From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
-aFrom two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bottas's car!
:-)
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with >Bottas's car!
:-)
On Sunday, 25 October 2020 at 22:24:12 UTC, Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
No, a better understanding of how tyres work and how to manage them. As LH keeps demonstrating race after race.
On 26/10/2020 11:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Or as Brundle (?) suggested, has a far better grip on how to look
after his tyres.
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:33:26 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with
Bottas's car!
:-)
Well at 256 points to 179 points and 8 wins to 2, Bottas's car must
have a lot wrong with it a lot of the time!
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:33:26 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with >>Bottas's car!
:-)
Well at 256 points to 179 points and 8 wins to 2, Bottas's car must
have a lot wrong with it a lot of the time!
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of himBecause you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bottas's car!
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
:-)
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:52:34 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:33:26 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of himBecause you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
with Bottas's car!
:-)
Well at 256 points to 179 points and 8 wins to 2, Bottas's car must have
a lot wrong with it a lot of the time!
I agree. Mercedes are being very unfair on Bottas and clearly are
favouring Hamilton. They should paint the number 44 on Bottas's car and
make Hamilton drive with 77, that'll even things up, don't you agree
BAK?
How ungracious was Bottas not to congratulate his team mate in the
post-race interview!! I usually hold him in high regard as a human. We
have a term in our part of the country -- Mardy. Very disappointed.
Looking forward to seeing another Championship, then up to 100 wins,
from the master.
On 26/10/2020 08:52, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:33:26 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
-a From two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him >>>> .... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong with >>> Bottas's car!
:-)
Well at 256 points to 179 points and 8 wins to 2, Bottas's car must
have a lot wrong with it a lot of the time!
Actually BOT had a new chassis for Portugal.
Is corny you new thing ;)
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire. If he does that to often he'll be looking for another ride; cant have team orders pointed out to often.It does leave a bad taste now the amount of times Hamilton has benefited from team orders. Worst part it is by stealth and Mercedes pretending they are fair. When Bottas is 2nd after the first corner he is NEVER allowed to challenge Hamilton for the win, the team makes sure of that. Hamilton is always allowed to challange Bottas from 2nd, the team giving him a better strategy.
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
On 26/10/2020 1:33 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-25 3:24 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
-aFrom two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Because you know for a FACT that there was absolutely nothing wrong
with Bottas's car!
:-)
Smiley notwithstanding can't you help being such a dick by taking
absolutely every opportunity to deny the obvious and take a swipe at HAM.
On 26/10/2020 11:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
-aFrom two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Or as Brundle (?) suggested, has a far better grip on how to look after
his tyres.
On 2020-10-25 8:05 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 26/10/2020 11:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
-aFrom two places behind his teammate to over 25 seconds ahead of him
.... clearly Hamilton has a far better car than Bottas!
Or as Brundle (?) suggested, has a far better grip on how to look after
his tyres.
Or the car suits Hamilton in such a manner that his driving style works better with the tires.
Tell me:
Do you imagine that every car suits both drivers of a team equally?
Do you imagine that if it comes down to it, the teams optimize the cars
for their top drivers, or their second drivers?
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the
distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good >>>>> at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not
finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their
plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the
question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise
his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just marketing bullshit, right?
On 4/11/2020 4:41 am, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the >>>>>> distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very
good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and >>>>>> not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their
plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the
question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so
raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Never let an opportunity go by, eh.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
On 31/10/2020 3:26 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the
distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good >>>>> at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not
finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their
plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the
question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise
his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
Some drivers are brilliant at getting every last bit of potential out of
a sub-par car and that is a very valuable skill to have. However often
these same drivers, when given a car that isn't sub-par start to reach
their own limits as a driver.
To my mind Bottas fits this category (as do a lot of drivers actually).
He's almost unbelievably good but, just now and then you can see he's
not quite up to the task of driving the best car, on the edge, for as
long as it takes to win a race.
It's a rare and special driver who can drive the best car on the grid on
the limit almost flawlessly for a whole race - especially these days
when the G forces and cognitive loads are so high*. It's so hard to do (almost super-human in fact) that more often than not they save it for qualifying / the race and tend to set slower times during practice
sessions.
[*] A lot of people who compare today's drivers to those or yore fail to fully take into account the massive difference between modern F1 cars
and cars from 20 years ago - yet alone 40 / 60 years ago. Undoubtedly
great drivers like Jim Clark didn't have to contend with the G forces
and massive complexity of the control systems (and engineers running
them through control routines while driving at the limit of grip) that driving a current-era F1 car demands. (Not to mention the intense
scrutiny of every aspect of their 'private' lives.)
Back then club racers could, by stretching their imaginations, /just/
relate to what it was like to drive an F1 car. These days the great
drivers and their feats are almost unrelateable-to. You can only watch
and marvel.
I admire Martin Brudle's honesty on this subject. He's driven some close-to-contemporary F1 cars and says they scare him. When commentating
he freely admits there's no way he could do what current drivers do and openly marvels at the capabilities of both cars and drivers. A lot of
other ex-F1 drivers aren't so honest and act like they just stepped out
of a similar car to Bottas' when giving their opinions.
On 2020-11-03 3:59 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 31/10/2020 3:26 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the >>>>>> distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good >>>>>> at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not >>>>>> finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their
plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the
question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise >>>> his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
Some drivers are brilliant at getting every last bit of potential out of
a sub-par car and that is a very valuable skill to have. However often
these same drivers, when given a car that isn't sub-par start to reach
their own limits as a driver.
To my mind Bottas fits this category (as do a lot of drivers actually).
He's almost unbelievably good but, just now and then you can see he's
not quite up to the task of driving the best car, on the edge, for as
long as it takes to win a race.
Or in this case, he was ahead and ran over a piece of debris...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:33:30 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-03 3:59 p.m., ~misfit~ wrote:
On 31/10/2020 3:26 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the >>>>>>> distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good >>>>>>> at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not >>>>>>> finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their >>>>> plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the >>>>> question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise >>>>> his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
Some drivers are brilliant at getting every last bit of potential out of >>> a sub-par car and that is a very valuable skill to have. However often
these same drivers, when given a car that isn't sub-par start to reach
their own limits as a driver.
To my mind Bottas fits this category (as do a lot of drivers actually).
He's almost unbelievably good but, just now and then you can see he's
not quite up to the task of driving the best car, on the edge, for as
long as it takes to win a race.
Or in this case, he was ahead and ran over a piece of debris...
Yea, bad form of Mercedes to bribe Ferrari into losing a bit of car in Bottas's path just to give HAM an edge. You must be fuming.
Wasn't there an incident a couple of seasons back when HAM saw and
avoided some debris but BOT hit it? Bad form again for the Mercedes
team to forewarn HAM but not BOT no doubt.
Sorry, but the facts don't bear out that Hamilton is "far beyond"
Bottas. The qualifying times show precisely the opposite.
On 4/11/2020 9:27 am, Alan Baker wrote:
Sorry, but the facts don't bear out that Hamilton is "far beyond"
Bottas. The qualifying times show precisely the opposite.
Yeah it's a team sport and there should even be a single champion driver.
On 2020-11-04 2:34 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 4/11/2020 9:27 am, Alan Baker wrote:
Sorry, but the facts don't bear out that Hamilton is "far beyond"
Bottas. The qualifying times show precisely the opposite.
Yeah it's a team sport and there should even be a single champion driver.
What do you think you mean by that?
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >marketing bullshit, right?
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last
the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not
very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra
pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs
the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so
raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
On 11/5/2020 10:38 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra
pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs
the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so
raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody
else out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
The race results seem to though.
On 2020-11-05 9:38 a.m., leonard hofstatder wrote:
On 11/5/2020 10:38 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra >>>>>>>>> pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that
highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs >>>>>>> the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so >>>>>>> raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy >>>>>> and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably >>>>>> one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact >>>>>> that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his
share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody
else out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
The race results seem to though.
No, actually. Look at the cumulative difference in their total race times.
Yes: Hamilton usually wins...
...but that just goes back to my original point:
You get You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just marketing bullshit, right?
:-)
On 11/5/2020 11:46 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 9:38 a.m., leonard hofstatder wrote:
On 11/5/2020 10:38 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra >>>>>>>>>> pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do >>>>>>>>> something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that
highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from >>>>>>>> their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs >>>>>>>> the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that >>>>>>>> it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so >>>>>>>> raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent
guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated >>>>>>> as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he >>>>>>> has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver,
arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact >>>>>>> that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his
share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is >>>>> deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody
else out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
The race results seem to though.
No, actually. Look at the cumulative difference in their total race
times.
Yes: Hamilton usually wins...
...but that just goes back to my original point:
You get You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race
is just marketing bullshit, right?
:-)
oh definitely - but I still think Ham just manages his car/races better.
I don't disagree.
It's just that people use the fact that he wins more to "prove" is invincibility... ...which doesn't actually exist.
He's very good; one of the very best currently racing.
But for someone who's supposed to be the GOAT...
...he doesn't actually beat his teammate by very much.
On Thursday, November 5, 2020 at 5:35:18 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
I don't disagree.
It's just that people use the fact that he wins more to "prove" is invincibility... ...which doesn't actually exist.
He's very good; one of the very best currently racing.
But for someone who's supposed to be the GOAT...
...he doesn't actually beat his teammate by very much.
time to give it a rest
I don't disagree.
It's just that people use the fact that he wins more to "prove" is invincibility... ...which doesn't actually exist.
He's very good; one of the very best currently racing.
But for someone who's supposed to be the GOAT...
...he doesn't actually beat his teammate by very much.
It's just that people use the fact that he wins more to "prove" is invincibility... ...which doesn't actually exist.
He's very good; one of the very best currently racing.
But for someone who's supposed to be the GOAT...
...he doesn't actually beat his teammate by very much.
On 2020-11-05 4:28 p.m., leonard hofstatder wrote:
On 11/5/2020 11:46 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 9:38 a.m., leonard hofstatder wrote:
On 11/5/2020 10:38 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crms...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra >>>>>>>>>> pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do >>>>>>>>> something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up. >>>>>>>>>
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that >>>>>>>>> highlights
the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from >>>>>>>> their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs >>>>>>>> the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that >>>>>>>> it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so >>>>>>>> raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where >>>>>>> desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent >>>>>>> guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated >>>>>>> as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he >>>>>>> has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver,
arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact >>>>>>> that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his >>>>>>> share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is >>>>> deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody >>>> else out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
The race results seem to though.
