Formula 1 2014: Round 19 - Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

Gillespy wrote: »

If Rosberg dominated qualifying, what word describes the races? Look up the stats and cite examples from races of why Rosberg was better than a 67 points margin.

I think he has a record number of second place finishes and that's great but that is that car's default position when the other one wins. He hasn't passed Hamilton all season and all his poles are for naught if he doesn't convert them. Average. Flattered by the car. The best driver won and the margin reflects his dominance.

Your definition of an "average" driver is one who beats Schumacher 3 years in a row and comes a close second to Hamilton twice.

Interesting.

Myrddin wrote: »

In fairness you believe a person can win a WDC by luck

I do. If Hamilton had dnf'd today instead of Rosberg, I believe most people would have classified Rosberg as a lucky champion. Equally, Lewis was a lucky champion in 2008 when the rain rescued him.

Gillespy wrote: »

You mean the rain at Silverstone?

11 wins to 5. I think Hamilton beat him convincingly. Head to head in races finished was 10-4, make it 9-4 if you want to take today out. Blow qualifying out of all proportions but ignore the real stat.

The manner of those second places is what hasn't impressed me. Austin, for example was weak and he never threatened after. Same in Japan. Bahrain is the best example though to demonstrate the difference between them. That's why I said average.

The worst part of Schumacher's comeback is it being used to prop Rosberg. It does makes Hamilton's achievements look better and it's a crumb of comfort for Webber too I guess.

The rain in Brazil where drivers ahead of him were on the wrong tyre. He didn't do a good enough job in the race and left himself vulnerable to a driver people wouldn't think is Rosberg's equal, never mind Hamilton's. The rain saved him.

In years gone by when Hamilton out qualified his teammates, people would point to that as an indicator of his superior ability. They can't turn around and ignore it when it works against him.

Rosberg was faster, all else being equal, than Hamilton this year, otherwise he couldn't have beaten him in qualifying. His racecraft wasn't as good, and there were at least 3 races where he effectively gifted Hamilton a win by panicking or making a mistake, which I judge to be understandable in his first year where race wins and championships were truly possible. Hamilton did worse in his first 2 years, and made much worse howlers in 2011 when he was an experienced world champion used to the pressure.

Stats are important so long as the context is known. Rosberg was a much tougher opponent than a 60 point gap suggests. It'll be closer next year, if he irons out his mistakes and nerves.

What performances exactly? 10-4 suggests the choice isn't too big.

Hamilton won 4 in a row and then 5 in a row. Brazil was Rosberg's first win since Germany. Those winning streaks don't reflect well on Rosberg.

Rosberg has been a journeyman driver all his life. He got the gig with Merc cause they wanted two German drivers. Schumacher brought the sponsers and Merc thought that Rosberg was a solid no 2 driver. It turned out that Schumacher was well past his sell by date and as a result Rosberg started to look good.

11 wins versus 5 wins is a good enough reason for Hamilton to have won the WDC.

Rosberg should have converted more of his poles into wins and he didn't.

antodeco wrote: »

Is it really as dark as those photos show?

To be honest....no! It's strange because you don't notice it being dark but when you're far away from the track (say 15m) the camera will play tricks on you and make it darker as well.
I've also underexposed some photos to try and create more of a silhouette then what it is naturally. The sunset shots are an accurate reflection of the light at the time though

I'd say that this will be the last of my photo posts from this weekend but wanted to share a few photos of Hamilton's day given that he probably deserves some attention today!

zombieHanalei wrote: »

Schumacher 1991-2006 =/= Schumacher 2010-2012

(That said, Rosberg is above average, but he's not the same class as Hamilton/Alonso)

Agreed. Hamilton and Alonso are the current benchmarks. I wouldn't rate Rosberg as being on the same level as those two in terms of their ability to extract everything possible from the car. That said, I was rooting for Rosberg today. :P

andyman wrote: »

Answer my question, what about Spa 2008 where he was robbed of a victory?

Actually, I'm intrigued, what parameters could you shift this season where the result would be different?

I have answered your question, and by the end of your comment you're closer to understanding it.

If you take the position "excluding fact X I'm right" then all you're doing is goal seeking : deciding what numbers you want at the end, then picking out whatever gives you that answer.

Anybody can do the same for a different answer, by picking different things to exclude. All I've done is give you a couple of examples of how I can do the same thing to "prove" something you apparently don't want to hear. Neither of these positions (yours or mine) is objectively true, because we're both goal seeking from the same data, towards different answers.

Here is another simple example : would you say that Nico was "gifted" a win in brasil due to Hamilton's mistake? There's an argument which could be made on either side, depending on what you choose to exclude. Let's say you argue in favour of Nico, by pointing out he was quickest in every session, all weekend, and Lewis couldn't overtake him on track. A Lewis fan might then point out that there was the "reeling 7 seconds in" part of the race which proves a Lewis win was "inevitable". Both positions have merit but neither is indelibly true. And if you argue that Lewis "gifted" Rosberg a win, then how come Lewis wasn't "gifted" a win in monza? Because he's Lewis?

It's perfectly fine to be a fan of Lewis, or even be someone who thinks he's the fastest driver on the grid (as many people who personally dislike him are quite happy to admit), without taking the attitude that he's the be all and end all, and other drivers are rubbish.

Rosberg was beaten this year, and Hamilton deserved the championship, but he didn't wipe the floor with Nico, and there wasn't the "gulf" in quality you're talking about, because Nico put a lot of pressure on Lewis this year. Without a summer break to regather himself, Lewis said himself he might not have come back so strong.

It's perfectly ok to give Lewis credit without running down his opponents, particularly when you have to deliberately ignore evidence disproves that.

11-5 in wins. 10-4 in head to head race finishes. Where is the evidence that Rosberg hasn't been dominated and that there isn't a gulf between them? If you have it, why not share it?

Reliability is the only reason Rosberg ever had a 29 point lead. As soon as that balanced itself out, the points table started telling the truth.