Formula 1 2014: General Discussion Thread

Zcott

4k would be a good way of getting the sport to lead technological change instead of playing catchup ten years later.

Although I'd still settle for a 480p live stream....

_rebelkid

Zcott wrote: »

4k would be a good way of getting the sport to lead technological change instead of playing catchup ten years later.

Although I'd still settle for a 480p live stream....

Check the IRC on /r/formula1. 576p Livestream in there.

Zcott

Yep, that's the one I use when it's up which isn't 100% of the time.

I'd happily pay €10 for a weekend, maybe more, for an official and legal stream of all the sessions.

Myrddin

Tea 1000 wrote: »

It wouldn't prove he was the best, it'd prove he was one of the luckiest. Whether or not he is also the best is irrelevant to that discussion.

Luck isn't a word I'd use in the same sentence as Lewis Hamilton.

_rebelkid

Exclusive images obtained by SkySportBildCrashAutoSPEEDStradaBBNBCESPN F1 of Alonso's 2015 F1 Car...

_rebelkid

Zcott wrote: »

Yep, that's the one I use when it's up which isn't 100% of the time.

I'd happily pay €10 for a weekend, maybe more, for an official and legal stream of all the sessions.

Last weekend was a nightmare. FOM were on the ball.

zombieHanalei

_rebelkid wrote: »

Exclusive images obtained by SkySportBildCrashAutoSPEEDStradaBBNBCESPN F1 of Alonso's 2015 F1 Car...

Doesn't actually look that bad compared to the 1999 BAR....

andyman

Tea 1000 wrote: »

It wouldn't prove he was the best, it'd prove he was one of the luckiest. Whether or not he is also the best is irrelevant to that discussion.

Well this post is nonsense.

Tea 1000

andyman wrote: »

Well this post is nonsense.

Yes, because he didn't start his career in the fastest car on the grid? Funny how quickly Hamilton blinkered fanboys forget his bouts of good luck too. Moving from McLaren to Merc? Also luck. OK, he made a brave decision, no doubt, but no one knew that a year later he'd be in one of the 2 quickest cars by far on the grid also. He's had bad luck in races but good luck in career moves.
The best drivers in the world need good luck. Look at Senna. How crappy luck was his move to Williams? Fastest car by far, he signs up, rule change = crappiest car on the grid.

mickdw

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Look at Senna. How crappy luck was his move to Williams? Fastest car by far, he signs up, rule change = crappiest car on the grid.

When was this, 94?
HILL in the Williams lost the championship by a point and williams won half the races. Hardly the crappiest car on the grid. Not great for the first few races but still.

Myrddin

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Yes, because he didn't start his career in the fastest car on the grid?

And missed becoming the first ever rookie world champion by a single point. Seems to me he had the skillset to get results out of the car, I think referring to that as 'luck' is seriously reaching. Especially considering he had been part of the McLaren young driver program for several years beforehand, & quite clearly ticked all the boxes enough for them to give him a chance.

Funny how quickly Hamilton blinkered fanboys forget his bouts of good luck too.

He has got good luck. The season finale in Brazil, '08 was incredible. When the Toyota failed, promoting Hamilton from 6th to 5th, it handed him a world title. Good luck? Yes, very much so. Some might argue though, that if the gearbox in his car hadn't cost him a massive amount of time mid-race, he wouldn't have needed the good luck towards the end. Personally, I find Hamilton is usually up against it, rather than things balancing out for him. He can be his own worst enemy at times too, however if I had to bet on which Merc will dnf next, I'll bet on #44...every.single.time.

Moving from McLaren to Merc? Also luck.

Talk about blinkers Do you think Merc wanted him because he was an ok driver? Or a good driver maybe? They wanted him because he can deliver. He has won almost double the races Nico has this season in equal performing cars..this is why he was pursued by Mercedes & offered a seat. Was he expecting them to be so competitive so quickly? No, of course not...who was. But again, at the end of the day, he has the skillset to get results out of the car, regardless. Luck isn't a factor here.

OK, he made a brave decision, no doubt, but no one knew that a year later he'd be in one of the 2 quickest cars by far on the grid also. He's had bad luck in races but good luck in career moves.
The best drivers in the world need good luck. Look at Senna. How crappy luck was his move to Williams? Fastest car by far, he signs up, rule change = crappiest car on the grid.

Luck is a factor overall, without a doubt, but I think it'd be mostly Hamilton hating people would argue it's on his side, or in any way balances out. To balance things out this season, Nico needs what, another two DNF's, or is it one? Alongside a full haul of points for Hamilton into the bargain.

Zcott

mickdw wrote: »

When was this, 94?
HILL in the Williams lost the championship by a point and williams won half the races. Hardly the crappiest car on the grid. Not great for the first few races but still.

To be fair, Schumacher was banned from two races and disqualified from one...

mickdw

Zcott wrote: »

To be fair, Schumacher was banned from two races and disqualified from one...

That still doesn't show the Williams as the worst car on the grid.
It was arguably the best over the season if only really beaten by schumacher.

counterlock

mickdw wrote: »

That still doesn't show the Williams as the worst car on the grid.
It was arguably the best over the season if only really beaten by schumacher.

No chance. Hill won two races when Schumacher was involved - the first Schumacher had gearbox problems, the second was a time corrected race where Schumacher was leading. His other four victorys were because Schumacher was excluded/disqualified.

Infoanon

mickdw wrote: »

When was this, 94?
HILL in the Williams lost the championship by a point and williams won half the races. Hardly the crappiest car on the grid. Not great for the first few races but still.

Ayrton Senna was on pole for the first 3 races in the 'crappy' Williams.

mickdw

counterlock wrote: »

No chance. Hill won two races when Schumacher was involved - the first Schumacher had gearbox problems, the second was a time corrected race where Schumacher was leading. His other four victorys were because Schumacher was excluded/disqualified.