No, actually. Look at the cumulative difference in their total race
times.
Yes: Hamilton usually wins...
...but that just goes back to my original point:
You get You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race
is just marketing bullshit, right?
:-)
oh definitely - but I still think Ham just manages his car/races better.I don't disagree.
It's just that people use the fact that he wins more to "prove" is invincibility... ...which doesn't actually exist.
He's very good; one of the very best currently racing.
But for someone who's supposed to be the GOAT...
...he doesn't actually beat his teammate by very much.
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a >different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the >direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of >them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
On 6/11/2020 11:18 pm, Mark wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody
else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting.-a I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a
different direction.-a It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
This is exactly what Baker wants and in my opinion why he's chosen to belittle the greatest current driver at every opportunity. That way he
gets the most people interacting with him and he doesn't feel so empty
and alone.
There are a lot of very civil people in this group so he even gets civil discourse long after most people would have given up. Of course he'll
take the hate too - for some people the worst thing is being ignored and alone with their pathology so they provoke interaction, any interaction.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the
direction of the partisan argument...but who cares?-a It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of
them.
Indeed. Thank programmers for kill files!
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
-a-a preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
-a-a best car".
I'm biased in favour of the most skillful, most innovative and most 'complete'. I follow Formula 1 because I admire excellence in driving
skills and technical innovation.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
No one is "far beyond", it's just that he's nearly always beyond and
that is paramount to being the same, depending on how you define
"far".
I guess to get any praise from you he's got to win in a Williams.
Where do you think he'd come if he was given 6 months with the team?
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:18:56 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
I think there is only one, maybe two, regular posters who come
anywhere near being a fanboy for Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a
different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the
direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of
them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
I agree with all that.
In my cases, I have no bias or preference towards any driver - I
simply recognise and respect exceptional talent.
In regard to Hamilton, I am totally neutral about him as a person
except to the extent that I like the fact that he is one of the
cleanest drivers out there. I'd contrast that with Schumacher whose
tactics I detested but I still recognised his exceptional talent. The
thing that frustrated me about Schumacher was that he didn't need to
use the underhand tactics that he sometimes used but I think some of
it may be that he shared with Vettel the tendency to simply see a red
mist when things weren't quite going his way.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:18:56 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
I think there is only one, maybe two, regular posters who come
anywhere near being a fanboy for Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a
different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits
into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the
direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average".
If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of
them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
I agree with all that.
In my cases, I have no bias or preference towards any driver - I
simply recognise and respect exceptional talent.
In regard to Hamilton, I am totally neutral about him as a person
except to the extent that I like the fact that he is one of the
cleanest drivers out there. I'd contrast that with Schumacher whose
tactics I detested but I still recognised his exceptional talent. The
thing that frustrated me about Schumacher was that he didn't need to
use the underhand tactics that he sometimes used but I think some of
it may be that he shared with Vettel the tendency to simply see a red
mist when things weren't quite going his way.
On 2020-11-06 4:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:18:56 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some
push forward in favour of Hamilton.
I think there is only one, maybe two, regular posters who come
anywhere near being a fanboy for Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view
that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a >>> different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits >>> into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you
get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the
direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position
while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average". >>> If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at
each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of >>> them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think
we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild
preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the
best car".
I agree with all that.
In my cases, I have no bias or preference towards any driver - I
simply recognise and respect exceptional talent.
In regard to Hamilton, I am totally neutral about him as a person
except to the extent that I like the fact that he is one of the
cleanest drivers out there. I'd contrast that with Schumacher whose
tactics I detested but I still recognised his exceptional talent. The
thing that frustrated me about Schumacher was that he didn't need to
use the underhand tactics that he sometimes used but I think some of
it may be that he shared with Vettel the tendency to simply see a red
mist when things weren't quite going his way.
Dude, you wrote:
'Unfortunately for him, he is teamed with a driver who is far beyond >everybody else out there, including Bottas.'
How is that anything but being a fanboy?
He's not "far beyond" Bottas.
He's definitely better than Bottas, but "far beyond"? Based on what?
On 2020-11-06 1:45 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
I'm arguing that on that basis he's not that much better than Bottas.--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge
to minimise his achievements?
I don't dislike him. He is the better driver of the two. But the
objective analysis of their performance puts them very close together. >Hamilton simply is not "far beyond...Bottas".
On 2020-11-06 1:45 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-06 1:45 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do >>>>>>>>> something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is >>>>> deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best measure of a driver's skill and ability?
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:22:51 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-06 4:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:18:56 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge >>>>> to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some >>>> push forward in favour of Hamilton.
I think there is only one, maybe two, regular posters who come
anywhere near being a fanboy for Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view >>>> that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a >>>> different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits >>>> into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you >>>> get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the
direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position >>>> while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average". >>>> If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't
"even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at >>>> each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of >>>> them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think >>>> we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild >>>> preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the >>>> best car".
I agree with all that.
In my cases, I have no bias or preference towards any driver - I
simply recognise and respect exceptional talent.
In regard to Hamilton, I am totally neutral about him as a person
except to the extent that I like the fact that he is one of the
cleanest drivers out there. I'd contrast that with Schumacher whose
tactics I detested but I still recognised his exceptional talent. The
thing that frustrated me about Schumacher was that he didn't need to
use the underhand tactics that he sometimes used but I think some of
it may be that he shared with Vettel the tendency to simply see a red
mist when things weren't quite going his way.
Dude, you wrote:
'Unfortunately for him, he is teamed with a driver who is far beyond
everybody else out there, including Bottas.'
How is that anything but being a fanboy?
Yo clearly have you own definition of what makes a *fanboy*.
He's not "far beyond" Bottas.
He's definitely better than Bottas, but "far beyond"? Based on what?
Ah, you want to argue about the meaning of "far". 9 wins versus 4; 9
poles versus 2 [1] - I think that would be "far" enough for anyone who
has so many problems as you do in accepting Hamilton's exceptional
talent.
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-06 1:45 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-05 2:09 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do >>>>>>>>> something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton but is >>>>> deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else >>>> out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Oh I see - "far beyond" doesn't include number of races won, number of championships won, how early in the season the championship is won,
but just how many times HAM as lapped BOT. Got it.
On 2020-11-07 2:44 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:22:51 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-06 4:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 10:18:56 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:38:38 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
I'm stating very clearly that Hamilton is not "far beyond everybody else
out there, including Bottas."
The qualifying results just don't allow for that to be true.
This season so far, 9 poles vs 4, so very, very close <rollseyes>
Why do you dislike Hamilton so much that you have this constant urge >>>>>> to minimise his achievements?
Alan insists that he is simply "balancing" the fanboy message that some >>>>> push forward in favour of Hamilton.
I think there is only one, maybe two, regular posters who come
anywhere near being a fanboy for Hamilton.
Personally, I find that argument wanting. I have always taken the view >>>>> that the way to challenge bias is to be unbiased not simply to bias in a >>>>> different direction. It doesn't "balance", it just means that it splits >>>>> into tribes, and neither will convince the other.
On the other hand, attempting to provide a balanced view - even if you >>>>> get it wrong one way or another - may leave the "average" view in the >>>>> direction of the partisan argument...but who cares? It will be
recognised (by the right minded folk) as a fair and reasonable position >>>>> while the partisan folk are ignored as outliers.
And the key thing is that in something like this, there is no "average". >>>>> If person A is anti-Hamilton and person B is pro-Hamilton it doesn't >>>>> "even out" to neutral, it just looks like a pair of people shouting at >>>>> each other, neither of which can fairly assess what they see in front of >>>>> them.
We can all see who in this group have significant biases*, and I think >>>>> we can all fairly assess which biases are unreasonably based.
* Let's be honest, we all have biases of one kind or another, but mild >>>>> preferences is a long way from "GOAT!" or "He's very average in the >>>>> best car".
I agree with all that.
In my cases, I have no bias or preference towards any driver - I
simply recognise and respect exceptional talent.
In regard to Hamilton, I am totally neutral about him as a person
except to the extent that I like the fact that he is one of the
cleanest drivers out there. I'd contrast that with Schumacher whose
tactics I detested but I still recognised his exceptional talent. The
thing that frustrated me about Schumacher was that he didn't need to
use the underhand tactics that he sometimes used but I think some of
it may be that he shared with Vettel the tendency to simply see a red
mist when things weren't quite going his way.
Dude, you wrote:
'Unfortunately for him, he is teamed with a driver who is far beyond
everybody else out there, including Bottas.'
How is that anything but being a fanboy?
Yo clearly have you own definition of what makes a *fanboy*.
Making up nonsense that Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas certainly qualifies.
He's not "far beyond" Bottas.
He's definitely better than Bottas, but "far beyond"? Based on what?
Ah, you want to argue about the meaning of "far". 9 wins versus 4; 9
poles versus 2 [1] - I think that would be "far" enough for anyone who
has so many problems as you do in accepting Hamilton's exceptional
talent.
It wouldn't be enough for anyone who actually understands how F1 works.
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
Team orders exist.
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
... As they are both driving the same car, the performance of the car becomes relevant
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job
is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate
comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One
driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving
those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is
little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down
to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference
between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car,
the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill
as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders
for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
Dude...
Dude...
Dude...
On Sunday, November 8, 2020 at 10:35:08 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
Dude...
dude yourself, ass licker
Dude...
Dude...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best measure of a driver's skill and ability?
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best
measure of a driver's skill and ability?
What else, Martin?
That's what they hand the points out for, after all...err...
On 2020-11-09 1:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best
measure of a driver's skill and ability?
What else, Martin?
That's what they hand the points out for, after all...err...
It is the event in which other factors play the least part.
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 1:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best >>>> measure of a driver's skill and ability?
What else, Martin?
That's what they hand the points out for, after all...err...
It is the event in which other factors play the least part.
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able
to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an
also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That
doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able
to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a
reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower
than Hamilton in the races as well.
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an
also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That >>> doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able
to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a
reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower
than Hamilton in the races as well.
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team orders where I believe it's more than that.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias,
I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
On 2020-11-08 6:28 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job
is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate
comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One
driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving
those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
It is a bad metric for driver talent, because there are things that go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent.
