Formula 1 2014: Round 11 - Hungarian Grand Prix

logik wrote: »

Would agree with this. I would be looking at it differently if Rosberg was on Hamiltons rear wing but he wasnt, he was so far back that to let him by would have cost Hamilton to much time.

I don't think the word 'relinquish' is right here. He was asked to let Nico through temporarily before Nico stopped. It was always the plan for Nico to do one more stop at this stage, so Lewis was comfortably ahead. The call came for Lewis on lap 47, and Nico stopped on lap 56. The team were asking the question: "how can we get the most points?" and not "how can we hand Rosberg a bigger lead?".

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How? What situation?

Well, let's look at my reading again:
1. Vettel and Webber were given the same car.
> With one highly public exception, this is undeniably true.
2. Vettel and Ricciardo were given the same car.
> With no exceptions whatsoever, this is undeniably true.
3. Vettel was comfortably better than Webber.
> Vettel beat Webber in a close fight in 2 seasons, and comprehensively in two, and could have beaten him with one proverbial arm behind his back in the last season. Vettel: 4 World Championships, Webber: None. This is undeniably true.
4. Ricciardo is comfortably better than Vettel.
> Ignoring races where one or other driver encountered a technical problem/team error, Ricciardo has been the better driver. The stats are in his favour, and if you look at their driving objectively, he is clearly far more comfortable driving the car. The season isn't over, but Vettel hasn't shown he has anything in the bag to catch up to Daniel's performaces.

Therefore, it doesn't matter that the formula is "different" this year.
The formula was different in 2010 compared to 2009, in 2012 compared to 2011 and again in 2013 compared to 2012.

In F1, everything resets at the start of every year. Every year drivers are given a new prototype to drive. Comparisions between teammates are the only valid, pure comparison of driving talent. Too many other variables are in play otherwise.

Vettel beat Webber, comfortably.
Ricciardo is beating Vettel, comfortably.

Alonso has beaten every teammate he's had with the exception of Hamilton, comfortably.

That's a simplistic view, which is the point we're trying to make.
Look at Hamilton. Everyone on here rates him as one of the best on the grid, some even say he is the best. Yet 3 years as a team mate to Button in McLaren shows that Button scored 672 versus Hamiltons 657. That's not over one season or a short stint of good luck versus bad luck, that's 3 years. But can we conclude based on that evidence that Button is better than Hamilton and close the book? No. There's more to it than that.
Look at Schumacher. Early career taking crap cars and getting results. Later career he was well established in Ferrari, the team and the car were working for him, and he was comfortable and unstoppable. A few years later he was struggling in a middling car with an eager team mate, and coming out worse from a results standpoint. Is it because he was never as good as everyone believed and it was the car all along? No.
Vettel is another. Took a chance to drive a BMW in Kubica's absence and finished 8th. Took a Torro Rosso to pole and subsequently a win in a really wet day, their only win. Gets stuck in to the full Red Bull team and first two seasons manages to beat Webber, the remainder soundly beating him. Why? Because he was becoming bedded into the team with the car and the team being built around him. Take 4 years of that and pull the rug from under him, and things are outside a comfort zone that was formed. Maybe Riccardo is quicker than him anyway, but it's not a good comparison. Rookie's always adapt quicker because everything they do is new.
Some questions can't be answered by a simple "he is better" answer. Like Why did Hamilton beat Alonso in his rookie season? Why did Button beat Hamilton over 3 seasons if Hamilton is so good? Why did Riccardo beat Vettel? Why did Vergne beat Riccardo for the first half of last year? Why did Rosberg beat Schumacher? Simple questions, complex answers.

What a race all the same!

LIGHTNING wrote: »

DC commented over the weekend that the cars when they are being built aren't built to an exact schematic and that it varies depending on the mechanics working on the cars. I can certainly believe that from my experience of race cars. A friend of mine said the same thing about the A1GP cars (he was a test driver) when that series was still running.

Even small changes at that level can make huge changes to the way the car handles. Look at how small amount of front wing can alter the balance of the car.

All of the things you're describing are only really detectable by driver feedback, though. Are you dismissing the possibility that psychology is as much a factor as a millimetre difference in a carbon fibre tub?

Do you believe that cars created for the financially troubled a1gp series were manufactured to the same standard as McLaren or red bull expect and demand? That the massively expensive machines and staff they have are working to the same conditions as the bloke in dallara building an entire car for what an f1 tub probably costs?

Yes manufacturing tolerances introduce minute differences between components. However I don't believe they're all that significant, and more importantly the counter argument "when I/someone I know gets in a car" brings in psychology which is far more significant.

In order to be a significant argument then there would have to be significant differences, at almost every race, for 5 years, all of which negatively impacted Webber's car.

How likely is that?

The cars are as identical as it's possible to make them, which is the best you can get with every physical object. They are at least as identical that one can put aside car differences as an explanatory factor in the performance gap between teammates over the course of a year, never mind 5.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

All of the things you're describing are only really detectable by driver feedback, though. Are you dismissing the possibility that psychology is as much a factor as a millimetre difference in a carbon fibre tub?

Do you believe that cars created for the financially troubled a1gp series were manufactured to the same standard as McLaren or red bull expect and demand? That the massively expensive machines and staff they have are working to the same conditions as the bloke in dallara building an entire car for what an f1 tub probably costs?

Yes manufacturing tolerances introduce minute differences between components. However I don't believe they're all that significant, and more importantly the counter argument "when I/someone I know gets in a car" brings in psychology which is far more significant.

In order to be a significant argument then there would have to be significant differences, at almost every race, for 5 years, all of which negatively impacted Webber's car.

How likely is that?

The cars are as identical as it's possible to make them, which is the best you can get with every physical object. They are at least as identical that one can put aside car differences as an explanatory factor in the performance gap between teammates over the course of a year, never mind 5.

Don't underestimate the differences either. And yes, the psychological effect is bigger, but sometimes a difference can be the spark to cause the psychological negativity in the first place.
I've spoken to professional barbars who use sissors that cost a few hundred quid, and know straight away if they've inadvertently picked up the colleague's sissors. Same pair of sissors, two different users. That's just a simple mechanical apparatus, probably as simple as it gets. Imagine a car using hundreds of thousands of components that's used by a driver who's trained and honed to become part of the machine to feel and control tiny and lightening quick responses and inputs from the machine which is used to travel a couple of miles and is measured in thousanths of a second. Then take a driver who has had the machine built around him for 4 years as he becomes the driver who has the more likely chances of success of the pair, and watch him flourish as his team mate begins to suffer more and more as the car is gradually tailored away from his liking and towards his teammates. That would easily explain the Vettel vs Webber performance differences over the few years.
Then take that machine and take it away from the driver and give him an all new ground up different car with almost opposing characteristics and you can't really wonder why it takes him time to find what it is he doesn't like and needs to hone about the new car. In the mean time take a teammate who is fresh and new to F1 and is in the "mode" of adapting to anything he's given because he hasn't had anything honed to him yet, and he'll adapt much more quickly.
I reckon that explains this first half difference between those two drivers easily. I reckon it also explains the Rosberg/Schumacher difference, as well as other factors.
I think we'll see a fairer comparison between Vettel and Riccardo over 3 or 4 years. In fact, the best comparison we'd get is for them to carry on in these cars for 4 years then completely change the formula again from the ground up to equally upset both and watch the subsequent seasons, but that's not going to happen!
That's why we can never compare drivers spanning generations either!!