari can’t catch up Hamilton might be true.

There is a piece of expectation that some of the rest races might be suitable for Ferrari, as is Alonso’s hope that when we come back to Europe the real race will start there.

[Flat.tyres]

Actually, yes they had a new engine for Monaco, apparently gaining them around 20 HP. It was widely reported in German press. McLaren already said at the start of the year they aim to improve by 2 tenths every race and just after the Indy GP Whitmarsh said they have managed to improve by more than that. So far they have brought improvements/developments (yes, that actually includes new aero packages) to EVERY race, whereas Ferrari didn’t bring any improvements to Malaysia, Bahrain and even Indy.

Are you suggesting they have found a way of increasing the Torque in the engine? Please tell us how? We know the max RPM and the calculation. We also know the regulations so come on brainiac. :rolleyes: I’m not an engineer but even I know the basics so what’s the magic formula? How did they increase the BHP by 20?

For your information, BHP is torque*rev/5252

Don’t confuse this with drive hp though because that is not influenced by BHP but by gearbox etc. :rolleyes: suggest you go back to your books and look it up chap, your making yourself look silly again.

Ferrari was better at Australia, but worse at Malaysia. They were equal at Bahrain. So have your pick which was the better car at the start of the year

very subjective and opinion. You fail to take into account drivers, strategy, team performance and a whole host of other things. Basically, your saying that the Ferrari is good, bad and then indifferent. Can you not appreciate that other factors affect this? It needs a good car, good team, good strategy and good drivers to win a GP.

So, rather than have opinions, lets look at what performances were actually achieved.

Race 1. Ferrari pole, won and Fastest lap. Ferrari obviously the best car on the results.
Race 2. Ferrari pole but struggled during the race and lost out on the win and Fastest lap.
Race 3. Ferrari pole, win and Fastest lap.
Race 4, Pole, win and fastest lap.

Out of the 1st 4 races, they dominated 3 in performance and failed to deliver on results.
The car is a superb car. It qualified on pole for the first 4 races and had 3 of the fastest laps in those races and took 3 of the wins. Why they didn’t get the 4th win is by some great driving.
SO, WHAT IS YOUR POINT AGAIN?????

Ahhhhh, the old reliability card.

Massa had a reliability problem in qualifying but managed to take 6th so got 3 points. Now, as Kimi won, the maximum Ferrari would have been able to gain net is 5 points assuming they had a perfect 1-2.

Quite frankly, the way Massa was at the start of the season, I was amazed he finished at all but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, Kimi had a genuine issue and retirement in the race and lost 6 points. You can have that one as well.

So, by putting everything in Ferrari’s favour, assuming they finished the best they could and being as nice as I can, I still make it 60 points to Ferrari and 58 to McLaren when Ferrari had the best car in 3 of the 4 races and had even qualified it on pole in the other one.

So, my delusional friend, please back up the post you’ve written against facts, not opinion, and give a proper response or admit your talking nonsense again.


Of course McLaren have made their car better, that’s the thing. But the drivers are the most likely to stay a constant through a period, so I would say its probably stupid to claim McLaren drivers are driving the car better than they were at Australia for example and Ferrari drivers haven’t improved their driving (which seems to be your argument), Id say the improvements have come from making the car better overall and making it easier for the drivers to drive.

This was a response to where I said “So, the question is what is the difference. Could it possibly be that McLaren have refined the car better and the drivers are doing a better job? or is that impossible? Could that be why they’re doing better now?”

So, you’re agreeing that the team have done a better job of managing their season and optimising the car. At last we’re getting somewhere :rolleyes:

But you refuse to accept that 2 brand new drivers to a team, one with no experience of racing a F1 car, cannot improve and go on a steep learning curve over the course of their virgin McLaren season.

That is one of the strangest thing I have read in a forum.

Let’s look at Ferrari. They have a very experienced test driver and F1 driver with a few years experience behind him, a former multi WDC advising, an excellent relationship with the single tyre manufacturer and pretty good continuity compared to the situation at McLaren. The only real new change to the coal face was Kimi coming in.

Quite frankly, I have been astounded that Ferrari are doing such a rubbish job with the car and am amazed that Freddie and Lewis are maturing in the team so quickly as the results suggest.


So is that why McLaren has been leading the WCC after every race this year and also been leading the WDC after every race since Malaysia? Good argument dude

I think I have answered that quite comprehensively earlier in my post. I supplied facts and figures to back up my argument. I am waiting for similar from you to refute it.

[Flat.tyres]

Quote:

and possibly is still the better car (if you understand the meaning of the word possibly).
Funny, all the data available to the public suggests otherwise.

Can you still not differentiate between a car and a package?

The McLaren team is getting better use out of the drivers and machinery so far this year. They are, on evidence, better at setting up the car and getting the results.

Which is the best car is a matter for opinion but I know that the Ferrari has not gone from the dominant car (on the results) for over the first half of the races to being inferior to the McLaren now. The cars have been tweaked with a new twist here and there but have not been significantly changed. It’s like when you claim the McLaren turned up with a new engine with an additional 20 BHP. :laugh: What a joke :laugh: Do you just read the trash mags and make your argument from there? Get real man, learn the rules and find out about the sport a little.


The problem right now is that their car is simply harder to setup than the McLaren, which in Alonso’s hands for example seemed extremely stable on the first lap already at Indy. That is undeniable.
But even when they manage to get it set up, then they lack performance in some areas compared to the McLaren. Especially when it comes to qualifying and starts.

No, you cannot state that it’s harder to set up. You, nor anyone on this planet, has set up both cars this season. You are just quoting Journalist supposition and claiming it as fact. What we can see is that the McLaren appears to be better set up. We can hypothecate about the reasons but cannot claim that one is easier than the other because we don’t know. We can suggest that one of the reasons may be that the McLaren team is just doing a better job but we cannot state it as fact. You’re the point scorer, can you not see it or are you being hypocritical?


Hey dude, you are the one who claimed Kimi doesn’t have the depth of knowledge, so why don’t you find proof for that? Will it satisfy you if I tell you that his Ferrari race engineer himself said they are very happy with his feedback and similar things were said by Pierre Dupasquier and McLaren engineers?
As for Wurz - Sam Michael recently said Wurz is the best driver feedback wise he has ever had the pleasure of doing business with.
As for Badoer, his testing ability is well-known, as is his lack of speed on track. You will also have to reread what I said in my earlier post. I didn’t say Badoer is better than Kimi or Alonso, but I said he is the best test driver (you know, driver who only tests as opposed to racing)

:laugh: There you go again. Taking everyone’s word at face value and quoting it as fact.
We know they are all good test drivers but there is no proof who is better. You cannot even agree that Ferrari was the best performing car over the first few races so how can you expect to use bias opinions and state them as fact :laugh: Still, your always worth a smile



4. Again, you are making incorrect statements. How can you claim that the Ferrari isn't as good as the McLaren on 1 lap pace? You’re talking nonsense again.
Have you seen any races this year? Ferraris problems with one lap speed is well known and well reported, by themselves and everyone who has seen races. It has gotten worse since they brought their updates to the Spanish GP, as it made the car even easier on the tyres, but due to that they are having even more problems with heating up the tyres. If you don’t believe me and haven’t been paying attention to the last few races, then go and read automoto365.com, and their insider report on USA GP. To make it easier for you, as they require registration, I will quote some parts.

I have the knowledge, intelligence and ability to come to my own conclusions.
However, you prefer to rely on “inside” reports derived from whatever source then I can’t stop you making a fool of yourself. However, before claiming that Ferrari have no pace over a lap, look at the fastest lap last race. Strangely, it was the Ferrari. In fact, Ferrari have 4 of the 7 fastest laps so far. It makes your statement and “proof” that Ferrari are struggling with one lap speed.
Are you trying to say the problem is with getting the tyres up to speed for a one lap qualifying run then? Well, not surprisingly, they have the edge over McLaren there as well with 4 vs. 3 so far.
So, where are these big problems. The car is setting fastest laps at the majority of GP’s setting pole at the majority of GP’s yet is some sort of brick according to you.

You have to say that the car is possibly (remember that word) and on the evidence, even probably, the quickest one out there.

Now, as you stated in your post that ALL THE DATA SUGGESTS OTHERWISE” and I would like you to back that up. What data backs up the car as being the problem? I SUGGEST that the car is, on referential data, the best out there. It is also my opinion that the drivers and team are not getting the maximum out of the car. Yet, you seem to want to question my intelligence for making this logical link. I ask again to prove it.


So the next time before dismissing the talk of someone more knowledgeable as nonsense, as you have just done, think of the consequences

I expect you will want to retract this statement or at least prove it because I think you need to start backing up your ill thought out and irrelevant arguments.


I called it nonsense, because it made no sense. Ferraris problems have nothing to do with Schumacher, their problems are engineering related.

Your not trying to justify your opinion with more opinion are you? I have been quoting facts and made you look pretty foolish. You want to play games like a little boy and have been caught with your hand well and truly in your 6th form debating clubs cookie jar. Next time you want to spin every argument with meaningless drivel, pick someone that knows as much as you do because I’m fed up wasting my time with you. Mind you It has been fun in a perverse way :devil:


Yeah, and I’m Elvis

You don’t work in a chip shop do you?