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is
little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down
to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference
between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car,
the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill
as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
But his margin of success over Bottas is actually quite small.
Qualifying shows it best, but the races show it, too.
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders
for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
You've literally argued that Bottas is losing races to Hamilton because >Hamilton is "far beyond" him...
...and that offered those race wins as proof.
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an
also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That >>>> doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able >>>> to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a >>>> reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower
than Hamilton in the races as well.
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team
orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four
decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly
struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease
despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias,
I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND
race pace?
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 1:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best >>>>> measure of a driver's skill and ability?
What else, Martin?
That's what they hand the points out for, after all...err...
It is the event in which other factors play the least part.
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an
also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That
doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able
to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a
reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower
than Hamilton in the races as well.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:27:28 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 1:07 a.m., Mark wrote:
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 08:10:20 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
What is the difference in their TIMES, Martin?
Are you seriously suggesting that qualifying times are the single best >>>>>> measure of a driver's skill and ability?
What else, Martin?
That's what they hand the points out for, after all...err...
It is the event in which other factors play the least part.
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an
also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That >>> doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able
to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how
they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a
reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower
than Hamilton in the races as well.
And Usain Bolt was only a tiny fraction faster than his competitors,
just about every time.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:06 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-08 6:28 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job
is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate
comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One
driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving
those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
It is a bad metric for driver talent, because there are things that go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent.
In the context of two drivers with the same car, what other things go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is
little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down
to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference
between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car,
the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill
as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
But his margin of success over Bottas is actually quite small.
Qualifying shows it best, but the races show it, too.
Bottas joined Mercedes in 20i7; I'll skip that year as it was his
first and can be to some extent excused on him settling in. The race
results over the 3 years since are:
2018: Hamiton 11 wins, Bottas zero wins
2019 Hamilton 11 wins, Bottas 4 wins
2020 Hamilton 9 wins, Bottas 2 wins.
A total of 31 wins versus 6 - nobody but you would try to dismiss the difference there as "actually quite small"
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders
for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
You've literally argued that Bottas is losing races to Hamilton because
Hamilton is "far beyond" him...
...and that offered those race wins as proof.
And you have offered nothing to contradict it except handwaving about
team orders.
P.S., addressing me as "dude" doesn't enhance your argument.
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:17 a.m., Mark wrote:
Including many of the factors which distinguish a race winner from an >>>>> also-ran. In qualifying, a good team can ensure an unimpeded run. That >>>>> doesn't simulate the real conditions that a race winner has to be able >>>>> to cope with. It's important, but it's hardly a good measure of how >>>>> they deal with all the factors they will face - not least competing
drivers - during the race. Being fast over individual runs has been a >>>>> reasonable indicator of speed, but not necessarily the ability to
translate that into consistent race wins.
I'm sorry, but objectively, Bottas has been only a tiny fraction slower >>>> than Hamilton in the races as well.
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team
orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas. >>
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that
Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether
you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think
most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better.
Would you agree?
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four
decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly
struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease
despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias, >>> I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however,
is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than
the field.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more
care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them
in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND
race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like
the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an also-ran.
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the
better driver overall.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of
his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would
not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises to
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in
the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in
first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't
be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to
see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes?
It wasn't meant to.
On 2020-11-10 4:13 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team >>>> orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that
Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether
you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think
most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better.
Would you agree?
I don't read it as "far beyond" the other top drivers out there...
...because he isn't.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four >>>> decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly
struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease >>>> despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias, >>>> I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however,
is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially
benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than
the field.
Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more
care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them
in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of
confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
Based on what? What makes him "far" better?
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND
race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like
the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an
also-ran.
Between teammates, you can only take passing opportunities if the team allows you to.
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the
better driver overall.
Which I have never once denied.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of
his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would
not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate
pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down
another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises to
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in
the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in
first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't
be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to
see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes?
The fact that he is the team number one driver. He's number one because
he is better than Bottas... ...but based on qualifying, when both
drivers go all out for pole, he's quite obviously not "far beyond".
In qualifying, he's cumulatively been 0.278% faster than Bottas this year.
On 2020-11-10 3:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:06 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-08 6:28 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right, >>>>>>>> over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job
is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate
comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One
driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving
those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
It is a bad metric for driver talent, because there are things that go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent.
In the context of two drivers with the same car, what other things go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent?
Team orders is the biggest one.
Hamilton is the team number one and I guarantee you that Mercedes lets
him race Bottas when he is behind more than vice versa.
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is
little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down
to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference
between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car,
the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill >>>> as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
But his margin of success over Bottas is actually quite small.
Qualifying shows it best, but the races show it, too.
Bottas joined Mercedes in 20i7; I'll skip that year as it was his
first and can be to some extent excused on him settling in. The race
results over the 3 years since are:
2018: Hamiton 11 wins, Bottas zero wins
2019 Hamilton 11 wins, Bottas 4 wins
2020 Hamilton 9 wins, Bottas 2 wins.
A total of 31 wins versus 6 - nobody but you would try to dismiss the
difference there as "actually quite small"
The difference IS actually quite small.
Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the actual time difference >between Hamilton and Bottas is for all the races combined?
Do you actually have a sense for how small it is?
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders
for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
You've literally argued that Bottas is losing races to Hamilton because
Hamilton is "far beyond" him...
...and that offered those race wins as proof.
And you have offered nothing to contradict it except handwaving about
team orders.
P.S., addressing me as "dude" doesn't enhance your argument.
It wasn't meant to.
But you can't argue:
"Hamilton wins because he is far beyond Bottas which is proved by the
fact he wins".
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:33:25 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-10 3:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:06 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-08 6:28 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11.
Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job >>>>> is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate
comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One >>>>> driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving >>>>> those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
It is a bad metric for driver talent, because there are things that go >>>> into it that have nothing to do with driver talent.
In the context of two drivers with the same car, what other things go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent?
Team orders is the biggest one.
Hamilton is the team number one and I guarantee you that Mercedes lets
him race Bottas when he is behind more than vice versa.
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is
little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down >>>>> to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference >>>>> between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car,
the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill >>>>> as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
But his margin of success over Bottas is actually quite small.
Qualifying shows it best, but the races show it, too.
Bottas joined Mercedes in 20i7; I'll skip that year as it was his
first and can be to some extent excused on him settling in. The race
results over the 3 years since are:
2018: Hamiton 11 wins, Bottas zero wins
2019 Hamilton 11 wins, Bottas 4 wins
2020 Hamilton 9 wins, Bottas 2 wins.
A total of 31 wins versus 6 - nobody but you would try to dismiss the
difference there as "actually quite small"
The difference IS actually quite small.
Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the actual time difference
between Hamilton and Bottas is for all the races combined?
Do you actually have a sense for how small it is?
For someone who claims to know so much from actually racing, you seem remarkably unaware of the maxim, sometimes attributed to Niki Lauda,
other times to Manuel Fangio, that rCLThe secret is to win going as
slowly as possible.rCY Hamilton has regularly shown his capacity to
increase performance when somebody is threatening him but avoids
putting unnecessary stress on his engine by trying to increase the gap between him and whoever is behind him when they are no threat - that
is yet another sign of a truly great driver.
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders >>>>> for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
You've literally argued that Bottas is losing races to Hamilton because >>>> Hamilton is "far beyond" him...
...and that offered those race wins as proof.
And you have offered nothing to contradict it except handwaving about
team orders.
P.S., addressing me as "dude" doesn't enhance your argument.
It wasn't meant to.
But you can't argue:
"Hamilton wins because he is far beyond Bottas which is proved by the
fact he wins".
31 wins versus 6 demonstrates that - you have nothing to offer against
it except handwaving about "team orders" without an iota of evidence
to support it.
You clearly don't understand the concept.
On Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 12:12:47 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
You clearly don't understand the concept.
Fuck off.
Understand that?
On 2020-11-10 11:01 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:33:25 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-10 3:50 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:35:06 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-08 6:28 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11. >>>>>>>>>
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 11:49:23 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-07 10:57 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[1] Not just the crrent season, of course. If I have counted it right,Wins are a bad metric for "far beyond".
over the last 3 seasons it is 31 wins v 6 and 25 poles v 11. >>>>>>>>>
At last I think we have plummeted the depths of your idiocy.
You're utterly unaware of what "context" means aren't you?
I am totally aware of the context. The success of anyone doing a job >>>>>> is how well they achieve the objectives for that job. The ultimate >>>>>> comparison between two people doing the same job is which one is
better at achieving those objectives. The objective for a Formula One >>>>>> driver is to win races and WDCs. To suggest that success in achieving >>>>>> those objectives is a "bad metric" is utter nonsense.
It is a bad metric for driver talent, because there are things that go >>>>> into it that have nothing to do with driver talent.
In the context of two drivers with the same car, what other things go
into it that have nothing to do with driver talent?
Team orders is the biggest one.
Hamilton is the team number one and I guarantee you that Mercedes lets
him race Bottas when he is behind more than vice versa.
You're now arguing in a complete circle.
Do you even see it?
Actually, you are the one who is arguing in a complete circle and
doesn't even see it. You have maintained consistently that there is >>>>>> little or nothing exceptional about Hamilton,that it is mostly "down >>>>>> to the car". You now claim that that there is very little difference >>>>>> between Hamilton and Bottas. As they are both driving the same car, >>>>>> the performance of the car becomes relevant and Hamilton's
overwhelming success record against Bottas has to be down to his skill >>>>>> as a driver which is a complete contradiction of your earlier
argument.
But his margin of success over Bottas is actually quite small.
Qualifying shows it best, but the races show it, too.
Bottas joined Mercedes in 20i7; I'll skip that year as it was his
first and can be to some extent excused on him settling in. The race
results over the 3 years since are:
2018: Hamiton 11 wins, Bottas zero wins
2019 Hamilton 11 wins, Bottas 4 wins
2020 Hamilton 9 wins, Bottas 2 wins.
A total of 31 wins versus 6 - nobody but you would try to dismiss the
difference there as "actually quite small"
The difference IS actually quite small.
Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the actual time difference
between Hamilton and Bottas is for all the races combined?
Do you actually have a sense for how small it is?
