FORMULA 1 GRAN PREMIO HEINEKEN D'ITALIA 2017: QUALIFYING *** SPOILERS ***

good point Andrew....

 

Schuey once said when asked about being the best driver of all time that the BEST driver in the world has never been in an F1 car ..... I was not a Schumacher fan until he said that

 

Yes Schumacher had a great car underneath him and in 2002 and 2004, very little competition. All he had to do was beat his teammate for those qualifiers...and he did. Elton on the other hand has struggled plenty on beating his teammates consistently, even if those teammates are constantly being called mediocre by his hangers on!

Sour grapes or just questioning the statistic circumstances?

 

Didn't even Jensen give him a touch up ?

 

Oh yes fully get that...

 

Yep...plenty! And he was said to be destroyed by Elton, it was career suicide they said!

 

"They" , are the Hammertime girl's cheer squad ..... go Elton go

 

That's it

 

Times, cars and numbers of races change. I like percentages of races...covers all of the above. "My" guy (Clark) comes out on top.

Jimmy: 46% poles, 34% wins.
Lewis: 35% poles, 29% wins.
Ayrton: 40% poles, 25% wins.
Michael: 22% poles, 29% wins.

 

That's a deflection onto "mediocre teammates" and a straw man argument.

Look, I'm no great fan of Hamilton and not pleased to see a Mercedes driver beat Michael Schumacher's record. However, he generally qualifies well in comparison to his teammates (however you rate them) and he's beaten the all-time record for most pole positions, which is directly comparable to other dominant drivers in other dominant cars of the past. That is undeniably an achievement.

Definitely sour grapes, unfortunately.

All the best,
Andrew.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

+1

 

No, it`s not, the Merecedes is def. more dominant than every other dominant car in the past.

 

No, it is not.

Ferrari had a dominant car some years too since the championship was created. Like in 1952, 1953, 1961, 1966,, etc...

Lotus had a dominant car in the 1963, 64, 65, 68, 69.

Williams had a dominant car in the days of Mansell, Prost and even D.Hill. or Villeneuve.

But anyway, the dominance of a team doesn't diminish the achievement of the driver who makes the most of it.

 

Wait for the sour grapes once/if Hamilton beats the most wins record. The spin masters on here will go into overdrive

 

How many races does the current calender have vs. the past ?

How dominant is the Mercedes in relative terms to the competition ?

Points given to which positions vs. the past ?

How many teams really do count as competition ?

The impact of the current (hybrid)engine formula on F1 vs. the past ?

 

You stated: "the Mercedes is def. more dominant than every other dominant car in the past".

I gave you examples of periods in the championship when one car was dominating, giving a advantage to the WDC.

You don't like the answer, fair enough.

In 1952/53, Ferrari was the only team with a F2 ready when the championship was downgraded from F1 to F2. Ascari won most of the races and was twice WDC. Not dominant?

In 1961, when the formula adopted the 1.5L capacity limit, Ferrari raced the V6 Sharknose against the other teams which had only 4-cyl F2 engines giving up at least 50hp. P.Hill was WDC, not dominant?

When Lotus launched the first monocoque, the car came immediately the leader in the field, giving Clark 2 WDCs. He missed a 3rd one because of engine reliability. Not dominant? Everybody copied them.

etc... etc...

Not forgetting the first ground effect car by Lotus, or the active suspension by Williams, etc...

 

Actual LOL

 

Forgot to mention how long does the Merc. dominace takes already (4 years now) vs. the dominant teams in the past ?

You've mentioned 1952, as an example the 1952 season was won by Ferrari (Ascari) but only had 8 races. And indeed 7 of the 8 races were won by a Ferrari. But again it only contained 8 races.

I know other cars and teams have been dominant in the past, but the statistics really need to be analyzed to give a fair picture.

 

And by the way also keep in mind the relative safety in which all of the current drivers do their job. Senna and many of his predecessors can't tell the tale but still hat lot's to win and would have survived in todays F1 cars.

Just another statistic.

 

'Still stand by:

 

Obviously. the circumstances have changed in the last 65 years or so.

I gave you these examples as references. If you don't like them, I cannot help that!

The fact is that at different periods, the WDC had the benefit of driving the dominant car in the field. That doesn't diminish in any way the accomplishment of winning the title, in my view.

Trying to pick bones and denigrate a champion, saying that so-and-so was better because of bla, bla, bla is just not here or there.

Each year brings a new scenario in F1.

 

Absolutely right. In addition, almost 100% reliability in qualifying for the Mercedes in four years, almost 80 chances to take pole...... yet Nico regularly beat this amazing pole machine, bottles has beaten him, and he lost a couple to cars that should have been only capable of third in the grid. I'd say his car is a great qualifier, and the car competes in twice as many races as any other dominant car of all time.......

Unlucky elton fans..... he's just a quick driver, no more, no less. Great drivers are able to qualify on pole in **** cars, win races in **** and broken cars, win championships against better cars .... in any of those scenarios more often than not the little ballerina (I think Jackie Stewart's term, not mine) chokes big time!

Forza Ferrari

 

You keep bringing up different parameters in the discussion.

The past isn't the present, we know that !

 

I hope then that looking back you have never suggested Nico was an undeserving champion then

 

Fair enough, agree with above.

But then also acknowledge that at the same the value of having the most F1 poles or wins in history is diminished by those same statistics.