Point scoring feud? Go ahead, give it your best shot. Destroy my points. I love good arguments

There really is no argument but I hope you appreciate my reply.

Cya

Ps. Sorry for correcting a few of your posts. I took the time to do this in word so apologies for correcting your beloved spelling and grammar.

[Garry Walker]

Are you suggesting they have found a way of increasing the Torque in the engine? Please tell us how? We know the max RPM and the calculation. We also know the regulations so come on brainiac.

There are still some things that can be changed within the engine, read the regulations, educate yourself. Not much, but apparently it was enough for McLaren to find some more HP. Now I dont understanding much about engineering, because quite frankly I find it immensly boring, but when I have to choose between the opinion of AMuS (german well-known motorsport magazine) who have been right in countless issues regarding F1 and you, then I know which one I will pick. I also know which one will be picked by any reasonable person.




very subjective and opinion. You fail to take into account drivers, strategy, team performance and a whole host of other things. Basically, your saying that the Ferrari is good, bad and then indifferent. Can you not appreciate that other factors affect this? It needs a good car, good team, good strategy and good drivers to win a GP.

What are you on about? I know all these things, but it seems for you that when Ferrari wins, its because they have the best car, but when they lose, its because they are idiots and dont know how to make use of the "best car"? Do you think your opinion is "objective" :rotflmao:
Do totally exclude the possibility of Ferrari team mechanics and drivers outperforming McLaren at melbourne because they did a better job, rather than had a faster car? Talk about objectivity.



Race 1. Ferrari pole, won and Fastest lap. Ferrari obviously the best car on the results.
Race 2. Ferrari pole but struggled during the race and lost out on the win and Fastest lap.
Race 3. Ferrari pole, win and Fastest lap.
Race 4, Pole, win and fastest lap.
You said Ferrari was the best car based on results in beginning of the year. It is a fact that you claimed it. Now you are trying to bring some gaga logic to the thread by using worthless Fastest laps when you have been exposed.
I destroyed your argument, because a fact is that Ferrari hasnt been the best car. If it was the best car, then it would have been leading the championship after the first few races.
race 1: Ferrari fastest car, but overall not the best - Because of Massas car problems.
race 2: McLaren clearly quicker. Its not even questionable.
race 3: Hamilton would have poled, but he messed up his last fast lap in qualy. In the race the McLaren and Ferrari were equal, but circumstances meant Ferrari had the advantage, position wise. If Hamilton had managed to take the lead after start, he probably would have managed to open a gap to Massa that he needed.So it was equal. Fastest laps are irrelevant
Take last race for example. When Kimi set the fastest lap, then Alonso and Hamilton werent even pushing anymore.
race 4: Ferrari faster clearly (in race, in qualy it was around equal), but a technical problem for Kimi causes retirement for him. Considering how important reliability is, then it would mean only a moron could call Ferrari the best car of the 4 first races. Overall, the fastest yes based on the first 4 races, but not the best.


Out of the 1st 4 races, they dominated 3 in performance and failed to deliver on results. No, they didnt domiante at Bahrain, did you even see the race? It was very equal.



The car is a superb car. It qualified on pole for the first 4 races and had 3 of the fastest laps in those races and took 3 of the wins. Why they didn’t get the 4th win is by some great driving. Wait, so when Ferrari wins, its the car? but when they dont win, its the drivers fault? :rotflmao:
Considering How many times Kimi has said that the car is hard to drive, I have to say it probably isnt that much superb of a car as you want it to seem like.



SO, WHAT IS YOUR POINT AGAIN?????

Ahhhhh, the old reliability card.

Massa had a reliability problem in qualifying but managed to take 6th so got 3 points. Now, as Kimi won, the maximum Ferrari would have been able to gain net is 5 points assuming they had a perfect 1-2.

Quite frankly, the way Massa was at the start of the season, I was amazed he finished at all but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, Kimi had a genuine issue and retirement in the race and lost 6 points. You can have that one as well.

So, by putting everything in Ferrari’s favour, assuming they finished the best they could and being as nice as I can, I still make it 60 points to Ferrari and 58 to McLaren when Ferrari had the best car in 3 of the 4 races and had even qualified it on pole in the other one.

So, my delusional friend, please back up the post you’ve written against facts, not opinion, and give a proper response or admit your talking nonsense again.
What are you on about? Are you trying to make me laugh? Please answer that seriously, because I am laughing now. But even though it is hard, I will try to gather myself and hold back the laughter while I answer your post.

First you dont use points as the criteria in determining the best car. Then at the end part you are going on about "I make it 60 points to Ferrari". Whats the meaning of that? Where did you get that 60 points? By assuming they would have had perfect reliability? But they didnt. So your claim that they had the best car is absurd, it makes no sense.
Let me ask you this - would you prefer a car that is the fastest in 4 races out of 6, but also has to retire in 2 races out of those 6 because of some mechanical problems, or a car that is 2nd fastest in 4 races out of 6 and the fastest in 2 races, but has no mechanical problems?

In your logical thought about that you have even managed to forget that when Ferrari gains points, McLaren loses points, so its for sure not 60:58 :rotflmao:



This was a response to where I said “So, the question is what is the difference. Could it possibly be that McLaren have refined the car better and the drivers are doing a better job? or is that impossible? Could that be why they’re doing better now?”

So, you’re agreeing that the team have done a better job of managing their season and optimising the car. At last we’re getting somewhere

I have always said McLaren have done a better job of development, that has been my argument all the time, whereas you seem to be going on about McLaren drives being oh so much better than the Ferrari ones. I am surprised you havent noticed this before, but then again...



But you refuse to accept that 2 brand new drivers to a team, one with no experience of racing a F1 car, cannot improve and go on a steep learning curve over the course of their virgin McLaren season.

That is one of the strangest thing I have read in a forum.
There is very little development left in the drivers. Hamilton, you have to remember, is the best prepared rookie to ever enter F1. Alonso, just like Kimi are driving for new teams and still gaining experience with those respective teams, but they both have driven thousands of KM with their cars already. Id say they are pretty much doing as good as they ever will.
Over a course of the season the most constant will be the driver, because the cars are updated all the time, but drivers can improve by a very little amount only.



Let’s look at Ferrari. They have a very experienced test driver and F1 driver with a few years experience behind him, a former multi WDC advising, an excellent relationship with the single tyre manufacturer and pretty good continuity compared to the situation at McLaren. The only real new change to the coal face was Kimi coming in.

Quite frankly, I have been astounded that Ferrari are doing such a rubbish job with the car
Maybe that is because the F2007 car isnt as good as you think it is :rolleyes:
You also seem to forget that while McLaren has continuity in the technical team (which is where it matters, it matters very little on the driver front), then Ferrari has lost Ross Brawn and Paolo Martinelli and had their whole technical team restructured. But I guess thats irrelevant for you?
As of course will be irrelevant for you that Ferraris windtunnel was out of use for a week.
Also it is irrelevant for you that Hamilton has been a McLaren guy since before 2000 already. So the only big change they had was Alonso coming, whereas Ferrari had quite many changes.


The F2007 appeared very fast at Melbourne after which every moron in world was going on about it being oh so fast, when it has always been a case that that track suits the Ferrari and circumstances made it look even better. Now after that the morons took it in their head that Ferrari is the fastest car, and if they suddenly arent the fastest in some race, its because the drivers suck. No deviation can be allowed.
That is the viewpoint of the intellectually challenged F1 viewers, IMHO.


and am amazed that Freddie and Lewis are maturing in the team so quickly as the results suggest. They have to think the McLaren engineers for being able to develop the car at such a fast rate.


I think I have answered that quite comprehensively earlier in my post. I supplied facts and figures to back up my argument. I am waiting for similar from you to refute it. You might have answered them, but unfortunately its my duty to let you know that your post really didnt destroy, or refute, anything I said.


The McLaren team is getting better use out of the drivers and machinery so far this year. They are, on evidence, better at setting up the car and getting the results.

So its not about the Mclaren car being better? Gotcha. Nothing to do with the car being better or being easier to set up?. :rotflmao:

[Garry Walker]

Which is the best car is a matter for opinion but I know that the Ferrari has not gone from the dominant car (on the results) for over the first half of the races to being inferior to the McLaren now.
hahahahahahahahaha. You mean the dominant Ferrari car based on results, which is yet to lead the WCC? Please tell me you were joking when you wrote that.
Even if it had been dominant (it hasnt and I am shocked anyone can make such a claim), then you seem to forget such a thing called as development rate. Ferrari didnt bring any updates to their car until Spanish GP, no updates for Indy, very few real updates for Monaco, whereas the McLaren team has kept up a very persistant development rate and brought updates to every GP so far this year, with Whitmarsh saying that they have done better than they predicted at the start of the season pertaining development rate (they expected 2 tenths per every race, they have exceeded that)

Seems you have exposed yourself with that quote aswell. You say "I know". That means by default you arent even open to debate



The cars have been tweaked with a new twist here and there but have not been significantly changed.
hahaha Is that why Whitmarsh says they have exceeded their expected development rate of 2 tenths per every race?
Whats your take on that :D
(BTW: if you dont know who is this Whitmarsh guy I am talking about, I can shed light on that)
(BTW2: 2 tenths in F1 is a massive amount)


It’s like when you claim the McLaren turned up with a new engine with an additional 20 BHP. What a joke
Your word against Martin Whitmarsh` word hahahaha (that is actually very funny).