For someone who claims to know so much from actually racing, you seem
remarkably unaware of the maxim, sometimes attributed to Niki Lauda,
other times to Manuel Fangio, that oThe secret is to win going as
slowly as possible.o Hamilton has regularly shown his capacity to
increase performance when somebody is threatening him but avoids
putting unnecessary stress on his engine by trying to increase the gap
between him and whoever is behind him when they are no threat - that
is yet another sign of a truly great driver.
Please don't try and give us that all that rubbish about team orders >>>>>> for which you haven't produced a single piece of evidence.
Dude...
You've literally argued that Bottas is losing races to Hamilton because >>>>> Hamilton is "far beyond" him...
...and that offered those race wins as proof.
And you have offered nothing to contradict it except handwaving about
team orders.
P.S., addressing me as "dude" doesn't enhance your argument.
It wasn't meant to.
But you can't argue:
"Hamilton wins because he is far beyond Bottas which is proved by the
fact he wins".
31 wins versus 6 demonstrates that - you have nothing to offer against
it except handwaving about "team orders" without an iota of evidence
to support it.
Go and look up "circular argument".
You clearly don't understand the concept.
But you can't argue:
"Hamilton wins because he is far beyond Bottas which is proved by the
fact he wins".
31 wins versus 6 demonstrates that - you have nothing to offer against
it except handwaving about "team orders" without an iota of evidence
to support it.
Go and look up "circular argument".
You clearly don't understand the concept.
I think it's pretty clear at this stage that you are the one who needs
to look up projection.
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
On 2020-11-10 4:13 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team >>>>> orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that
Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether
you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think
most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better.
Would you agree?
I don't read it as "far beyond" the other top drivers out there...
...because he isn't.
I am struggling to see what you view as being beyond - let alone far
beyond - other than raw speed. And in F1, the margins are almost always fine.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four >>>>> decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly >>>>> struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease >>>>> despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias, >>>>> I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however, >>> is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially
benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than
the field.
Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
Can I ask, rather than just say "you didn't understand" - which doesn't actually allow the discussion to proceed - that you actually explain
what I've misinterpreted, and what you actually meant?
Otherwise, I am left having to guess what I have (or that you think I
have) misinterpreted.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more
care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them >>> in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of >>> confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
Based on what? What makes him "far" better?
Others have given the figures. He wins more poles, podiums and races. Consequently, he wins more points and more WDCs. I've thrown in Max Verstappen as a comparison too:
Poles
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 11 11 5 9 36 100
Bot 4 2 5 4 15 42
Ver 0 0 2 0 2 6
Podiums
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 13 17 17 11 58 100
Bot 13 8 15 10 46 79
Ver 4 11 9 9 33 57
Wins
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 9 11 11 9 40 100
Bot 3 0 4 2 9 23
Ver 2 2 3 1 8 20
Points
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 363 408 413 282 1466 100
Bot 305 247 326 197 1075 73
Ver 168 249 278 162 857 58
WDCs
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Ham 1 1 1 ? 3-4
Bot 0 0 0 ? 0-1
Ver 0 0 0 0 0
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND
race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like >>> the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an
also-ran.
Between teammates, you can only take passing opportunities if the team
allows you to.
To go back up to the top, when I wrote:
Mark> I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes
Mark> across, however, is that you take many opportunities to
Mark> insinuate that he's essentially benefitting from team
Mark> orders and not really significantly better than the field.
You replied:
Alan> Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I can see several scenarios:
1. No (or limited) Team Orders
Hamilton is just better at racing against Bottas when all factors are
taken together.
2. Balanced Team Orders
The team isn't interested in racing, so neither is allowed to
(aggressively) challenge the other. The only conclusion is that the
reason Hamilton benefits is because he's better at getting ahead (particularly through poles) and/or staying ahead (strategy/race craft).
3. Unbalanced Team Orders
Hamilton is being favoured by the team, handicapping Bottas such that he loses out on *both* poles *and* race day.
Unless you are suggesting (3) is the issue - in which case I am not misinterpreting what you are saying - or it still boils down to Hamilton being much better than Bottas overall...in which case, I don't know why
you continue to argue otherwise.
Which is it?
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the
better driver overall.
Which I have never once denied.
Somehow, though, you want to assert that despite him being better on a
very consistent basis - track after track, year after year - that the difference is barely measurable*. I genuinely don't understand that reasoning.
* So long as you don't measure it by poles, podiums, race wins, points
or WDCs.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of
his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would
not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate >>> pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down >>> another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises to
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in >>> the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in
first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't >>> be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to
see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes?
The fact that he is the team number one driver. He's number one because
he is better than Bottas... ...but based on qualifying, when both
drivers go all out for pole, he's quite obviously not "far beyond".
Only in the respect of pure speed in the artificial (and not at all race-like) environment of pole setting...which is not some sort of
perfect measure of a racing driver.
Personally, I would prefer to see (say) Max in the Mercedes because I
think he's better than Bottas. What I don't know is whether he's better
than Hamilton. I *am* certain that - overall - Hamilton is far better
than Bottas, much as I like Bottas.
In qualifying, he's cumulatively been 0.278% faster than Bottas this year.
As someone who touts his racing credentials - and given the points I
have made about the fact that you don't have to stress your engine, your tyres or yourself when you're ahead - what do you think is a good
margin? There are engineers that would give their right arm to get a
tenth of a percent let alone a (consistent) 0.278%!
And I *still* argue you are obsessing about the wrong metric!
Alan - any follow-up?--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-10 4:13 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team >>>>>> orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that >>>>> Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether >>>> you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think >>>> most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better.
Would you agree?
I don't read it as "far beyond" the other top drivers out there...
...because he isn't.
I am struggling to see what you view as being beyond - let alone far
beyond - other than raw speed. And in F1, the margins are almost always
fine.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are
blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four >>>>>> decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly >>>>>> struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease >>>>>> despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias, >>>>>> I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however, >>>> is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially >>>> benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than
the field.
Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
Can I ask, rather than just say "you didn't understand" - which doesn't
actually allow the discussion to proceed - that you actually explain
what I've misinterpreted, and what you actually meant?
Otherwise, I am left having to guess what I have (or that you think I
have) misinterpreted.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more
care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them >>>> in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of >>>> confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
Based on what? What makes him "far" better?
Others have given the figures. He wins more poles, podiums and races.
Consequently, he wins more points and more WDCs. I've thrown in Max
Verstappen as a comparison too:
Poles
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 11 11 5 9 36 100
Bot 4 2 5 4 15 42
Ver 0 0 2 0 2 6
Podiums
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 13 17 17 11 58 100
Bot 13 8 15 10 46 79
Ver 4 11 9 9 33 57
Wins
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 9 11 11 9 40 100
Bot 3 0 4 2 9 23
Ver 2 2 3 1 8 20
Points
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 363 408 413 282 1466 100
Bot 305 247 326 197 1075 73
Ver 168 249 278 162 857 58
WDCs
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Ham 1 1 1 ? 3-4
Bot 0 0 0 ? 0-1
Ver 0 0 0 0 0
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND >>>>> race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like >>>> the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an
also-ran.
Between teammates, you can only take passing opportunities if the team
allows you to.
To go back up to the top, when I wrote:
Mark> I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes
Mark> across, however, is that you take many opportunities to
Mark> insinuate that he's essentially benefitting from team
Mark> orders and not really significantly better than the field.
You replied:
Alan> Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I can see several scenarios:
1. No (or limited) Team Orders
Hamilton is just better at racing against Bottas when all factors are
taken together.
2. Balanced Team Orders
The team isn't interested in racing, so neither is allowed to
(aggressively) challenge the other. The only conclusion is that the
reason Hamilton benefits is because he's better at getting ahead
(particularly through poles) and/or staying ahead (strategy/race craft).
3. Unbalanced Team Orders
Hamilton is being favoured by the team, handicapping Bottas such that he
loses out on *both* poles *and* race day.
Unless you are suggesting (3) is the issue - in which case I am not
misinterpreting what you are saying - or it still boils down to Hamilton
being much better than Bottas overall...in which case, I don't know why
you continue to argue otherwise.
Which is it?
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the
better driver overall.
Which I have never once denied.
Somehow, though, you want to assert that despite him being better on a
very consistent basis - track after track, year after year - that the
difference is barely measurable*. I genuinely don't understand that
reasoning.
* So long as you don't measure it by poles, podiums, race wins, points
or WDCs.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of >>>> his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would
not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate >>>> pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down >>>> another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises to
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in >>>> the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in >>>> first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't >>>> be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to
see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes?
The fact that he is the team number one driver. He's number one because >>> he is better than Bottas... ...but based on qualifying, when both
drivers go all out for pole, he's quite obviously not "far beyond".
Only in the respect of pure speed in the artificial (and not at all
race-like) environment of pole setting...which is not some sort of
perfect measure of a racing driver.
Personally, I would prefer to see (say) Max in the Mercedes because I
think he's better than Bottas. What I don't know is whether he's better
than Hamilton. I *am* certain that - overall - Hamilton is far better
than Bottas, much as I like Bottas.
In qualifying, he's cumulatively been 0.278% faster than Bottas this year. >>As someone who touts his racing credentials - and given the points I
have made about the fact that you don't have to stress your engine, your
tyres or yourself when you're ahead - what do you think is a good
margin? There are engineers that would give their right arm to get a
tenth of a percent let alone a (consistent) 0.278%!
And I *still* argue you are obsessing about the wrong metric!
Anything?
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan - any follow-up?
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-10 4:13 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team >>>>>>> orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that >>>>>> Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether >>>>> you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think >>>>> most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better. >>>>>
Would you agree?
I don't read it as "far beyond" the other top drivers out there...
...because he isn't.
I am struggling to see what you view as being beyond - let alone far
beyond - other than raw speed. And in F1, the margins are almost always >>> fine.
Just being fast is not the
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are >>>>>>> blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four >>>>>>> decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly >>>>>>> struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease >>>>>>> despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias,
I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks.
Yes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however, >>>>> is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially >>>>> benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than >>>>> the field.
Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
Can I ask, rather than just say "you didn't understand" - which doesn't
actually allow the discussion to proceed - that you actually explain
what I've misinterpreted, and what you actually meant?
