2015 FORMULA 1 BRITISH GRAND PRIX: QUALIFYING ***SPOILERS***

So, you think that the pressure gave extra horsepower to Kimi's engine?

I think that Kimi hasn't changed, but it's the qualifs strategy that seems to have been OK this time.
Several times this year, the Ferrari team completely messed up his slot and got him eliminated after Q1; sometimes with as perfect car sitting in the garage !!! After a bad grid position, Kimi had to accomplish miracles to get back midfield and sometimes tangled with back-markers.

 

I guess I worded my post poorly. So many people go on how the past drivers are superior and would walk all over Hamilton. That is complete BS. Tifosi12 worded it better, the talent pool back then was much smaller. Yes there will be a few people with inherent talent in each generation. Back then they didn't have to work that hard to cultivate their talent (i.e didn't train for years and race since young) to be in f1. So from that perspective the drivers back then were far worse. Yes some of them may have had that same inherent talent but just like in all sport, progress keeps on going (to a point). Although your example is somewhat anecdotal, definitely very interesting. One would expect those 'old timers' to be beat coulthard in the very cars they used to race in. likewise, whenever an older driver tries to get into a modern f1 car they can't even start the thing. Hope you get what my overall point is now I have explained it better.

And no the longer a season is the harder it is, statistically, to come out on top. The odds for a single race victory are much much better than to be leading at the end of a season (and the odds get worse the more races there are). Just because Rosberg may have won after 10 races doesn't negate what is mathematically correct.

Yes good for them. Doesn't change the fact that an f1 championship is easier to win the less races it is. Because the sport had primitive safety measures doesn't make the drivers more skilful.

+1

A few times it was Ferraris fault but lets not forget he nearly went out in q2 today as well. Exceeded track limits and ruined his lap and then was 9th. Too bad hulkenburg sainz and maldanado (or whoever it was that were on tracek) couldn't improve their times.

 

I do not know how difficult it is to get a super license to be honest but I do not think that this is really a question of talent. Just look at Maldonado, I doubt that he would have survived a single season back in the 1950s...Some of these gentlemen drivers were not that bad, especially in sports car racing.
And although Lauda, Mansell and Schumacher were helped with money into F1 (because obviously everybody needs some financial background or support of a team like Vettel and Hamilton) they are not what I would call a pay driver.
What I meant: if we would loose several top drivers every season today the amount of pay drivers would be at least as high as it was in the 1950s. The difference is that back in the days one could enter in F1 more easy, now you have fixed team places and just a limited availability of seats and most of them are given leaving few room for others to get in.
And don´t forget money have changed a lot: back in the 1950s just a few really could live from racing. I am sure that even a back marker today earns enough money to pay his living, back in the 1950s I doubt so the field had to be filled with people who did not necessarily need the money.

 

To qualify for an FIA super licence the requesting driver must already be the holder of a grade A competition licence, and additionally meet the requirements of the 2013 FIA International Sporting Code, Appendix L.[1][2] These requirements state that the driver must be either the reigning champion in a lower category of motor sport, for example Formula 3 (Euroformula Open Championship or Japanese championship), Formula 2, or GP2 Series (formerly known as Formula 3000), or must have consistently finished well in these categories. For example, a driver finishing fourth and fifth (twice) positions in the GP2 championship within the last three years will be eligible for a super licence.


Additionally, drivers who have competed in the IndyCar Series are eligible for a super licence if they finished within the first four places of the driver's championship. This allows drivers from the United States domestic series to move into Formula One without first taking part in other FIA sanctioned events. Under exceptional circumstances Appendix L also allows the FIA to award a Super Licence to a driver who does not meet the normal criteria if a vote reveals unanimous agreement by the members, and provided that the driver has completed 300 kilometers of testing at racing speeds in a current car.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence

 

Can you name a few?

I am intrigued ...

 

It is just as bull**** as your thoughts that Hamilton would wipe the floor with all of them in their time...Different eras need different talents and different driving styles...
What you do not understand: we do not say that you just need to take Clark in a time capsule, bring him over to 2015 and he would wipe the floor with all the current drivers...What we say is that if a guy like Clark with his talent and his approach to racing and his character would have been born at the same time as Hamilton was he would be most likely a front runner as well (in case he would have had the luck to get into F1 which is not a guarantee today without a supporting sponsor).
Same with Senna: with his talent and ambition he would be certainly win just as he did 20 years ago if he was driving today instead of the 1990s.