Do you just read the trash mags and make your argument from there? Get real man, learn the rules and find out about the sport a little.
Considering you seemed oblivious to the fact they are actually allowed to tweak their engines even this year, it doesnt seem that it is me who needs to read the rules


No, you cannot state that it’s harder to set up.
You, nor anyone on this planet, has set up both cars this season. You are just quoting Journalist supposition and claiming it as fact.

Actually, I am quoting myself. Its called an opinion. Alonso and LH have both praised the McLaren this year and rarely have had anything negative to say about its behaviour. That is different for Ferrari guys. Why is that so you think?



What we can see is that the McLaren appears to be better set up. We can hypothecate about the reasons but cannot claim that one is easier than the other because we don’t know. We can suggest that one of the reasons may be that the McLaren team is just doing a better job but we cannot state it as fact. Whilst it is entirely possible that the McLaren team have done a better job of setting the car up, it is also a very logical deduction from that the McLaren car is easier to set up. How else do you explain the constant amount of troubles the Ferrari has had, especially with softer tyres?



There you go again. Taking everyone’s word at face value and quoting it as fact. So you think Sam Michael, Pierre Dupasquier and Luca Baldiseri arent qualified to give an opinion about test drivers and abilities????
Do you have any idea how that sounds?


We know they are all good test drivers but there is no proof who is better. You cannot even agree that Ferrari was the best performing car over the first few races so how can you expect to use bias opinions and state them as fact :laugh: Still, your always worth a smile

Actually it was you who made claims about one of them not being as good as the others, not me. So smile all you like.


I have the knowledge, intelligence and ability to come to my own conclusions. However, you prefer to rely on “inside” reports derived from whatever source then I can’t stop you making a fool of yourself.
That "whatever source" is a site run by Nicholas Todt, you know, that guy who owns the ART gp2 team? His father is some nobody bum, works for Ferrari and is called Jean Todt. Exposed again.



However, before claiming that Ferrari have no pace over a lap, look at the fastest lap last race. Strangely, it was the Ferrari.
:rotflmao: Do you even know what pace over a lap means? IT MEANS QUALIFYING PACE. Strangely, or not so strangely, for those of us who have followed F1 and understand it, McLaren dominated there



It makes your statement and “proof” that Ferrari are struggling with one lap speed.
Care to rephrase that after I shown you the meaning of "one lap pace"



Are you trying to say the problem is with getting the tyres up to speed for a one lap qualifying run then? Well, not surprisingly, they have the edge over McLaren there as well with 4 vs. 3 so far.

Do you actually pay any attention what is written? Did you miss the part where I quite clearly wrote that Ferraris problems with qualifying pace started mostly at the Spanish GP when they put their rushed new not fully tested aero parts on the car to keep up with the McLaren?



You have to say that the car is possibly (remember that word) and on the evidence, even probably, the quickest one out there.
You have seen the last 3 races and you actually believe that??? Jesus christ.


Yet, you seem to want to question my intelligence for making this logical link. I ask again to prove it.
Because you have provided no logical link. By all accounts, the McLaren car is a better performing car at the moment and clearly has been for the last 3 races. When you give me some good info on



Your not trying to justify your opinion with more opinion are you? ? I gave you a very credible link, you are dismissing the opinion of the people who actually have contacts within F1 teams as irrelevant. Its up to you.



I have been quoting facts and made you look pretty foolish.
Fact for FlatTyres: "McLaren drivers are better than Ferrari ones". Is that what you refer to as a Fact?




You want to play games like a little boy and have been caught with your hand well and truly in your 6th form debating clubs cookie jar. Next time you want to spin every argument with meaningless drivel, pick someone that knows as much as you do because I’m fed up wasting my time with you.
There are very few people who know as much as me, so i have to "pick" on those less fortunate, less knowledgable ones :(


Mind you It has been fun in a perverse way
For me too.


You don’t work in a chip shop do you?Nope, cant say I share your line of business :D

[Flat.tyres]

Gary

You have just demonstrated what little you actually comprehend about Motor Sport with those 2 posts.

you twist, turn, discount facts one line then use them to back you up in the next. You have admitted that you are ignorant on subjects that you are stating as fact because statements and magazine articles back up your opinion over the law of physics.

I gave up reading your reply after the first few paragraphs because I couldn't believe someone with no knowledge would try to win an impossible discussion about what they obviously know little more than I do about what makes someone like you tick.

Stick to the facts, not opinions. I read on another thread that you claim Muhhamed is the most popular name in the UK when in fact it's about 20th. That just about sums up how much credibility you command.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293148&postcount=36

:laugh:

[Garry Walker]

Gary

You have just demonstrated what little you actually comprehend about Motor Sport with those 2 posts.

I might know very little about F1, but I sure destroyed all of your view points :D



you twist, turn, discount facts one line then use them to back you up in the next. You have admitted that you are ignorant on subjects that you are stating as fact because statements and magazine articles back up your opinion over the law of physics.
So why are teams still developing engines if there is no performance left to get from them :D ?



I gave up reading your reply after the first few paragraphs because I couldn't believe someone with no knowledge would try to win an impossible discussion about what they obviously know little more than I do about what makes someone like you tick.
You gave up because I have completely dismantled your rants. Whats even more interesting is that I have completely and totally gotten in your head and made you my physcological prisoner. :D


I read on another thread that you claim Muhhamed is the most popular name in the UK when in fact it's about 20th. That just about sums up how much credibility you command.

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293148&postcount=36

:laugh:

And I just posted proof for my case there, so you got outwitted again :laugh:

[Flat.tyres]

There are still some things that can be changed within the engine, read the regulations, educate yourself. Not much, but apparently it was enough for McLaren to find some more HP. Now I dont understanding much about engineering, because quite frankly I find it immensly boring, but when I have to choose between the opinion of AMuS (german well-known motorsport magazine) who have been right in countless issues regarding F1 and you, then I know which one I will pick. I also know which one will be picked by any reasonable person.

I thought I had better qualify why I couldn't be bothered to read any further.

Please let me know WHAT can be changed within the engine because the FIA and I will love to know how McLaren got an extra load of BHP and defied the the Laws of Physics. Please bear in mind that there is an engine freeze on development specifically stopping Manufacturers increasing the power of the engines.



Engine


Published with permission from the Federation Internationale de l' Automobile.

ARTICLE 5: ENGINE
5.1 Engine specification:
5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.
5.1.2 Subject only to Article 5.2, engine capacity must not exceed 2400 cc.
5.1.3 Supercharging is forbidden.
5.1.4 All engines must have 8 cylinders arranged in a 90º “V” configuration and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular.
5.1.5 Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
Only reciprocating poppet valves are permitted.
The sealing interface between the moving valve component and the stationary engine component must be circular.
5.2 Alternative engines:
For 2006 and 2007 only, the FIA reserves the right to allow any team to use an engine complying with the 2005 engine regulations, provided its maximum crankshaft rotational speed does not exceed a limit fixed from time to time by the FIA so as to ensure that such an engine will only be used by a team which does not have access to a competitive 2.4 litre V8 engine.
5.3 Other means of propulsion:
5.3.1 Subject only to Article 5.2, the use of any device, other than the 2.4 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1 above, to power the car, is not permitted.
5.3.2 The total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ, any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.
5.4 Engine dimensions:
5.4.1 Cylinder bore diameter may not exceed 98mm.
5.4.2 Cylinder spacing must be fixed at 106.5mm (+/- 0.2mm).
5.4.3 The crankshaft centreline must not be less than 58mm above the reference plane.
5.5 Weight and centre of gravity:
5.5.1 The overall weight of the engine must be a minimum of 95kg.
5.5.2 The centre of gravity of the engine may not lie less than 165mm above the reference plane.
5.5.3 The longitudinal and lateral position of the centre of gravity of the engine must fall within a region that is the geometric centre of the engine, +/- 50mm.
5.5.4 When establishing conformity with Article 5.5, the engine will include the intake system up to and including the air filter, fuel rail and injectors, ignition coils, engine mounted sensors and wiring, alternator, coolant pumps and oil pumps.
5.5.5 When establishing conformity with Article 5.4, the engine will not include:
- clutch and clutch actuation system ;
- flywheel ;
- electronic control units or any associated devices containing programmable semiconductors ;
- the alternator regulator ;
- liquids ;
- exhaust manifolds ;
- heat shields ;
- oil tanks, catch tanks or any breather system connected to them;
- studs used to mount the engine to the chassis or gearbox ;
- water system accumulators ;
- heat exchangers ;
- hydraulic system (e.g. pumps, accumulators, manifolds, servovalves, solenoids, actuators) except servo-valve and actuator for engine throttle control ;
- fuel pumps nor any component not mounted on the engine when fitted to the car.
- any ancillary equipment associated with the engine valve air system, such as hoses, regulators, reservoirs or compressors.
Furthermore, any parts which are not ordinarily part of an engine will not be included when assessing its weight. Examples of this could be, but are not limited to :
- Wiring harnesses having only a partial association with engine actuators or sensors ;
- A bell housing designed to be integral with the engine crankcase;
- Top engine mountings designed higher than necessary with integral webs or struts. The centre of any engine mounting which is part of a cam cover should not be any more than 100mm above a line between the camshaft centres, when measured parallel to it. Any webs integral with the cam cover should not extend further back than the centre of the second cylinder bore.
- Ballast. This is permitted on the engine (subject to the requirements of Article 4.2) but any in excess of 2kg will be removed from the engine before measuring engine weight or centre of gravity height.