Otherwise, I am left having to guess what I have (or that you think I
have) misinterpreted.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more >>>>> care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them >>>>> in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of >>>>> confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
Based on what? What makes him "far" better?
Others have given the figures. He wins more poles, podiums and races.
Consequently, he wins more points and more WDCs. I've thrown in Max
Verstappen as a comparison too:
Poles
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 11 11 5 9 36 100
Bot 4 2 5 4 15 42
Ver 0 0 2 0 2 6
Podiums
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 13 17 17 11 58 100
Bot 13 8 15 10 46 79
Ver 4 11 9 9 33 57
Wins
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 9 11 11 9 40 100
Bot 3 0 4 2 9 23
Ver 2 2 3 1 8 20
Points
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 363 408 413 282 1466 100
Bot 305 247 326 197 1075 73
Ver 168 249 278 162 857 58
WDCs
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Ham 1 1 1 ? 3-4
Bot 0 0 0 ? 0-1
Ver 0 0 0 0 0
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND >>>>>> race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like >>>>> the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an >>>>> also-ran.
Between teammates, you can only take passing opportunities if the team >>>> allows you to.
To go back up to the top, when I wrote:
Mark> I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes
Mark> across, however, is that you take many opportunities to
Mark> insinuate that he's essentially benefitting from team
Mark> orders and not really significantly better than the field.
You replied:
Alan> Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I can see several scenarios:
1. No (or limited) Team Orders
Hamilton is just better at racing against Bottas when all factors are
taken together.
2. Balanced Team Orders
The team isn't interested in racing, so neither is allowed to
(aggressively) challenge the other. The only conclusion is that the
reason Hamilton benefits is because he's better at getting ahead
(particularly through poles) and/or staying ahead (strategy/race craft). >>>
3. Unbalanced Team Orders
Hamilton is being favoured by the team, handicapping Bottas such that he >>> loses out on *both* poles *and* race day.
Unless you are suggesting (3) is the issue - in which case I am not
misinterpreting what you are saying - or it still boils down to Hamilton >>> being much better than Bottas overall...in which case, I don't know why
you continue to argue otherwise.
Which is it?
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the
better driver overall.
Which I have never once denied.
Somehow, though, you want to assert that despite him being better on a
very consistent basis - track after track, year after year - that the
difference is barely measurable*. I genuinely don't understand that
reasoning.
* So long as you don't measure it by poles, podiums, race wins, points
or WDCs.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of >>>>> his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would >>>>> not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate >>>>> pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down >>>>> another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises toThe fact that he is the team number one driver. He's number one because >>>> he is better than Bottas... ...but based on qualifying, when both
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in >>>>> the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in >>>>> first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't >>>>> be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to >>>>> see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes? >>>>
drivers go all out for pole, he's quite obviously not "far beyond".
Only in the respect of pure speed in the artificial (and not at all
race-like) environment of pole setting...which is not some sort of
perfect measure of a racing driver.
Personally, I would prefer to see (say) Max in the Mercedes because I
think he's better than Bottas. What I don't know is whether he's better >>> than Hamilton. I *am* certain that - overall - Hamilton is far better
than Bottas, much as I like Bottas.
In qualifying, he's cumulatively been 0.278% faster than Bottas this year. >>>As someone who touts his racing credentials - and given the points I
have made about the fact that you don't have to stress your engine, your >>> tyres or yourself when you're ahead - what do you think is a good
margin? There are engineers that would give their right arm to get a
tenth of a percent let alone a (consistent) 0.278%!
And I *still* argue you are obsessing about the wrong metric!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 16:55:29 -0000 (UTC), Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anything?
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan - any follow-up?
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-10 4:13 a.m., Mark wrote:
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-09 9:42 a.m., Mark wrote:
Clearly the distinction is that you believe the only difference is team
orders where I believe it's more than that.
No. You are completely wrong. I believe that Hamilton is better than Bottas.
But what the original poster said (now conveniently missing) was that >>>>>>> Hamilton is "far beyond" Bottas...
...and that is just not supported by the facts.
He's not "far faster", but he's clearly much more complete and whether >>>>>> you call that "far beyond" or suggest some other form of words, I think >>>>>> most read it as saying that Hamilton is more than marginally better. >>>>>>
Would you agree?
I don't read it as "far beyond" the other top drivers out there...
...because he isn't.
I am struggling to see what you view as being beyond - let alone far
beyond - other than raw speed. And in F1, the margins are almost always >>>> fine.
Just being fast is not theYes: he is better than Bottas, and I've never said otherwise.
same as being a race winner. We have often seen drivers who are >>>>>>>> blindingly fast but can't seem to convert it. Similarly, over my four >>>>>>>> decades of watching F1, I have seen how often a driver who seemingly >>>>>>>> struggles to get their first win then goes on to win with seeming ease >>>>>>>> despite not obviously adding much in terms of "speed".
Until someone can show me a solid piece of evidence of significant bias,
I have to conclude that he's got *something* that Bottas lacks. >>>>>>>
I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes across, however, >>>>>> is that you take many opportunities to insinuate that he's essentially >>>>>> benefitting from team orders and not really significantly better than >>>>>> the field.
Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
Can I ask, rather than just say "you didn't understand" - which doesn't >>>> actually allow the discussion to proceed - that you actually explain
what I've misinterpreted, and what you actually meant?
Otherwise, I am left having to guess what I have (or that you think I
have) misinterpreted.
If that's not your intention, I think you need to take a little more >>>>>> care with your words as I know I am not the only one who interprets them >>>>>> in this way.
Do you believe he is "far beyond" Bottas?
I believe that he is far better right now, and benefits from the kind of >>>>>> confidence that only having a track record like his can provide.
Based on what? What makes him "far" better?
Others have given the figures. He wins more poles, podiums and races. >>>> Consequently, he wins more points and more WDCs. I've thrown in Max
Verstappen as a comparison too:
Poles
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 11 11 5 9 36 100
Bot 4 2 5 4 15 42
Ver 0 0 2 0 2 6
Podiums
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 13 17 17 11 58 100
Bot 13 8 15 10 46 79
Ver 4 11 9 9 33 57
Wins
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 9 11 11 9 40 100
Bot 3 0 4 2 9 23
Ver 2 2 3 1 8 20
Points
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Perc
Ham 363 408 413 282 1466 100
Bot 305 247 326 197 1075 73
Ver 168 249 278 162 857 58
WDCs
2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
Ham 1 1 1 ? 3-4
Bot 0 0 0 ? 0-1
Ver 0 0 0 0 0
If so, how is it that they are so very nearly equal in qualifying AND >>>>>>> race pace?
Firstly, pace is only one facet - as I'm sure you know - and things like >>>>>> the ability to stay the distance, avoid mistakes, take passing
opportunities and so on can mean the difference between a win and an >>>>>> also-ran.
Between teammates, you can only take passing opportunities if the team >>>>> allows you to.
To go back up to the top, when I wrote:
Mark> I am not going back to look or to nit-pick. What comes
Mark> across, however, is that you take many opportunities to
Mark> insinuate that he's essentially benefitting from team
Mark> orders and not really significantly better than the field. >>>>
You replied:
Alan> Nope. That is you deliberately misinterpreting what I have said.
I can see several scenarios:
1. No (or limited) Team Orders
Hamilton is just better at racing against Bottas when all factors are
taken together.
2. Balanced Team Orders
The team isn't interested in racing, so neither is allowed to
(aggressively) challenge the other. The only conclusion is that the
reason Hamilton benefits is because he's better at getting ahead
(particularly through poles) and/or staying ahead (strategy/race craft). >>>>
3. Unbalanced Team Orders
Hamilton is being favoured by the team, handicapping Bottas such that he >>>> loses out on *both* poles *and* race day.
Unless you are suggesting (3) is the issue - in which case I am not
misinterpreting what you are saying - or it still boils down to Hamilton >>>> being much better than Bottas overall...in which case, I don't know why >>>> you continue to argue otherwise.
Which is it?
Both the qualifying and race results suggest that he is indeed the >>>>>> better driver overall.
Which I have never once denied.
Somehow, though, you want to assert that despite him being better on a >>>> very consistent basis - track after track, year after year - that the
difference is barely measurable*. I genuinely don't understand that
reasoning.
* So long as you don't measure it by poles, podiums, race wins, points >>>> or WDCs.
Secondly, as he has shown on many occasions, he often reserves some of >>>>>> his pace when he doesn't need to push harder than necessary. I would >>>>>> not assume (for any driver) that the pace when winning is their ultimate >>>>>> pace. I have no doubt (for example) that when he's trying to chase down >>>>>> another driver, he gives it his utmost (modulo any compromises toThe fact that he is the team number one driver. He's number one because >>>>> he is better than Bottas... ...but based on qualifying, when both
protect engine, maintain charge and preserve tyres) but not when he's in >>>>>> the lead. Given that he spends a lot of his time right now driving in >>>>>> first place (or effective first, depending on tyre strategy), I wouldn't >>>>>> be so sure that his times are his ultimate pace.
What is *your* explanation for the disparity between what you seem to >>>>>> see as virtually identical performances yet wildly divergent outcomes? >>>>>
drivers go all out for pole, he's quite obviously not "far beyond".
Only in the respect of pure speed in the artificial (and not at all
race-like) environment of pole setting...which is not some sort of
perfect measure of a racing driver.
Personally, I would prefer to see (say) Max in the Mercedes because I
think he's better than Bottas. What I don't know is whether he's better >>>> than Hamilton. I *am* certain that - overall - Hamilton is far better >>>> than Bottas, much as I like Bottas.
In qualifying, he's cumulatively been 0.278% faster than Bottas this year.
As someone who touts his racing credentials - and given the points I
have made about the fact that you don't have to stress your engine, your >>>> tyres or yourself when you're ahead - what do you think is a good
margin? There are engineers that would give their right arm to get a
tenth of a percent let alone a (consistent) 0.278%!
And I *still* argue you are obsessing about the wrong metric!
Mark, leave the poor man alone, he has quite a bit of wound licking to
do!
No sympathy for infantile self-inflicted wounds (in a 'grown' man).
No sympathy for infantile self-inflicted wounds (in a 'grown' man).
On Monday, November 16, 2020 at 3:21:03 PM UTC-7, ~misfit~ wrote:
No sympathy for infantile self-inflicted wounds (in a 'grown' man).non stop humping alans leg
even with him in your kill file
you queer bitch
No sympathy
Oh the pedantry here.