Why do you think that todays drivers are working harder? Just because they are doing a tougher fitness program? Back then they were driving a lot more races in different classes, sometimes several at the same weekend. Just because people love to talk about the glamourous parties they had in the past does not mean that they were just driving for the fun of it.

What progress? More athletic? Looking at many sports (football, racing...) one could see that the sportsmen have to do basically nothing but their sport, everything else is taken care of by a huge staff running beside of them...
So I still would say that a guy like Fangio born into todays GP would still find its way but looking at some primadonnas of today I doubt it the other way round...

This is just wrong what you say. Considering that Hamilton is the better driver than Rosberg last season shows perfectly what I mean: with less races it is easier for the worse drivers to get ahead because he just needs a little bit of bad luck of his opponents to get a fluke WDC. The longer the season the more likely the better driver will be on top because the luck will compensate. So winning 5 championships with only a few races each season means that Fangio did not do a single mistake at all, otherwise he would have not won that.
Or to carry that on the extreme: if the season would only have one single race it would be most difficult for the best driver to get that WDC because in case he has some issues with the car in that single race he is done...For the worse drivers this would be the best chance to win a title, if that single race would be the one Maldonado won he would be WDC as well So the longer the season the more likely the best will end on top -> the more races, the better for the top drivers

 

Depends on how far "back then" you're talking about. In the early days of F1, the 50's, 60's and certainly pre-war GP racing, they certainly didn't start at a young age and train for years. It was a man's sport/hobby. But if you are including Senna, Prost, etc.. those guys started racing karts at a young age before graduating to F1.

 

Oh jeez I'm missing out all the fun...

 

I don't understand what one does behind a computer (or tablet, phone etc) when you're in the ****ing cook islands.

 

Bas it's 11.28pm here and there isn't much to do once it gets dark. I have a few gb only so I cannot load much. Trying to save my bandwidth for the race so I am literally bored out of my brain. The TV sucks as well - can barely get any channels, just a few local shows and delayed coverage of NZ TV.Getting a nice tan during the day though


Mr Singhof,

I don't doubt that had these talents been born today and brought up the same way as Hamilton etc. that they would be very competitive. Who would come out on top one does not know…but they certainly would not be convincingly beating the current bunch.

Yes the shorter the season the more likely an injustice can occur because good luck and bad luck alike cannot be spread very evenly. It magnifies everything. But a shorter season is also much easier to win - as you say yourself - even bad drivers can luck into one.

 

Hammy wins 'cause of Benz-not the other way around. Right place, right time. Don't read more into it.....

 

Again: a shorter season is easier to win for those who have to rely on luck, a longer season is easier to win for those who can rely on talent...As I thought we were talking about the second group that still means: the longer the season the easier it gets (see last year). So no way to say that Fangios 5 titles are only worth 2.5 of today standard as you just did a few post before. That is just another attempt to detract all the achievements of those who raced before Hamilton, something you love to do to praise you boy in the all time statistics (where he still is 3 WDC behind Fangio and 5 behind Schumacher...)

 

LH: 16 podiums, 11 being victories = 1 title (2014)

Fangio: 17 podium, 13 being victories = his first 3 titles (some of the seasons being only 7 races).

To me it looks like his 5 titles are worth 2.5 in todays terms. Race wins/race starts ratio is a more telling metric. Titles are simply based around arbitrary lines of where the f1 governing body decides 1 championship should end and another begin.

I am not trying to detract from Fangio at all. He dominated during his time. Simply trying to point out what I thought to be an obvious point.

Its like if I were to compare two drivers; one from the old points system and one from the new. Points are given out like confetti nowadays. And likewise, titles today are completely different to back then.

 

You contradict yourself again...You once told us that winning in different teams is worth more than in the same...So taking one season out of these three Fangio years and you can be almost certain that he would have won more races within this season if there would have been more to race...He only did not win more because there were no more to win...
On the other side you can not say that just because Hamilton have won 11 in one season this means he would have won 11 over three seasons back then in three different cars...So it is just wrong to extrapolate from one season with many races to three seasons with few...
And yes, you are detracting Fangio as you measure his WDCs lower than Hamiltons!

PS: you call everyone a hater who does not get into your Hamilton praise but you detract every sinlge other WDC explaining us how his WDC are worth less than Hamiltons, be it Fangio, Senna, Schumacher, Stewart or Clark...

 

You have an incredible knack of missing the point.

 

Yes winning with different constructors means more than winning with the same one. Based on a crude estimate, Hamilton won near enough the same to get 1 championship as it took Fangio to get three. But you do want to give some allowance for things like that.