This is not the full regs because it goes into alloys and actuators which I doubt you would understand.

I say again, I use facts where you quote opinions as facts. If you can come up with a single fact to substantiate your claim that isn't heresay, then please feel free to respond. If not, don't waste everyones time demonstrating my point further. I think its been done to death.

[Ranger]

Guys... surely you have something better to do. :p :

[Flat.tyres]

And I just posted proof for my case there, so you got outwitted again :laugh:

Actually, your mildly racist scaremongering was wrong.

Taking into account every conceivanle spelling and abbreviateion of Mohammed, it would come in the 2nd most popular name.

But, you haven't taken into account other names that are abbreviated or spelt differently or are derived from other names.

The article also fails to supply the source but says that statistics that from the NSO back up their claim so it is still an unproven, unobjective irrelevant piece of journalism based on unauthenticated facts.

Hmmmmmm. Sounds familar ;)

IF you had bother checking the facts, you would see that different versions of Mohammed exist 3 times in the top 100 names and none of them particulaly near the top. You will also notice that there is a fairly insignificant rise over the last 5 years and at times, the popularity of the name has decreased (All the Muslims must have been on Holiday).

So, seeing as this has nothing to do with F1, I suggest you leave it again as confusus says that when deep in a hole, wise man stop digging.

[Flat.tyres]

Guys... surely you have something better to do. :p :

Actually, no ;) If I dont batter this boy around the forum, I might have to get on with something productive and this is so much easier :D

[pino]

Garry and Flat.tyres, please stick to the topic (no politics in here) and try to continue the discussion in a nice way, or you will be in trouble !

[Flat.tyres]

Garry and Flat.tyres, please stick to the topic (no politics in here) and try to continue the discussion in a nice way, or you will be in trouble !

i dont give a horses dick whether the conversation is nice or not.

if this person keeps posting rubbish, I'll refute it. Isnt this a forum for that or is it a tea party?

so youve taken the answers that prove he talks sh1t and disposed of them. Right :rolleyes:

you could have destroyed the single most important discovery in the history of F1 because Gary was going to prove how McLaren bypass the engine freeze and get an additional 20 BHP without increasing the RPM or changing the bore, stroke etc. Newton was about to turn in his grave, Watt would blow his whistle, the Noble peace prize is being inscribed at this moment and God himself was about to admit he's f**ked up because Gary can prove, with the aid of a Magazine article and interview, that the laws of Physics are rubbish.

Isn't that more important than keeping it "nice" ;)

[pino]

i dont give a horses dick whether the conversation is nice or not.



You better do, as long I am in charge in here, and please don't be rude when you reply me !




if this person keeps posting rubbish, I'll refute it. Isnt this a forum for that or is it a tea party?



You can refuse it and reply to him in a nice way without offending ! This is a friendly forum and I intent to keep it that way !




so youve taken the answers that prove he talks sh1t and disposed of them. Right :rolleyes:



No I've deleted off-topic posts or posts with insults and personal attacks !

[Flat.tyres]

sorry pino. sometimes my manner is abrupt and I was in no way trying to be rude to you. I also didnt think I had launched a personal attack but merely pointed out that Gary talks rubbish.

so Gary, I ask again. please do explain how you, an article and a quote from a team member can substantiate your arguement and disprove the law of physics. perhaps if you can do this then we can move on to the second misguided part of your post.

of course, you can admit its rubbish and we can deal with the second part then.

facts gary, not armchair opinion and blind belief. Facts please.

[wedge]

I agree with Garry Walker

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Windsors_Wisdom&PO_ID=39755

I do remember reading an article by Steve Matchett saying how good generally the engineering staff at McLaren have been at consistantly dialling out understeer/neutralising the car over the past few years.

Now I still think Ferrari has better aero and McLaren has better mechanical grip and I think the French will confirm or upset my suspicions - namely because of the past three races where mechanical grip is just as important.

Ferraris didn't look as comfortable or quick enough on flat, low speed corners. Partly because the long wheelbase Ferrari understeers too much for Kimi's liking and whenever they do neutralise the car the oversteer looks a bit unpredictable.

At Canada the McLaren were comfortable sliding the back-end but they had tremendous traction on the exit off the corners, especially at the hairpins.

In Monaco the Ferraris were just not nimble enough.

[Flat.tyres]

I agree with Garry Walker

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Windsors_Wisdom&PO_ID=39755

I do remember reading an article by Steve Matchett saying how good generally the engineering staff at McLaren have been at consistantly dialling out understeer/neutralising the car over the past few years.

Now I still think Ferrari has better aero and McLaren has better mechanical grip and I think the French will confirm or upset my suspicions - namely because of the past three races where mechanical grip is just as important.

Ferraris didn't look as comfortable or quick enough on flat, low speed corners. Partly because the long wheelbase Ferrari understeers too much for Kimi's liking and whenever they do neutralise the car the oversteer looks a bit unpredictable.

At Canada the McLaren were comfortable sliding the back-end but they had tremendous traction on the exit off the corners, especially at the hairpins.

In Monaco the Ferraris were just not nimble enough.

sorry Wedge but can you elaborate on where you agree with Gary please?

I agree with you totally by the way. both cars are excellent but McLaren are getting the best out of what they have to play with.

i dont really know what the article has to do with the subject though :confused: peter is hugely experienced but a master of hindsight and stateing the bloody obvious. He was also someone that was very loyal to his driver and jumped from Guildfords ferrari dev site to Grove when Nige went to Franks place. When Nige retired, so did pete so it goes a way to explain why he assumes what he does.

he says.


What did people think?
Did they honestly think that Kimi Raikkonen was going to jump into Michael’s car and win a World Championship?
Did they think that Felipe Massa had learned nothing from Michael?
Did they think that all the good people from the Michael era were going to stick around and continue to do exactly the same job?
Did they think that Renault, with Giancarlo Fisichella as their “spearhead”, were going to be as competitive as they were with Fernando?
As I said a few weeks ago, Ferrari have lost a lot of aero testing time over the past couple of months.
My Italian contacts also tell me that there has been – and still is - a “wholesale departure of white-collar aero guys” from Maranello.
Ferrari will always win races in the course of any season. Michael [Schumacher] showed them how to win championships.
Now he has gone – and the system is slowly changing as a result. What does that tell you?
Ferrari are big enough to regroup and recruit, of course… but it won’t be the same.


you could have said






What did people think?
Did they honestly think that Fernando was going to jump into Kimi's car and win a World Championship?
Did they think that Lewis was going to be competitive in his first year?
Did they think that all the good people from the Kimi era were going to stick around and continue to do exactly the same job?


etc

the writing on the wall pre-season was that this was Ferraris year. superb car, a driver that was recognised as being just about the quickest out there and a very experienced #2.

perhaps I'll see if I can dig out some of his museings from the close season.

[wedge]

I've only skim-read the various arguemnents and I get the impression you're contradicting yourself, flat tyres, as an excuse to have a slagging match with Garry Walker.

[Flat.tyres]

I've only skim-read the various arguemnents and I get the impression you're contradicting yourself, flat tyres, as an excuse to have a slagging match with Garry Walker.

no problems. perhaps you could let me know where and I will accept it. i have no problem accepting if I have been wrong but just want to know where.

Now, Peter is actually a good example for this thread about the car vs the driver. Peter has long championed the excellence of Lewis as someone that should be in f1 as early as the last 3 races last year. i would imagine he has a little wry smile at being proved right where lots of his contempories were suggesting Ron had cocked up. if Lewis hadnt performed the way he has, who's to say that Ferrari wouldn't have been leading the championship?

for clarification, my position has always been that

1. on performance, the ferrari has proved it is the fastest car
2. McLaren as a team is doing a better job with their equipment than what Ferrari as a team is
3. the Mclaren drivers are doing a better job than the Ferrari ones.

so, to the subject of the thread, the Ferrari is the faster car, as proved by superior stats like Poles, Fastest Laps etc but the drivers (and I should have included teams in the first post) are what is making a difference (so far) this season.

[F1boat]

I think that without uncle Ron, Lewis wouldn't be that good. I don't think that in a Ferrari Fred will be better than now.
So, no, I don't think that there'd be any difference.

[wedge]

1. on performance, the ferrari has proved it is the fastest car
2. McLaren as a team is doing a better job with their equipment than what Ferrari as a team is



Still sounds like a contradiction to me.

It's all relative and debatable because McLaren have now the upper hand and Ferrari now look second rate and therefore cannot currently have the fastest car.

It's been very much agreed that Ferrari is still stuck on third base because the mechanical grip isn't there to optimise the tyres hence Kimi has been complaining non stop about one lap performance.

I think if Alonso was driving the Ferrari then I think he would be at least a tenth or two quicker than Massa because I think Alonso is much more intelligent - taking into account of Alonso's current driving style he tried to drive with understeer at the beginning of the year to having the rear-end sliding and more neutral. Whether he learnt that from Lewis is another debate entirely!

[Valve Bounce]

I think that without uncle Ron, Lewis wouldn't be that good.