Anyway, LH far beyond VB??
In dry easy conditions perhaps not. In difficult testing conditions, think Sunday's race proved he is far beyond VB by lapping him.
Oh the pedantry here.
Oh the pedantry here.
Oh the pedantry here.
Anyway, LH far beyond VB??
In dry easy conditions perhaps not. In difficult testing conditions, think Sunday's race proved he is far beyond VB by lapping him.
On 2020-11-16 11:40 p.m., crms...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh the pedantry here.
Anyway, LH far beyond VB??
In dry easy conditions perhaps not. In difficult testing conditions, think Sunday's race proved he is far beyond VB by lapping him.
Or Bottas had a bad day.
The facts are still essentially the same:
On almost every occasion...
...under the conditions where each driver is most free to drive as fast
as possible (qualifying)...
...Bottas and Hamilton are almost even.
I've never said that Hamilton isn't a better driver than BottasrCoagain, >based on actual FACTS, he quite obviously is...
...but the same facts don't show Hamilton "far beyond" Bottas.
Sorry.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:33:00 -0800, Alan BakerIt's a bit like Mo Farah in his prime. He won most of his medals in races which lasted close to half an hour by about a second or less.
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-16 11:40 p.m., crms...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh the pedantry here.
Anyway, LH far beyond VB??
In dry easy conditions perhaps not. In difficult testing conditions, think Sunday's race proved he is far beyond VB by lapping him.
Or Bottas had a bad day.
The facts are still essentially the same:
On almost every occasion...
...under the conditions where each driver is most free to drive as fast
as possible (qualifying)...
...Bottas and Hamilton are almost even.
I've never said that Hamilton isn't a better driver than BottasrCoagain, >based on actual FACTS, he quite obviously is...
...but the same facts don't show Hamilton "far beyond" Bottas.
Sorry.All drivers, in fact, all top competitors in any sport, are almost
even. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the same set of
competitions. But every now and then one competitor stands out head
and shoulders above the rest, be it tennis, golf, athletics etc and
even Formula 1.
To anyone who is not being cantankerous that person is considered "far beyond". Bottas threw the towel in. There is nothing he can do to
even equal HAM except on the rare occasion. He does not have the
mentality, awareness and skills necessary regardless of how hard he
works. Most others, as we saw on Sunday, lose their heads, see red
mist, and make mistakes whilst HAM is still watching the clouds,
checking the life of his tyres and running the last few laps on
'slicks' when others are struggling on wets.
But you are entitled to your opinion and the rest of us will snigger
and say "Here's Baker again, HAM even lapped his team mate", (yes we discussed that in another post) "and still he's not far better".
Bad day my foot - the only time HAM doesn't win all the races if every
now and then he has a "bad day" and he's never been near to being
lapped by his team mate.
As I posted in another thread, HAM could have stayed in bed instead of racing in Turkey, and the race before, and still have the championship
sewn up. How on earth can a sane person not say that is "far beyond",
same car or not.
Far beyond belief and comprehension is where I put it.
--
AnthonyL
Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and
I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one
of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that
his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of
runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last
the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not
very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra
pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs
the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so
raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he
never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has
the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing teams
do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
From the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to mention Bottas, the team will-a take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but in
the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY Well we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it.-a It
came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more horses somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next set
WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and they
know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel burning roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team did
NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal treatment.
Edmund
On 19/11/2020 9:48 pm, Edmund wrote:
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra
pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs
the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so
raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing
teams do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
-aFrom the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to >> mention Bottas, the team will-a take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but
in the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY >> Well we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it.
It came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more
horses somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next
set WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and
they know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel
burning roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa >> or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team
did NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
Look at all the car problems that HAM had the year ROS won the`
championship. Hardly a race where they didn't cripple him somehow. No
wonder he retired straight after - would have been a bit obvious if it happened again, or conversely if HAM started thrashing him regularly again.-a F'n krauts.
geoff
On 11/19/20 10:17 AM, geoff wrote:
On 19/11/2020 9:48 pm, Edmund wrote:`
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra >>>>>>>>> pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from
their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs >>>>>>> the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so >>>>>>> raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing
teams do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
-aFrom the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to >>> mention Bottas, the team will-a take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but
in the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY >>> Well we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it.
It came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more
horses somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next
set WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and
they know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel
burning roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa >>> or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team
did NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
Look at all the car problems that HAM had the year ROS won the
championship. Hardly a race where they didn't cripple him somehow. No
wonder he retired straight after - would have been a bit obvious if it
happened again, or conversely if HAM started thrashing him regularly
again.-a F'n krauts.
geoff
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT!
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/19/20 10:17 AM, geoff wrote:
On 19/11/2020 9:48 pm, Edmund wrote:`
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crmstone@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last >>>>>>>>>> the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not >>>>>>>>>> very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra >>>>>>>>>> pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do >>>>>>>>> something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out >>>>>>>>> using
all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from >>>>>>>> their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs >>>>>>>> the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so >>>>>>>> raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing
teams do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
-aFrom the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race >>>> and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to >>>> mention Bottas, the team will-a take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but
in the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY >>>> Well we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it.
It came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more
horses somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was >>>> complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next
set WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and
they know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel
burning roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa
or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team
did NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
Look at all the car problems that HAM had the year ROS won the
championship. Hardly a race where they didn't cripple him somehow. No
wonder he retired straight after - would have been a bit obvious if it
happened again, or conversely if HAM started thrashing him regularly
again.-a F'n krauts.
geoff
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT!
I think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:33:00 -0800, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-11-16 11:40 p.m., crms...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh the pedantry here.
Anyway, LH far beyond VB??
In dry easy conditions perhaps not. In difficult testing conditions, think Sunday's race proved he is far beyond VB by lapping him.
Or Bottas had a bad day.
The facts are still essentially the same:
On almost every occasion...
...under the conditions where each driver is most free to drive as fast
as possible (qualifying)...
...Bottas and Hamilton are almost even.
I've never said that Hamilton isn't a better driver than BottasrCoagain, >>based on actual FACTS, he quite obviously is...
...but the same facts don't show Hamilton "far beyond" Bottas.
Sorry.
All drivers, in fact, all top competitors in any sport, are almost
even. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the same set of
competitions. But every now and then one competitor stands out head
and shoulders above the rest, be it tennis, golf, athletics etc and
even Formula 1.
To anyone who is not being cantankerous that person is considered "far >beyond". Bottas threw the towel in. There is nothing he can do to
even equal HAM except on the rare occasion. He does not have the
mentality, awareness and skills necessary regardless of how hard he
works. Most others, as we saw on Sunday, lose their heads, see red
mist, and make mistakes whilst HAM is still watching the clouds,
checking the life of his tyres and running the last few laps on
'slicks' when others are struggling on wets.
But you are entitled to your opinion and the rest of us will snigger
and say "Here's Baker again,
HAM even lapped his team mate", (yes we
discussed that in another post) "and still he's not far better".
Bad day my foot - the only time HAM doesn't win all the races if every
now and then he has a "bad day" and he's never been near to being
lapped by his team mate.
As I posted in another thread, HAM could have stayed in bed instead of
racing in Turkey, and the race before, and still have the championship
sewn up. How on earth can a sane person not say that is "far beyond",
same car or not.
Far beyond belief and comprehension is where I put it.
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:I don't buy a lot of what you say there. The Mark Surer stuff was just one guy saying something once without evidence; a bit like a President
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crms...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing teams
do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
From the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to mention Bottas, the team will take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but in
the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY Well we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it. It
came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more horses somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next set
WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and they
know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel burning roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team did
NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal treatment.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 08:48:29 UTC, Edmund wrote:
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:I don't buy a lot of what you say there. The Mark Surer stuff was just one >guy saying something once without evidence; a bit like a President
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crms...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >> >>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >> >>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >> >>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >> >>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >> >>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >> >>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed
with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including
Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >> >>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >> >>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just
marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing teams
do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
From the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham o verstappen is xx behind o they didnAt even care to
mention Bottas, the team will take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but in
the end Ham took pole everybody cheering owhere did that came fromo Well
we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it. It
came from HamAs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more horses
somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next set
WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and they
know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel burning
roundsa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage u go swivela
or o we are not racing Kimi we are racing Alonsoo :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team did
NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnAt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
--
oThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak ito
George Orwell
calling fraud on the election...
Where I do agree with you is that within Mercedes Hamilton is treated
as the #1 driver, whether Merc want to admit that to themselves or not.
For a start, he gets paid more than Bottas. That doesn't make him
faster, but it does say they are prepared to invest more in him than they
are in Bottas.
I thnk we all know that if they were truly faced with a clear cut 50:50
race call they would back Hamilton; it's just that it rarely comes down
to that.
Conspiracy theories about the "best" tyres etc etc don't wash; next
set will be better could just as much mean "we've taken pressure out"
or "we didn't heat the last set as well, the next set get the full treatment" >or many others.
But none of that, to me, means they are hampering Bottas deliberately.
I'll be intrigued i 10 years time when Bottas writes his autobiography--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
to reflect on my comments here, which I guess is when we can only start
to conclude with any certainty about the status in the team.
On 11/20/20 12:28 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT!
I think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality.
No doubt you have much better information then Marc Surer, so obviously
you know everything better.
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 12:28 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT!
On this, it would be good if you:
- First make an actual claim rather than an insinuation; and
- Back up the claim by using credible evidence that can be judged.
Otherwise...
I think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality.
...the parallels with certain individuals in the US - who make lavish
claims in public which they fail to back up in court - seems fair rather
than a little mean.
No doubt you have much better information then Marc Surer, so obviously
you know everything better.
For that to mean anything you need to explain:
- Why it's not simply appeal to authority rather than an actual argument;
- Why Marc Surer is the right authority to call on; and finally
- Precisely what he said and in which context.
Otherwise, what you wrote is as persuasive as if you wrote "I disagree".
I have seen Marc quoted where he has been quite fulsome in his praise of Hamilton and doesn't seem to believe it's some sort of conspiracy.
https://www.de24.news/ch/ch/2020/11/f1-expert-marc-surer-who-is-better-schumi-or-hamilton.html
where he says several things including:
"Only the best car is not everything. Bottas has the same car. But
he's only right at the front if everything fits perfectly."