No need to makes things complicated. All I am trying to say is that if there are only 7 races in a calendar year the WDC count is going to look much more impressive. Likewise, Hamilton's win count will look much more impressive and easily outstrips Fangio's because there are more races per season.

Thats why its best to look at race victories, podiums and poles in relation to the number of starts made by the driver. (With an eye on the types of teams he was in too).

Well when I am faced with the argument that Stewart is better simply because he has more WDC's than Hamilton then I have to respond with the direction the argument is taking.

Once everyone finally realises that Hamilton is easily within the top 10 greats (top 5 in my book but it will take a few more years before its so beyond argument that everyone starts to agree) then all the better. Yes, I haven't watched decades of f1 like Ian or Pedro…but from where I am sitting it should be starting to be obvious by now.

Look what the cat dragged in.

 

But he only won more races because there were more to race, that is not his achievement! If one does win 7 out of 7 he is as good as someone who wins 20 out of 20 as that means the car never let him down and he was better than the rest.

And you choose always the statistic that suits you at the moment...If you compare with someone who has more than double the WDC than all of the sudden it is all about the total race win count...If you compare with someone like Vettel it is all of the sudden just because of the different cars Hamilton drove (although this would be again against the comparisation with Fangio). Then it is all about the team mates ignoring the fact that Hamilton also won his title against Kovallainen which does not sound so exciting anymore...
You are absolutely inconsistent in your line of arguing, only the result always stays the same: Hamilton is the best for one or the other reason. That makes your posts some kind of boring.

It is good for you if you rate him this way but you do not need to expect every other need to do so as well and that it is just a question of time when we see the light...Again: Hamiltons first WDC was close and a little bit lucky in the last race but certainly deserved, the last one was beating one team mate in an absolutely dominant car just as Vettel did four years in a row, nothing to get to excited over or rate him among the greatest....

 

You could stop right there, really. That sums it up.

 

Someone who wins 7/7 is not NECESSARILY as good as someone who wins 20/20. That's like saying someone who wins 1 race is as good as someone who wins 100/100 (reducing your argument to its most ridiculous possibility). Point is if 2 drivers win 20/20 and one is awarded with 1 wdc and the other 3 wdc… not sure how you cannot see it.

Doesn't everyone? When you're making an argument that one thing is better than another you talk about the points in your favour. You are no different. FYI, Hamilton won his title against the ferrari boys more than kovalleinein. I am not inconsistent. Yes different points emphasise different things - just because I emphasise different things at different times doesn't make anything contradictory.

Well we have a consensus that Senna is #1 and schumacher is #2 of all time (more or less). We should at least have consensus by now that Hamilton is in the top 10 of all time. The first WDC should've been in 2007. Most of Schumachers titles were in a dominant car. Same with Senna and Prost. I would consider the 2014 title more of a Senna v Prost battle and a deserved title (not trying to say that Nico is as good as that - he's good but not that good. But Hamiltons bad luck and Nicos decent ability (better than Webber and Baricello) made it a harder fight than Vettel and Schumachers). Hell, schumacher and vettel got all the good bits. If an updated part started failing on schumachers car they would literally rip the one off his team mates car and put it on his...

 

Again: one time you tell us that winning in different teams is more difficult than in the same one and then all of the sudden winning 20/20 in a totally dominant Mercedes is worth as much as winning three years in a raw in three different cars???This is what is said is inconsistant....

So whatever argument one does invalidate with you, one can be sure that it comes back a few posts or threads later again just as you suffer Alzheimer...

Sorry but I think you lost reality...You compare Hamilton against someone who does never get WDC most likely with the battle of a three against a four times WDC driver??? Seriously???
Not just that I doubt that Hamilton is as good as Senna but certainly Rosberg is very far away from being Prost so your comparisation is ridiculous...
And Hamilton had to fight less against Kovallainen than Vettel against Webber in the beginning and the fact that Rosberg might be slightly better than Webber was just means that Hamilton usually finishs 10 seconds ahead of Rosberg and Vettel did 30 in front of Webber on a normal day. That does not make Hamiltons victory more deserved as you want to make us believe, just a little bit closer...

 

Geez, to bad i went to bad, i missed all off this fun!!!

 

I think it's time for me to put someone on ignore. The stupid logic is just, well, stupid.

 

I know how you feel ..but I can't ignore it...

 

You'll miss me.

 

Ignore trolls, ignore people who argue with trolls. Adding someone who looks to be baited to my ignore list for a cleaner thread without troll quotes.