This is quite true. "Lewis Hamilton completed five full seasons of car racing under McLaren's supervision, skipped the test driver role, and arrived as a complete package."

There is a vast difference between car speed alone and racing experience coupled with car speed. Lewis Hamilton has them both.

But having said that, don't sell Fernando short, nor the two Ferrari drivers. The championship is open for grabs between the four.

[F1boat]

This is quite true. "Lewis Hamilton completed five full seasons of car racing under McLaren's supervision, skipped the test driver role, and arrived as a complete package."

There is a vast difference between car speed alone and racing experience coupled with car speed. Lewis Hamilton has them both.

But having said that, don't sell Fernando short, nor the two Ferrari drivers. The championship is open for grabs between the four.

We'll see tomorrow. If Hamilton wins again, it's over, IMO. Obviously the Macca is a great driver and Hamilton is not only a great talent, but very calm in the team.

[Valve Bounce]

We'll see tomorrow. If Hamilton wins again, it's over, IMO. Obviously the Macca is a great driver and Hamilton is not only a great talent, but very calm in the team.

Never count your bridges before you cross your chickens.

[F1boat]

I am so happy that Ferrari won!!!!!!!!

[jens]

Was that Magny-Cours race a one-off for Ferrari? In the previous years McLaren has often struggled at Magny-Cours. I expect McLaren to be a lot closer at Silverstone and maybe even snatch a win there. But I may also be wrong.

[wedge]

Just as I expected, the Ferrari has better aero. The car works better in high downforce configuration but poor mechanical grip/comprising downforce settings.

I suspect they also running very stiff springs to get the one-lap performance.

[wmcot]

A bit of a disappointing race for LH and a real change in my opinion of the car/driver ratio. LH did not really impress today and suddenly seemed to be a bit ordinary. Perhaps everyone is expecting a bit too much from him in every race?

[Flat.tyres]

Still sounds like a contradiction to me.

It's all relative and debatable because McLaren have now the upper hand and Ferrari now look second rate and therefore cannot currently have the fastest car.

It's been very much agreed that Ferrari is still stuck on third base because the mechanical grip isn't there to optimise the tyres hence Kimi has been complaining non stop about one lap performance.

I think if Alonso was driving the Ferrari then I think he would be at least a tenth or two quicker than Massa because I think Alonso is much more intelligent - taking into account of Alonso's current driving style he tried to drive with understeer at the beginning of the year to having the rear-end sliding and more neutral. Whether he learnt that from Lewis is another debate entirely!

sorry, some subtle differences that may have been explained further back in the thread that can explain the perceived contradiction.

Driver performance- person that can get the maximum out of the machinary availible
Car - the outright ability to post fast laps
Team - Combination of Driver, car, strategy, engineers, testers and everyone else that contributes to the entire package.

I maintain that the Ferrari car is the fastest out there as has been proved many times by fastest laps, poles and wins. To say it is not capable of single fast laps is ignoring the fact that it has been proved to be fastest.

i also maintain that until Magny, the McLaren TEAM have been getting more out of the package as a whole which has made the difference. the drivers have driven better, the car is more robust, the strategy, the set-up etc has proved more sucessful even if the car is not the outright fastest on the grid. The team performance has been superior.

A significant part of this has been the drivers themselves. I think that the pairing of LH and FA is the strongest out there. OK, Freddie has had a few hairbrained attempts in the first corner but they have been punching above their weight in a brand new car and team.

the title of this thread was about Car Vs Driver and that is what I have attempted to demonstrate time and time again. Others disagree which is fine. i don't have a problem with that at all and welcome those views. in particular, you raise an interestin point regarding mechanical grip which is worthy of further discussion.

what i cant stand is when people ignore the basic facts such as:

wins 4 a piece
pole 4 a piece
fastest laps ferrari 5, McLaren 3 (last Ferrari fastest lap in USA when apparently they had no speed)

these figures show that the cars seem very similar but perhaps the ferrari has the slight edge in outright pace. The whole idea of the thread was whether the drivers are the ones making the difference.

personally, i think that the ferrari are slightly the faster car in terms of potential pace but the team (drivers and personnel) at McLaren have been getting the better out of their car which is making the difference.

looks like Ferrari have closed that gap up though.

This is fundementally the concept or opinion that Gary cannot / will not grasp and instead makes crazy claims such as McLaren have found an extra 20 BHP out of a frozen engine thereby disproving the laws of physics. he backs this up by quoting some article in a mag as proof :confused: and doggedly tries to argue an impossible position.

sorry, I dont suffer fools easily.

[leopard]

A bit of a disappointing race for LH and a real change in my opinion of the car/driver ratio. LH did not really impress today and suddenly seemed to be a bit ordinary. Perhaps everyone is expecting a bit too much from him in every race?
I didn't follow racing background of LH, it's said that in every championship He never won magny cours. He finished somewhere could be the fifth or worse. Right or not don't ask me.
That unluckiness might keep following his nose on yesterday's race.

[wedge]

sorry, some subtle differences that may have been explained further back in the thread that can explain the perceived contradiction.

Driver performance- person that can get the maximum out of the machinary availible
Car - the outright ability to post fast laps
Team - Combination of Driver, car, strategy, engineers, testers and everyone else that contributes to the entire package.

I maintain that the Ferrari car is the fastest out there as has been proved many times by fastest laps, poles and wins. To say it is not capable of single fast laps is ignoring the fact that it has been proved to be fastest.

i also maintain that until Magny, the McLaren TEAM have been getting more out of the package as a whole which has made the difference. the drivers have driven better, the car is more robust, the strategy, the set-up etc has proved more sucessful even if the car is not the outright fastest on the grid. The team performance has been superior.

A significant part of this has been the drivers themselves. I think that the pairing of LH and FA is the strongest out there. OK, Freddie has had a few hairbrained attempts in the first corner but they have been punching above their weight in a brand new car and team.

the title of this thread was about Car Vs Driver and that is what I have attempted to demonstrate time and time again. Others disagree which is fine. i don't have a problem with that at all and welcome those views. in particular, you raise an interestin point regarding mechanical grip which is worthy of further discussion.

what i cant stand is when people ignore the basic facts such as:

wins 4 a piece
pole 4 a piece
fastest laps ferrari 5, McLaren 3 (last Ferrari fastest lap in USA when apparently they had no speed)

these figures show that the cars seem very similar but perhaps the ferrari has the slight edge in outright pace. The whole idea of the thread was whether the drivers are the ones making the difference.

In some ways I do agree with you but its debatable whether Ferrari have the fastest car.

You've simply ignored what happened in Monaco, Montreal and Indy. The Ferrari doesn't work on certain circuits. Don't you think there's a pattern emerging? That wasn't soley down to team ineptitude.


i also maintain that until Magny, the McLaren TEAM have been getting more out of the package as a whole which has made the difference. the drivers have driven better, the car is more robust, the strategy, the set-up etc has proved more sucessful even if the car is not the outright fastest on the grid. The team performance has been superior......


....This is fundementally the concept or opinion that Gary cannot / will not grasp and instead makes crazy claims such as McLaren have found an extra 20 BHP out of a frozen engine thereby disproving the laws of physics. he backs this up by quoting some article in a mag as proof :confused: and doggedly tries to argue an impossible position.


:confused:

If McLaren is the better team then surely its possible they would've found extra BHP? I know that the homologation rules allow certain modifications.

[Flat.tyres]

In some ways I do agree with you but its debatable whether Ferrari have the fastest car.

You've simply ignored what happened in Monaco, Montreal and Indy. The Ferrari doesn't work on certain circuits. Don't you think there's a pattern emerging? That wasn't soley down to team ineptitude.



:confused:

If McLaren is the better team then surely its possible they would've found extra BHP? I know that the homologation rules allow certain modifications.

Wedge

I didn't ignore what happened in those races, I quoted the statistics for all the races. I didn't just cherry pick to use the ones that suited my arguement but was objective.

Its obvious that cars will perform differently at different circuits and where one may excel at a bumpy twisty circuit, another may like a fast smooth track but 8 races is enough to get a good comparison of the two cars and you have to say they look pretty close. Statistically they both have the same wins and poles with Ferrari having the edge by nearly 2:1 on fastest laps in the race.

With the impression that the Ferrari looks the quicker car on paper, what is the difference in the race. You can argu it is the teams, or the drivers but what you cant do is say that its because the McLaren is the fastest car because obviously it isn't.

The second point you made may be erronous. As I understand it, you can only make changes to an engine to improve reliability and cannot increase BHP. There is a possibility to increase HP at the wheels but that is due to the amount of energy lost between the Engine and the Tarmac. This is the only place to improve output. You can also improve aero efficiency to improve the situation.

[Garry Walker]

you could have destroyed the single most important discovery in the history of F1 because Gary was going to prove how McLaren bypass the engine freeze and get an additional 20 BHP without increasing the RPM or changing the bore, stroke etc.

Funny, Ferrari team just claimed they brought an improved engine to the silverstone GP, so apparently they did manage to change something!

You still havent answered any points I made to you where you claimed the site run by Nicholas Todt is a nothing site and that there is more continuity at Ferrari (pretty much total restructure of the technical stuff) since last season than at McLaren. Not to mention many other points :D

You continue your ramblings that Ferrari is the fastest car on performance.
By now its time we all realize that it is all dependant on the track they are at. Lets look at Monaco, Canada and Indy. What was common about them? Lack of fast corners. Result: McLaren dominates.
Magny-Cours and Silverstone gave plenty of those fast corners. What happened? Ferrari was quicker.
In the next couple of GPs, we only have to look at what kind of a track it is, to get a little bit of an understanding of who will be quick there.