Of course, history shows that when faced with logic, you simply drop the subject* rather than actually engage in the debate. It really doesn't progress any real discussion. I can only assume you don't want to.
Perhaps it's due to your motivation which you failed to address (in a
similar way) in another thread.
* Drop it to let things go quiet but wait a while and then repeat the
same baseless allegations later.
On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 08:48:29 UTC, Edmund wrote:
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:I don't buy a lot of what you say there. The Mark Surer stuff was just one guy saying something once without evidence; a bit like a President
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crms...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the >>>>>>>> distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre
management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their >>>>>> plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the >>>>>> question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it
would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing teams
do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
From the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to >> mention Bottas, the team will take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but in
the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY Well
we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it. It
came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more horses >> somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next set
WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and they
know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel burning
roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa >> or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team did
NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
calling fraud on the election...
Where I do agree with you is that within Mercedes Hamilton is treated
as the #1 driver, whether Merc want to admit that to themselves or not.
For a start, he gets paid more than Bottas. That doesn't make him
faster, but it does say they are prepared to invest more in him than they
are in Bottas.
I thnk we all know that if they were truly faced with a clear cut 50:50
race call they would back Hamilton; it's just that it rarely comes down
to that.
Conspiracy theories about the "best" tires etc etc don't wash; next
set will be better could just as much mean "we've taken pressure out"
or "we didn't heat the last set as well, the next set get the full treatment" or many others.
But none of that, to me, means they are hampering Bottas deliberately.
I'll be intrigued i 10 years time when Bottas writes his autobiography
to reflect on my comments here, which I guess is when we can only start
to conclude with any certainty about the status in the team.
On 11/20/20 10:33 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 12:28 AM, Sir Tim wrote:On this, it would be good if you:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT! >>
- First make an actual claim rather than an insinuation; and
- Back up the claim by using credible evidence that can be judged.
Otherwise...
I think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality.
...the parallels with certain individuals in the US - who make lavish
claims in public which they fail to back up in court - seems fair rather
than a little mean.
No doubt you have much better information then Marc Surer, so obviously
you know everything better.
For that to mean anything you need to explain:
- Why it's not simply appeal to authority rather than an actual argument;
- Why Marc Surer is the right authority to call on; and finally
- Precisely what he said and in which context.
Nothing to do with authority, everything with the data he had to his disposal and he could view the speed and time on that straight.
That is exactly what he said.
Feel free to deny it if it doesn't fit your bias.
Otherwise, what you wrote is as persuasive as if you wrote "I disagree".
I have seen Marc quoted where he has been quite fulsome in his praise of
Hamilton and doesn't seem to believe it's some sort of conspiracy.
Conspiracy, sure lets throw "conspiracy" in, I why not "racist", that
work very well too.
See
https://www.de24.news/ch/ch/2020/11/f1-expert-marc-surer-who-is-better-schumi-or-hamilton.html
where he says several things including:
"Only the best car is not everything. Bottas has the same car. But
he's only right at the front if everything fits perfectly."
Of course, history shows that when faced with logic, you simply drop the
subject* rather than actually engage in the debate. It really doesn't
progress any real discussion. I can only assume you don't want to.
I am sure you can only assume that.
Perhaps it's due to your motivation which you failed to address (in a
similar way) in another thread.
* Drop it to let things go quiet but wait a while and then repeat the
same baseless allegations later.
Its not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it.
Reporting
what a very well informed highly regarded commentator said might be " baseless" in your world but it sure isn't called baseless in my world.
I could tell you how we -in the real- world call people like you, I could !
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:33 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 12:28 AM, Sir Tim wrote:On this, it would be good if you:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT! >>>
- First make an actual claim rather than an insinuation; and
- Back up the claim by using credible evidence that can be judged.
Otherwise...
...the parallels with certain individuals in the US - who make lavishI think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality. >>>
claims in public which they fail to back up in court - seems fair rather >>> than a little mean.
No doubt you have much better information then Marc Surer, so obviously >>>> you know everything better.
For that to mean anything you need to explain:
- Why it's not simply appeal to authority rather than an actual argument; >>> - Why Marc Surer is the right authority to call on; and finally
- Precisely what he said and in which context.
Nothing to do with authority, everything with the data he had to his
disposal and he could view the speed and time on that straight.
That is exactly what he said.
If it's *exactly* what he said, it should be in quotes. Quotes make it
clear what has actually been said (or written) as opposed to being
edited or interpreted. Even better is a reference (URL or whatever) so
that the full context can be read. That's what I have asked for, and
that's what you still haven't provided.
Feel free to deny it if it doesn't fit your bias.
Where is the bias? You wrote something, I asked you to clarify by
telling me what he said and what you think this indicates.
You haven't actually responded to my questions.
I don't see why you raise bias or why I would deny (or accept) something
I have no primary source for.
Otherwise, what you wrote is as persuasive as if you wrote "I disagree". >>>
I have seen Marc quoted where he has been quite fulsome in his praise of >>> Hamilton and doesn't seem to believe it's some sort of conspiracy.
Conspiracy, sure lets throw "conspiracy" in, I why not "racist", that
work very well too.
No, I am simply asking questions.
Why are you deflecting?
(Don't bother raising racism - again - as you chose to drop that in the
other thread without addressing the questions).
See
https://www.de24.news/ch/ch/2020/11/f1-expert-marc-surer-who-is-better-schumi-or-hamilton.html
where he says several things including:
"Only the best car is not everything. Bottas has the same car. But >>> he's only right at the front if everything fits perfectly."
Of course, history shows that when faced with logic, you simply drop the >>> subject* rather than actually engage in the debate. It really doesn't
progress any real discussion. I can only assume you don't want to.
I am sure you can only assume that.
That is *literally* what I wrote.
Your behaviour simply seems to confirm it.
Perhaps it's due to your motivation which you failed to address (in a
similar way) in another thread.
* Drop it to let things go quiet but wait a while and then repeat the
same baseless allegations later.
Its not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it.
Where have I shut you up? (Clue: I haven't)
On the contrary, I leave it open. I ask questions. If you don't
respond - either dodging the questions or not responding - that's up to
you.
Reporting
what a very well informed highly regarded commentator said might be "
baseless" in your world but it sure isn't called baseless in my world.
I could tell you how we -in the real- world call people like you, I could !
You have put 2 and 2 together and found 7. You are (baselessly) linking
the word baseless with the (unquoted and alleged) comments of Marc
Surer. That isn't what I wrote, nor what I meant.
If you addressed the clarification questions, we might make progress.
On 11/20/20 1:11 PM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:33 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 12:28 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
By all means explain away 50 more horses for more speed ON THE STRAIGHT!
On this, it would be good if you:
- First make an actual claim rather than an insinuation; and
- Back up the claim by using credible evidence that can be judged.
Otherwise...
...the parallels with certain individuals in the US - who make lavishI think you are a bit like Donald Trump: struggling to accept reality. >>>>
claims in public which they fail to back up in court - seems fair rather >>>> than a little mean.
No doubt you have much better information then Marc Surer, so obviously >>>>> you know everything better.
For that to mean anything you need to explain:
- Why it's not simply appeal to authority rather than an actual argument; >>>> - Why Marc Surer is the right authority to call on; and finally
- Precisely what he said and in which context.
Nothing to do with authority, everything with the data he had to his
disposal and he could view the speed and time on that straight.
That is exactly what he said.
If it's *exactly* what he said, it should be in quotes. Quotes make it
clear what has actually been said (or written) as opposed to being
edited or interpreted. Even better is a reference (URL or whatever) so
that the full context can be read. That's what I have asked for, and
that's what you still haven't provided.
You must think that I -and everybody but yourself- stores their entire
life in a database just in case some loonatick like you demands proof of each and every incident of our lives.
Well I've news for you, we don't!
Feel free to deny it if it doesn't fit your bias.
Where is the bias? You wrote something, I asked you to clarify by
telling me what he said and what you think this indicates.
Because? you are too dumb to understand my posting about it?
You haven't actually responded to my questions.
Keep nagging! that helps.
I don't see why you raise bias or why I would deny (or accept) something
I have no primary source for.
Otherwise, what you wrote is as persuasive as if you wrote "I disagree". >>>>
I have seen Marc quoted where he has been quite fulsome in his praise of >>>> Hamilton and doesn't seem to believe it's some sort of conspiracy.
Conspiracy, sure lets throw "conspiracy" in, I why not "racist", that
work very well too.
No, I am simply asking questions.
Sure, you are not irritating one little bit, not a little bit.
Why are you deflecting?
(Don't bother raising racism - again - as you chose to drop that in the
other thread without addressing the questions).
See
https://www.de24.news/ch/ch/2020/11/f1-expert-marc-surer-who-is-better-schumi-or-hamilton.html
where he says several things including:
"Only the best car is not everything. Bottas has the same car. But >>>> he's only right at the front if everything fits perfectly."
Of course, history shows that when faced with logic, you simply drop the >>>> subject* rather than actually engage in the debate. It really doesn't >>>> progress any real discussion. I can only assume you don't want to.
I am sure you can only assume that.
That is *literally* what I wrote.
Your behaviour simply seems to confirm it.
exactly.
Perhaps it's due to your motivation which you failed to address (in a
similar way) in another thread.
* Drop it to let things go quiet but wait a while and then repeat the
same baseless allegations later.
Its not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it.
Where have I shut you up? (Clue: I haven't)
On the contrary, I leave it open. I ask questions. If you don't
respond - either dodging the questions or not responding - that's up to
you.
Reporting >>> what a very well informed highly regarded commentator said might be "
baseless" in your world but it sure isn't called baseless in my world.
I could tell you how we -in the real- world call people like you, I could !
You have put 2 and 2 together and found 7. You are (baselessly) linking
the word baseless with the (unquoted and alleged) comments of Marc
Surer. That isn't what I wrote, nor what I meant.
If you addressed the clarification questions, we might make progress.
Go pick a fight with your friend, if you still have one, you are not
worth my time.
Go pick a fight with your friend, if you still have one, you are not
worth my time.
Little boys who are losing always shout, rCLshanrCOt play!rCY.thanks bed shitter
larkim <matthew.larkin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 08:48:29 UTC, Edmund wrote:
On 11/5/20 11:09 AM, Martin Harran wrote:I don't buy a lot of what you say there. The Mark Surer stuff was just one >> guy saying something once without evidence; a bit like a President
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 07:41:53 -0800, Alan Baker
<notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-30 7:26 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 02:16:37 +1300, ~misfit~
<shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2020 1:27 am, AnthonyL wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Colin Stone
<crms...@gmail.com> wrote:
Loved when Bottas asked for the soft tire.