Its funny how you determine the fastest car based on fastest laps.

[Flat.tyres]

Funny, Ferrari team just claimed they brought an improved engine to the silverstone GP, so apparently they did manage to change something!

You still havent answered any points I made to you where you claimed the site run by Nicholas Todt is a nothing site and that there is more continuity at Ferrari (pretty much total restructure of the technical stuff) since last season than at McLaren. Not to mention many other points :D

You continue your ramblings that Ferrari is the fastest car on performance.
By now its time we all realize that it is all dependant on the track they are at. Lets look at Monaco, Canada and Indy. What was common about them? Lack of fast corners. Result: McLaren dominates.
Magny-Cours and Silverstone gave plenty of those fast corners. What happened? Ferrari was quicker.
In the next couple of GPs, we only have to look at what kind of a track it is, to get a little bit of an understanding of who will be quick there.

Its funny how you determine the fastest car based on fastest laps.

as per usual, you twist everything around and b*ll**** where you havent a clue what your talking about. (most of the time)

I didn't bother answering all your 2nd lengthy post because your first one I comprehensivly answered and pointed out what a load of rubbish you were talking. instead, I just pointed out that your statements defied the laws of physics and posted facts to support my statement rather than opinions and quotations.

unfortunatly, you still fail to grasp the fundementals of the sport. quotations such as "Ferrari claimed they brought a improved engine to silverstone..." is a claim from Ferrari and nothing more. I dont have any proof that it is better but please feel free to provide proof that any changes they have made to the engine actually contribute a power increase and I will gladly file a personal class action against Ferrari for contravening the FIA regulations if the FIA dont do it themselves.

proof Gary, proof. Not heresay, journo articles and claims. For gods sake, if we started taking claims and boasts as proof, DC would be a multi-WDC by now :laugh:

as for "my rambleings". Well, all I did was make a suggestion that the statistics prove that the Ferrari is probably the fastest car out there and back it up with COLD, HARD FACTS supporting my case. I then suggested that the reason McLaren were doing better was that the drivers and team were doing a better all round job.




You continue your ramblings that Ferrari is the fastest car on performance.
By now its time we all realize that it is all dependant on the track they are at. Lets look at Monaco, Canada and Indy. What was common about them? Lack of fast corners. Result: McLaren dominates.
Magny-Cours and Silverstone gave plenty of those fast corners. What happened? Ferrari was quicker.
In the next couple of GPs, we only have to look at what kind of a track it is, to get a little bit of an understanding of who will be quick there.

yes, different cars handle differently at different tracks but you are being selective again by not mentioning Spain which is the 2nd slowest circuit on the callender so far behind Monaco.

At the risk of repeating myself, OVERALL I think the Ferrari is the better car and now that Kimi has had a kick up the ass and the team seem to be getting to grips with the car, suddenly it looks the class of the field. Oh, how very, very wrong I was :rolleyes: Accept it, everything I said is being proved.

as for detirming the fastest car by what can do the fastest lap, then you are being extreemly misleading there and quoting me out of context. I did not claim that that was all there was to it and used it as part of my claim. you claimed that the Ferrari lacked single lap pace and I pointed out that if that was the case, why has it had more single fastest laps in the GP's themselves. I also pointed out at the time (this was 4 races ago)


Out of the 1st 4 races, they dominated 3 in performance and failed to deliver on results.
The car is a superb car. It qualified on pole for the first 4 races and had 3 of the fastest laps in those races and took 3 of the wins. Why they didn’t get the 4th win is by some great driving.
SO, WHAT IS YOUR POINT AGAIN?????
again, its your old nemesis Gary, FACTS.

Looking at it again now, using the same criteria, we get the following.

Ferrari McLaren
Wins 5 4
Fast Laps 6 3
Poles 5 4

[Dzeidzei]

flattyres´ lengthy arguing falls apart because of many things, of which only one needs to be mentioned: setup. Its been proven (and stated by drivers) that you can f*ck up a setup and become a lot less quick. So this whole bs about "the FACTS state that car a is faster" is false.

And on the original question: if you switched the drivers, Mac would be leading a lot more. Its been so realiable this year.

[Hendersen]

the Ferrari has been the fastest car so far this season



Oh, really?

[Flat.tyres]

flattyres´ lengthy arguing falls apart because of many things, of which only one needs to be mentioned: setup. Its been proven (and stated by drivers) that you can f*ck up a setup and become a lot less quick. So this whole bs about "the FACTS state that car a is faster" is false.

And on the original question: if you switched the drivers, Mac would be leading a lot more. Its been so realiable this year.

no problem fella. Prove it then. not drivers statements because they cannot even admit that theyre in the wrong when they blatently drive up the arse of the car infront.

to prove this, why not point out where your least fave driver can defend a point you dont believe in or when your fave team/driver is talking crap.

Facts mate as I have posted, not heresay.

[Flat.tyres]

Oh, really?

Thanks for the insightful and quality post. :rolleyes:

[Dzeidzei]

no problem fella. Prove it then. not drivers statements because they cannot even admit that theyre in the wrong when they blatently drive up the arse of the car infront.


The way I see it your arguing has one big problem. You judge the speed of the car by lap times. It looses too much of the factors. Setup is one of them. Setup´s effect on tyrewear is another. Traffic is another (maybe the cars hasnt a clear lap when its in its optimum race condition ie. low on fuel and still good on tyres?). Etc.

The point is that youre talking about the absolute speed of a car. There´s no such thing in F1.

Another missing link in your reasoning is the driver. If 2 cars match a lap time (remember 3 cars qualified in exactly the same time a few years back?), are you saying the cars are equally quick? If Lewis matches Massa´s time, are the cars equally fast? Or maybe Lewis´s McL is .5 secs slower but he is able to make it up on his skills? Or vice versa?

When the racing is close (as it is now) its impossible to say which car is absolutely the fastest. Thats why tactics, driver errors and everything else comes to play. And thats what makes it all worth watching.

Right?

[Flat.tyres]

The way I see it your arguing has one big problem. You judge the speed of the car by lap times. It looses too much of the factors. Setup is one of them. Setup´s effect on tyrewear is another. Traffic is another (maybe the cars hasnt a clear lap when its in its optimum race condition ie. low on fuel and still good on tyres?). Etc.

The point is that youre talking about the absolute speed of a car. There´s no such thing in F1.

Another missing link in your reasoning is the driver. If 2 cars match a lap time (remember 3 cars qualified in exactly the same time a few years back?), are you saying the cars are equally quick? If Lewis matches Massa´s time, are the cars equally fast? Or maybe Lewis´s McL is .5 secs slower but he is able to make it up on his skills? Or vice versa?

When the racing is close (as it is now) its impossible to say which car is absolutely the fastest. Thats why tactics, driver errors and everything else comes to play. And thats what makes it all worth watching.

Right?

very good points and I agree in the most part.

fundementally, this is what I am saying. we can use statistics to prove what car is perfoming the best on average but the last part of the puzzle is how the teams use that machinary to achieve results.

I have said from the beginning that both cars are very close on performance (although statistically, the Ferrari appears to be slightly better) with the drivers and the teams making the difference that sees McLaren ahead this year. consistency, errors, set-up, skill are what is making the difference this year.

:up:

[SteveMcQueen]

I would say, in todays F1 it is app. 70% car and 30% driver, which is caused by things like traction control, launch control etc.

If we could get rid of all this driver aids, it could go back to 50:50, which in my view of Motorsports in general would be ideal.

Motorsports are always some kind of combination of tech and skill, so it is not desirable to have 100% on the driver alone.

[Dzeidzei]

I have said from the beginning that both cars are very close on performance (although statistically, the Ferrari appears to be slightly better) with the drivers and the teams making the difference that sees McLaren ahead this year. consistency, errors, set-up, skill are what is making the difference this year.
:up:

Its always confusing when people use statistics and opinions in the same sentence to proove a point. Statistically you can argue that Ferrari has been (on average) the better performing car. When you say that the drivers have made the difference and putting McL ahead, yuore stating an opinion.

And its fine to think that FA and Lewis are the 2 best drivers in F1, thats what being a fan really means. And Lewis has been extraordinary, theres no question about that. He hasnt really been tested yet and we´ll probably see him starting at the back of the grid someday. It´ll be a day to remember as Im sure some of the backmarkers can act differently to some of his aggressive moves.

I still think that McL succeeded in building a fast, very reliable car for 2007. Thats something they sadly werent able to do for the last few years. The Macs have been either quick or reliable, but not at the same time. Which is the reason why KR isnt a champion yet and also why he left for Ferrari. This is my opinion, but I think its shared by a few others too.

The fact remains, that despite the huge lead Lewis has on points everything is still open. Which is excellent for the fans and great for the sport.

[Garry Walker]

as per usual, you twist everything around and b*ll**** where you havent a clue what your talking about. (most of the time)

such witty and creative insults.



I didn't bother answering all your 2nd lengthy post because your first one I comprehensivly answered and pointed out what a load of rubbish you were talking. You didnt answer comprehensivley, in fact your answer in a school exam would have resulted in the grade "F"
When I demanded explanation on issues like why you claim Ferrari has continuity and McLaren much less so or why you regard Nicholas Todts site as a nonsense site or from where you take your claim that for example Kimi is a bad test-driver, you have not managed to give any meaningful answer, except of course doing your usual rhetoric of "you twist and bull****". I assume because you have no evidence supporting those obviously weak statements, you are now trying to weasel yourself out of answering them, while trying to talk yourself up. Your tactics of trying bullying and avoiding giving an answer might work on some mentally fragile and less intelligent people, but I laugh them off, while destroying you in the meantime in every argument.


unfortunatly, you still fail to grasp the fundementals of the sport. quotations such as "Ferrari claimed they brought a improved engine to silverstone..." is a claim from Ferrari and nothing more.
So you are actually calling Luca Baldisseri a liar?



I dont have any proof that it is better but please feel free to provide proof that any changes they have made to the engine actually contribute a power increase and I will gladly file a personal class action against Ferrari for contravening the FIA regulations if the FIA dont do it themselves.

Fortunately for myself, I dont have the blueprints of Ferraris engine design. All we have to go on, is what Luca Baldisseri has said. You know him? He is the guy who works at a pretty important position at Ferrari, but his position, as that of many other people inside Ferrari, was changed last year. (keyword:Continuity) I think in all probability, he knows a thing or two about what is going on at Ferrari.



proof Gary, proof. Not heresay, journo articles and claims. For gods sake, if we started taking claims and boasts as proof, DC would be a multi-WDC by now :laugh:
Proof? Luca Baldisseris words are my proof, That is enough for me. I trust his knowledge on Ferraris engine exceedes that of me and possibly even you.


as for "my rambleings". Well, all I did was make a suggestion that the statistics prove that the Ferrari is probably the fastest car out there and back it up with COLD, HARD FACTS supporting my case. I then suggested that the reason McLaren were doing better was that the drivers and team were doing a better all round job. Rambleings [sic] indeed.

Your claim that Ferrari was the fastest car, was destroyed by my counter-arguments (stating facts, obviously) and I reduced your "facts" to such a state, where you started determining the fastest car based on fastest laps.



yes, different cars handle differently at different tracks but you are being selective again by not mentioning Spain which is the 2nd slowest circuit on the callender so far behind Monaco.

Spain the 2nd slowest circuit on the callender[sic] so far?
That isnt the case actually.
In any case, Spain has what Ferrari needs - fast corners.



At the risk of repeating myself, OVERALL I think the Ferrari is the better car and now that Kimi has had a kick up the ass and the team seem to be getting to grips with the car, suddenly it looks the class of the field.
Now you are saying Ferrari is the best car overall, before it was the fastest car? Make up your mind. If you call Ferrari the best car, then you have to take into account the numerous reliability problems they have had. But I guess for you they are irrelevant?
Lets see what car will be the fastest at the next GP. I do wonder, if it happens to be McLaren, will you be a man enough to admit McLaren was the fastest car, or will you try to hide under the cover of "oh, the macca boys did a better job"


Oh, how very, very wrong I was :rolleyes:
Yes, you were. It is good to accept when you are wrong.


Accept it, everything I said is being proved.
If I accepted, then it would make me intellectually dishonest, so unfortunately, I cant accept.




you claimed that the Ferrari lacked single lap pace and I pointed out that if that was the case, why has it had more single fastest laps in the GP's themselves. At the risk of repeating myself, I thought it was clear to everyone, that lacking single lap pace was about qualifying, where Ferrari was having troubles warming up the tyres. I posted good proof for you, only for you to dismiss Nicholas Todt as a nobody.

This pretty much equals to a hypothetical situation in court, where Adrian Newey is asked to testify about aerodynamics and you dismiss him and his opinion as that of a "nobody" as your counter-argument. What do you think the reaction of the court would be? I can imagine uncontrollable laughter being one of the key components.



again, its your old nemesis Gary, FACTS.
Facts are to me, what diamonds are to a girl.

You have pre-determined the basis of your whole argument already. Your basis is as follows: "if McLaren is fastest at any given track, it is because the team and the drivers did a good job, but when Ferrari is the fastest, it is because they have the fastest car, always"

[Garry Walker]

At the risk of repeating myself, I thought it was clear to everyone, that lacking single lap pace was about qualifying, where Ferrari was having troubles warming up the tyres. I posted good proof for you, only for you to dismiss Nicholas Todt as a nobody.

Now Felipe Massa joined the ranks of those people who are saying McLaren is better for one lap on new tyres (qualy lap).

[Flat.tyres]

Its always confusing when people use statistics and opinions in the same sentence to proove a point. Statistically you can argue that Ferrari has been (on average) the better performing car. When you say that the drivers have made the difference and putting McL ahead, yuore stating an opinion.

And its fine to think that FA and Lewis are the 2 best drivers in F1, thats what being a fan really means. And Lewis has been extraordinary, theres no question about that. He hasnt really been tested yet and we´ll probably see him starting at the back of the grid someday. It´ll be a day to remember as Im sure some of the backmarkers can act differently to some of his aggressive moves.

I still think that McL succeeded in building a fast, very reliable car for 2007. Thats something they sadly werent able to do for the last few years. The Macs have been either quick or reliable, but not at the same time. Which is the reason why KR isnt a champion yet and also why he left for Ferrari. This is my opinion, but I think its shared by a few others too.

The fact remains, that despite the huge lead Lewis has on points everything is still open. Which is excellent for the fans and great for the sport.

you are correct, I used facts and the conclusions (opinions if you like) I drew from them in the same sentence but I thought I had made it very clear in previous posts that these were my opinions.

as for LH and FA being the 2 best drivers out there, I dont think I have ever claimed that. in my opinion, the 2 best drivers out there currently are FA and KR. I will explaing this opinion.

KR is very fast and a natural racer as all 3 of them are. he also has a wealth of F1 experience even if he has not quite the depth in other formulas that the others have accrued. Problem is that he took 7 races to find his balance this year within the team. I dont know why this is because after Aus, I thought he would walk it. His team mate is stronger than he expected, MS is sniffing round the paddock assisting Massa. a bit of the old reliability issues and a few mistakes nseemed to unsettle him but it looks like all his little ducks are lined up in a row now so I expect him to be the class of the rest of the season. he is, in my opinion, probably the fastest driver in F1 at the moment.

FA is a street fighter, fast and aggressive cast from the same mould as the great Michael Schumacher. he may be a bit clumsy at times and not have the finate blistering pace of Kimi but he's a tenacious b*stard that just dont know when he's beaten. The Rocky of the Motorsport world and overal, the 2nd best driver out there when everything is taken into consideration.

LH is doing the best job this year of all 3 of them but this doesn't necessarily mean he is the best driver in my opinion. within 3 races he changed the benchmark for Rookies and after 9 races, has destroyed it to such an extent that he gets slated for finishing 3rd. I think that says it all about the impact he has had. will he becaome the undesputed best out there? Undoubtably in my opinion but he needs to get the experience of this one year, soak up all the pressure, cope with the attention and come back at as the finished article for next year.

The rest of your post is spot on and a pleasure to read.

[Flat.tyres]

meaningless drivel again

sorry for paraphrasing your post but I thought this would save time :D

as you can guess, I cant be bothered answering any more of this nonsense. for one, you just like the arguement and repeat the same rubbish time after time in the hope that if you say it often enough then people will believe it. second, if I carry on and point out just what a load of crap it is then Pino will probably ban me and lastly there are much better people to discuss with on here that actually know what theyre talking about.

so, for the sake of Pino's blood pressure, I suggest we drop this boring exchange here.

[Valentino Rossi Boy]

I think that Ferrari would be leading

[Dzeidzei]

as for LH and FA being the 2 best drivers out there, I dont think I have ever claimed that. in my opinion, the 2 best drivers out there currently are FA and KR. I will explaing this opinion.


I just assumed you thought of FA and LH as the 2 best drivers, I guess. Sorry.

Id call your analysis very good. I think both Kimi and Fernando have been surprised about the speed of their teammates, but I have a strong feeling from now on things will look more the way people expected them to be. Luckily the points standing at the moment will make the rest of the season very interesting.

Will LH be the undisputed champion? In the long run he might. He certainly has the talent and speed and with experience he´ll have a mind for that task too.

Kimi will never be that. He wont be around long enough. I think he´ll win a wdc or two, but thats it for him. Just wait and see.

[Flat.tyres]

I just assumed you thought of FA and LH as the 2 best drivers, I guess. Sorry.

Id call your analysis very good. I think both Kimi and Fernando have been surprised about the speed of their teammates, but I have a strong feeling from now on things will look more the way people expected them to be. Luckily the points standing at the moment will make the rest of the season very interesting.

Will LH be the undisputed champion? In the long run he might. He certainly has the talent and speed and with experience he´ll have a mind for that task too.

Kimi will never be that. He wont be around long enough. I think he´ll win a wdc or two, but thats it for him. Just wait and see.

agree.

just because Kimi has had a difficult start to the season does not mean he is any less of a driver, just that he has struggled a bit.