VB should have known that at that stage the tyre wouldn't last the >>>>>>>>> distance. He might have got track position, but he is not very good at tyre
management and would have needed an extra pitstop and not finishing 2nd.
His request/suggestion was pretty half-hearted and only to do
something different to HAM in a vain hope of catching up.
But whilst HAM is observing the clouds and wind BOT is flat out using >>>>>>>> all his resources to stay in touching difference and that highlights >>>>>>>> the difference between the two drivers.
Mercedes said that Bottas knew that they wouldn't deviate from their >>>>>>> plan to use the tyres that
they did - and both drivers would get the same tyres. Which begs the >>>>>>> question why did he
(half-heartedly) ask for the softs (all the while knowing that it >>>>>>> would likely be broadcast)?
Perhaps he's trying to feed conspiracy theories and by doing so raise his own stock?
To adapt a well known phrase - don't look for conspiracy where
desperation is an adequate explanation.
I feel a bit sorry for Bottas; he always struck me as a decent guy and >>>>>> I thought that previous to Mercedes, he was probably underrated as he >>>>>> never really got the chance to show his true ability. Now that he has >>>>>> the chance, he has shown that he is indeed a good driver, arguably one >>>>>> of the better drivers out there. Unfortunately for him, he is teamed >>>>>> with a driver who is far beyond everybody else out there, including >>>>>> Bottas. It must be hard for Bottas to come to terms with the fact that >>>>>> his best isn't quite good enough, that he is going to get his share of >>>>>> runner up but is unlikely to ever win a WDC..
You get that Mercedes claiming their drivers are free to race is just >>>>> marketing bullshit, right?
Are you suggesting that Bottas is as good a driver as Hamilton
Let me jump in here : Probably not quite.
but is
deliberately being held back by Mercedes?
Absolutely 100%!
IMO people who really think there is equal treatment in teams are in
denial or VERY
naive. There are countless strong pointers in F1 history proofing teams
do not treat
their drivers equal, not even close.
Merc most certainly does not treat drivers equally.
From the top of my head I remember Bottas comfortably leading a race
and the team
radioing to Ham rCL verstappen is xx behind rCL they didnrCOt even care to >>> mention Bottas, the team will take care of him, and they did!
Too many tyre strategies to fuck up Bottas changes
Also with Rosberg, one he was way faster then Ham in qualifying, but in
the end Ham took pole everybody cheering rCLwhere did that came fromrCY Well
we had the now fired TV commentator Marc Surer who explained it. It
came from HamrCOs speed on the straight! He suddenly found 50 more horses >>> somewhere! Another time Ham was way faster then Rosberg who was
complaining about grip. His team told him to relax, his next tyre set
would be much better!
Note !!! Rosberg responded HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT???? Anyway his next set
WAS much better a so was his time. So teams know these things and they
know which driver gets which.
Merc is not alone here, we remember the team player and the fuel burning >>> roundsrCa
Then it was some other drivers turn to have that advantage rCo go swivelrCa >>> or rCL we are not racing Kimi we are racing AlonsorCY :-)
The we have RB ..taking a front wing from one driver and giving it to
the other.
Or Verstappen who took out his team mate a couple of times, the team did >>> NOT blame
him. Verstappen told to tow his mate = fuck you he didnrCOt.
Albon is told to tow Verstappen and he does. I am sure there are many
more indicators revealing what is really going on and it is not equal
treatment.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
calling fraud on the election...
Marc Surer was talented but rather accident-prone. He is now 70 and last drove an F1 car competitively in 1986 so I do not see that his opinion is likely to be any more authoritative than any non-driver expert. I think he still works for Sky Germany.
All else being equal of course they would go for Hamilton and last weekend showed why. But that doesnrCOt mean that Mercedes donrCOt give Bottas a fair crack of the whip - the number of poles he has had prove that - but there
Where I do agree with you is that within Mercedes Hamilton is treated
as the #1 driver, whether Merc want to admit that to themselves or not.
For a start, he gets paid more than Bottas. That doesn't make him
faster, but it does say they are prepared to invest more in him than they
are in Bottas.
I thnk we all know that if they were truly faced with a clear cut 50:50
race call they would back Hamilton; it's just that it rarely comes down
to that.
is more to race winning that sheer speed.
Conspiracy theories about the "best" tires etc etc don't wash; nextExactly
set will be better could just as much mean "we've taken pressure out"
or "we didn't heat the last set as well, the next set get the full treatment"
or many others.
But none of that, to me, means they are hampering Bottas deliberately.Sadly I shall probably be either dead or ga-ga (which some people think I already am Efye).
I'll be intrigued i 10 years time when Bottas writes his autobiography
to reflect on my comments here, which I guess is when we can only start
to conclude with any certainty about the status in the team.
rCLyou like splitting hears[sic] and want me to hand over legal contracts where all team leaders informed me about their Nr one driver?rCYyou fucking queer ass douche
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/20 10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:17 AM, larkim wrote:
<snip>
I know pathetic liars never believe others....... you're welcome!
Wow!
I fully understand you are reacting to pathetic liars never believe
others but I was not talking to you, I am done with you.
No - to be clear, I am reacting to someone using insulting and bullying
language to abuse another poster rather than address the issue at hand.
As to whether or not you're "done with [me]", that doesn't bother me. I
will (as this is a public forum) continue to exercise my right to give
my opinion. To quote someone - it doesn't matter who as I'm not a
"loonatick[sic]" who "...stores [his] entire life in a database...":
"Its[sic] not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it."
rCLyou like splitting hears[sic] and want me to hand over legal contracts where all team leaders informed me about their Nr one driver?rCY
On 22/11/2020 5:08 am, Sir Tim wrote:got any more stories about your sore fucking back?
Mark <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/20 10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:17 AM, larkim wrote:
<snip>
I know pathetic liars never believe others....... you're welcome!
Wow!
I fully understand you are reacting to pathetic liars never believe
others but I was not talking to you, I am done with you.
No - to be clear, I am reacting to someone using insulting and bullying >> language to abuse another poster rather than address the issue at hand. >>
As to whether or not you're "done with [me]", that doesn't bother me. I >> will (as this is a public forum) continue to exercise my right to give
my opinion. To quote someone - it doesn't matter who as I'm not a
"loonatick[sic]" who "...stores [his] entire life in a database...":
"Its[sic] not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it."
rCLyou like splitting hears[sic] and want me to hand over legal contracts where all team leaders informed me about their Nr one driver?rCYInteresting seeing these replies to Eddy. I didn't know that he was still around and hasn't changed
at all. I haven't seen one of his posts for years.
Sometimes I download my newsgroups and for split-second see maybe 70 posts in rasf1 then it changes
to three or similar. There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
[snipped]
Sometimes I download my newsgroups and for split-second see maybe 70
posts in rasf1 then it changes to three or similar. There must be sooo
much crap being posted here!
There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
On 22/11/2020 5:08 am, Sir Tim wrote:
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/20 10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:17 AM, larkim wrote:
<snip>
I know pathetic liars never believe others....... you're welcome!
Wow!
I fully understand you are reacting to pathetic liars never believe
others but I was not talking to you, I am done with you.
No - to be clear, I am reacting to someone using insulting and bullying
language to abuse another poster rather than address the issue at hand.
As to whether or not you're "done with [me]", that doesn't bother me. I >>> will (as this is a public forum) continue to exercise my right to give
my opinion. To quote someone - it doesn't matter who as I'm not a
"loonatick[sic]" who "...stores [his] entire life in a database...":
"Its[sic] not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it."
rCLyou like splitting hears[sic] and want me to hand over legal contracts
where all team leaders informed me about their Nr one driver?rCY
Interesting seeing these replies to Eddy. I didn't know that he was still around and hasn't changed
at all. I haven't seen one of his posts for years.
Sometimes I download my newsgroups and for split-second see maybe 70
posts in rasf1 then it changes
to three or similar. There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22/11/2020 5:08 am, Sir Tim wrote:
Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/20 10:22 AM, Mark wrote:
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/20/20 10:17 AM, larkim wrote:
<snip>
I know pathetic liars never believe others....... you're welcome! >>>>>>Wow!
I fully understand you are reacting to pathetic liars never believe >>>>> others but I was not talking to you, I am done with you.
No - to be clear, I am reacting to someone using insulting and bullying >>>> language to abuse another poster rather than address the issue at hand. >>>>
As to whether or not you're "done with [me]", that doesn't bother me. I >>>> will (as this is a public forum) continue to exercise my right to give >>>> my opinion. To quote someone - it doesn't matter who as I'm not a
"loonatick[sic]" who "...stores [his] entire life in a database...":
"Its[sic] not up to you to shut me up, so you have to live with it."
rCLyou like splitting hears[sic] and want me to hand over legal contracts >>> where all team leaders informed me about their Nr one driver?rCY
Interesting seeing these replies to Eddy. I didn't know that he was still
around and hasn't changed
at all. I haven't seen one of his posts for years.
Sometimes I download my newsgroups and for split-second see maybe 70
posts in rasf1 then it changes
to three or similar. There must be sooo much crap being posted here!
I would be surprised if there were as many as 70 posts on any one day. I
only have one person in my killfile (IrCOm sure you can guess who) and I donrCOt get anything like that many. I intended to add Edmund to my bin after his openly racist post a few weeks ago but didnrCOt do so.
It did seem like a very large number of shit-posts. I only have maybe 5 or 6 people in my killfile.
It makes me wonder if my provider (eternal september) isn't stripping obvious spam posts out. But
then would I see them briefly enumerated in Thunderbird?
That said I haven't seen such a large number for a while now, maybe a week or two.
Conspiracy theories about the "best" tires etc etc don't wash; nextExactly
set will be better could just as much mean "we've taken pressure out"
or "we didn't heat the last set as well, the next set get the full
treatment"
or many others.
There's also the psychological aspect. Tell a driver that the next set
of tyres will be much better and, if he believes you there's a good
chance he'll do better with them. Often they just need their engineers
to give-a them reassurance.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 00:47:18 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 755 |
| Messages: | 91,145 |