Lewis has the ability to be the king but needs a little more time to complete the package which experience will bring. I don't think he needs too much and his rate of learning and ability to adapt is staggering. if McLaren are competitive again next year, it looks a bit ominous.

will Kimi get his 2 titles? well, at the moment, you have to say that 2007 will possibly be his best chance. If the cars are as equal as they are next year, my opinion is that lewis will take it if he doesn't this year.

[XR8]

I thought that you could not change thw spec of the motor? Oh I forgot! We are talking about FERRARI!

[Flat.tyres]

I thought that you could not change thw spec of the motor? Oh I forgot! We are talking about FERRARI!

there's no conspiracy. You cannot change the fundementals of the motor but you can make changes that improve reliability or safety if you can prove there is no power benefit.

teams always bullsh*t that they have a new spec blah, blah that gives them a advantage but its all part of posturing and mind games.

now, you can get more power out of a car by modifying the gearbox, drive etc but there is no enhancement that can be got out of the engine itself which is the BHP or HP at the crank.

HP is a dodgy old term anyway and it's slowly being replaced by Watt which is much less subjective to different interpretations.

however, if some Journalist reports that someone at Ferrari said they are getting 20 extra BHP out of the engine, then obviously that negates everything I have just put :laugh:

[ioan]

I thought that you could not change thw spec of the motor? Oh I forgot! We are talking about FERRARI!

???

[Garry Walker]

sorry for paraphrasing your post but I thought this would save time :D witty!!!



as you can guess, I cant be bothered answering any more of this nonsense. for one, you just like the arguement and repeat the same rubbish time after time in the hope that if you say it often enough then people will believe it.
So you admit defeat? Fine by me :)



second, if I carry on and point out just what a load of crap it is then Pino will probably ban me and lastly there are much better people to discuss with on here that actually know what theyre talking about.

If what I posted was such "****", then it should be easy for you to destroy it totally, without having to resort to insults like "you twist and bull****", which in turn would mean Pino would have no reason to ban or warn you.
But we both know that isnt the case, dont we.



so, for the sake of Pino's blood pressure, I suggest we drop this boring exchange here.I will gladly keep on debating, because to be honest, I always enjoy it. But if you admit defeat, I understand, that is the obvious conclusion of taking on a superior mind :D

Damn, that Nicholas Todt sure is a nobody and that amazing continuity at Ferrari.Damn!


You cannot change the fundementals of the motor but you can make changes that improve reliability or safety if you can prove there is no power benefit.

Didnt you in one of your earlier posts actually make it clear that nothing can be changed within the F1 engine at the moment, but when called upon it by other people, you retreated from that view :D ?



teams always bullsh*t that they have a new spec blah, blah that gives them a advantage but its all part of posturing and mind games.

Luca Baldisseri is a liar then according to you.


however, if some Journalist reports that someone at Ferrari said they are getting 20 extra BHP out of the engine,

If they do the neccesary improvements to the car and the engine, then yes, absolutely.

Earlier you rubbised my theory that Ferrari is struggling with one lap pace (thats QUALY pace, not fastest lap pace, which everyone who has seen more than 1 race should know), a claim that many sources have made (including the nobody Nicholas Todt), a claim that many people watching f1 have made. You said that isnt the case. You said Ferrari has no problems heating up the tyres for qualifying.
Now Felipe Massa has come out supporting my views aswell. What is your answer to that, darling :D (I wont quiz you on the many other questions you havent answered)

[Flat.tyres]

So you admit defeat? Fine by me

of course I do. you are a God, you are the master and I am totally in awe at how someone can maintain such a stalwart defence with nothing more that thrice quoted opinions.

now, please go away and annoy someone else that wants to play your silly games although I do feel compelled to just clarify a couple of points for you.


If what I posted was such "****", then it should be easy for you to destroy it totally,It was but you didn't listen.


I will gladly keep on debating, because to be honest, I always enjoy it. But if you admit defeat, I understand, that is the obvious conclusion of taking on a superior mind :D I admit defeat. i just cant take any more of your fantastic debating prowess. what a gift you have.


Damn, that Nicholas Todt sure is a nobody and that amazing continuity at Ferrari.Damn!have you come up with one single fact or are you still replying on opinions as facts. dont bother answering.


Didnt you in one of your earlier posts actually make it clear that nothing can be changed within the F1 engine at the moment, but when called upon it by other people, you retreated from that view :D ?no, I made it clear that nothing can be changed to improve performance. you can improve reliability and safety. however, you cannot increase power which is the cornerstone of your claim. sorry, you may be a giant of debating prowess, swearing that black is in fact white, but you just cannot keep claiming that because someone claims they have developed a more powerfull engine mid season, that it has any truth. Its bullsh*t.


Luca Baldisseri is a liar then according to you.well, I say he is playing the game and posturing. You call that lying. I bow to your superior intellict and conceed that it is actually a lie then.


If they do the neccesary improvements to the car and the engine, then yes, absolutely.No, no NO! you cannot get more performance out of the engine without changing the RPM or bore and stroke. I don't care if the virgin f*cking mary claims it. IT CANNOT BE DONE with the current engine freeze.

sorry, what was I thinking. You are, of course, totally correct. Luca farted in the carbs and it suddenly produced 20 more BHP from the engine with no increase in revs.


Earlier you rubbised my theory that Ferrari is struggling with one lap pace (thats QUALY pace, not fastest lap pace, which everyone who has seen more than 1 race should know), a claim that many sources have made (including the nobody Nicholas Todt), a claim that many people watching f1 have made. You said that isnt the case. You said Ferrari has no problems heating up the tyres for qualifying.
Now Felipe Massa has come out supporting my views aswell. What is your answer to that, darling :D (I wont quiz you on the many other questions you havent answered)What is a RUBBISED theory. It is a theory that has been both rubbished and rubberised? I've got a suggestion what you can do with this amalgamated theory but Pino wouldn't like it :D

as for N Todt, Massa etc, they will come out with things like this. all teams struggle getting tyres, brakes up to, and maintaining, temp and pressure.

but, as a last word on the subject, I conceed that the Ferrari is really hampered over 1 lap qualifying which is why they are struggleing with more pole positions this year than anyone else.

there you go, does that make you feel better :kiss:

if you feel compelled to respond to anything here then please feel free but I wont for the reasons stated. you are the best debater, you win, thank you and good night.

[wedge]

Wedge

I didn't ignore what happened in those races, I quoted the statistics for all the races. I didn't just cherry pick to use the ones that suited my arguement but was objective.

Its obvious that cars will perform differently at different circuits and where one may excel at a bumpy twisty circuit, another may like a fast smooth track but 8 races is enough to get a good comparison of the two cars and you have to say they look pretty close. Statistically they both have the same wins and poles with Ferrari having the edge by nearly 2:1 on fastest laps in the race.

With the impression that the Ferrari looks the quicker car on paper, what is the difference in the race. You can argu it is the teams, or the drivers but what you cant do is say that its because the McLaren is the fastest car because obviously it isn't.



You have pre-determined the basis of your whole argument already. Your basis is as follows: "if McLaren is fastest at any given track, it is because the team and the drivers did a good job, but when Ferrari is the fastest, it is because they have the fastest car, always"

The statistics obviously show the McLarens are very competitive in qualy one lap trim, but not long runs.

Fastest lap stats aren't always reliable. Indy, for example, the laps are very very close. All it takes is a good tow on the main straight to lower your lap times.

[Hendersen]

It's hillarious to hear Martin "Bigot" Brundle go on about how this should be settled on the race track instead of in the courts. LOL. I guess Mclaren should have thought about that before poisoning the well before battle, eh?

It's looking to me like Mclaren is in deep. Before the start of the season they were asking specific questions about rules clarifications, these questions were related to certain pointed at what might have been specific parts of the ferrari and its design.

Spells baaaaaad. I can't say Mclaren and the general British fan base does not deserve it, however. Karma is a bitch.

[Flat.tyres]

The statistics obviously show the McLarens are very competitive in qualy one lap trim, but not long runs.

Fastest lap stats aren't always reliable. Indy, for example, the laps are very very close. All it takes is a good tow on the main straight to lower your lap times.

the statistics show that both cars are pretty close in one lap trim but statistics are just that.

driving errors have made quite a difference between the cars this year with the 2 Ferrari boys making mistakes that have counted. Freddy has also made a few but pretty much got away with it compared to Kimi and Massa. Lewis has been pretty consistent but if you want to class his set up as a driver error, then he has lost 4 points also this year that I can think of.

i dont, as Gary suggests, consider it to be the McLaren boys doing a great job when it goes well and the Ferrari being the faster car when they do well. what I suggested is that the cars are very comparable with Ferrari having statistically the slightly faster car and theorised that the McLaren drivers and teams were making the difference in points. I believe that Gary claimed it was because McLaren had the better car leading to the points difference which is what I disagree with.

[wedge]

I believe that Gary claimed it was because McLaren had the better car leading to the points difference which is what I disagree with.

That was because McLaren did have the better car. As I and Garry have previously mentioned countless times, the McLarens has superior mechanical grip whereas the Ferrari has works better in high downforce, high speed circuits.

The McLarens were the cars to beat in Monaco, Canada and Indy.

On paper I can easily say Nurburgring is likely to favour Ferrari and Hungaroring is likely to favour McLaren - testing and component updates pending, of course!

Alonso made a significant error in Canada. He compromised his starts for track position, went off and damaged his car in the process and went backwards eg. being overtaken by a Super Aguri!