Ya but schumacher was a different class.
If only schumacher could beat it, it says alot.
I just looked up there and it seems Williams won the constructors too that year albeit with 4 drivers.

Tea 1000

mickdw wrote: »

When was this, 94?
HILL in the Williams lost the championship by a point and williams won half the races. Hardly the crappiest car on the grid. Not great for the first few races but still.

Not great for the first few races is my point. He ended up dying in the first third of the season in that crappy car. Whatever it was like as the season went on is irrelevant as far as Senna's luck was concerned.

Myrddin wrote: »

And missed becoming the first ever rookie world champion by a single point. Seems to me he had the skillset to get results out of the car, I think referring to that as 'luck' is seriously reaching. Especially considering he had been part of the McLaren young driver program for several years beforehand, & quite clearly ticked all the boxes enough for them to give him a chance.

He was part of the McLaren young driver program alright, but that in itself is lucky enough, there wasn't many programs around back then, there are a lot more now.
And timing is everything. I'm not for a second arguing here that Hamilton doesn't have the skill. I'm arguing the point that ALL drivers need luck. Hamilton was within a point of the title in his rookie season for two reasons, he was a quick guy and the car was quick. If he was born 3 years later the McLaren F1 car that he would have been in for his rookie season would have been a dog. He should know that better than anyone. He complained about it over the radio enough!!

Myrddin wrote: »

He has got good luck. The season finale in Brazil, '08 was incredible. When the Toyota failed, promoting Hamilton from 6th to 5th, it handed him a world title. Good luck? Yes, very much so. Some might argue though, that if the gearbox in his car hadn't cost him a massive amount of time mid-race, he wouldn't have needed the good luck towards the end. Personally, I find Hamilton is usually up against it, rather than things balancing out for him. He can be his own worst enemy at times too, however if I had to bet on which Merc will dnf next, I'll bet on #44...every.single.time.

Maybe you're right about the gearbox, but maybe Massa's engine blowing up a few races earlier when he had a massive lead helped too, either way, he was unlucky not to win in his rookie year, a tiny bit lucky to win the following one, 1 out of 2 on balance is fair.
And regarding betting on 44 for reliability this year, yep, I'd agree this year no question.

Myrddin wrote: »

Talk about blinkers Do you think Merc wanted him because he was an ok driver? Or a good driver maybe? They wanted him because he can deliver. He has won almost double the races Nico has this season in equal performing cars..this is why he was pursued by Mercedes & offered a seat. Was he expecting them to be so competitive so quickly? No, of course not...who was. But again, at the end of the day, he has the skillset to get results out of the car, regardless. Luck isn't a factor here.

Again, I stress - Merc wanted him because he's one of the quickest. No one is questioning that. My point about luck is the timing of the move. Bailed out of a team that looked a bit more promising than they turned out to be and into a team that were better than they promised to be. That's lucky timing, no one thought 2 years ago when it was announced that he'd have such a good car this season.

Myrddin wrote: »

Luck is a factor overall, without a doubt, but I think it'd be mostly Hamilton hating people would argue it's on his side, or in any way balances out. To balance things out this season, Nico needs what, another two DNF's, or is it one? Alongside a full haul of points for Hamilton into the bargain.

My original post which was rubbished, was to contradict the post stating that if Hamilton won this year with Merc, then moved to Ferrari and won with them it would prove that he is the best driver of all time.
The reason I'm contradicting that is because it's a nonsense statement. Hamilton might be the best driver of all time, but number of championship wins or amount of teams won with doesn't matter -that part takes a lot of luck. I stand by that statement.
Example? Hill is a World Champion, Kubica is not. Is Hill better? Not in his dreams.

counterlock

mickdw wrote: »

Ya but schumacher was a different class.
If only schumacher could beat it, it says alot.
I just looked up there and it seems Williams won the constructors too that year albeit with 4 drivers.

Benetton would have won that handily if they had one decent number two driver in 94. And I've no doubt that they were using launch control for the majority of the year too - even if it was only on one car.

Had the Ferrari's been a bit more reliable, Alesi would more than likely have won in Monza and Berger would have had a good tilt at it in Estoril too.

zombieHanalei

Tea 1000 wrote: »

My original post which was rubbished, was to contradict the post stating that if Hamilton won this year with Merc, then moved to Ferrari and won with them it would prove that he is the best driver of all time.

Nobody said that. You seem to have misinterpreted the post you were responding to, I'm fairly confident the poster meant it would prove he is the best current driver, which he could be; he just hasn't proven it yet.

Nobody has suggested he's the best of all time.

KarlFitz01

Alonso's move to McLaren could be put on hold as Honda are 3 months behind already and seems to drinking more fuel and no power.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-delay-could-thwart-alonso-switch-report/

Tea 1000

zombieHanalei wrote: »

Nobody said that. You seem to have misinterpreted the post you were responding to, I'm fairly confident the poster meant it would prove he is the best current driver, which he could be; he just hasn't proven it yet.

Nobody has suggested he's the best of all time.

Maybe. He did say "best overall driver" and mentioned that no other F1 driver to his knowledge has done it. (Apart from Fangio!).
In any case I stand by my point. Any good driver needs a certain amount of luck to win 3 titles with 3 different teams.
If Schumacher moved to Renault in 2005 and Alonso to Ferrari I'm fairly sure Schumacher would have won that year in a 3rd team!!

Gillespy

Kubica is better than Hill? Hill a world champion, 22 wins, he won in a Jordan, he was a lap away from winning in an Arrows. I'm all for trusting my gut over statistics but over the course of a career, stats can't be ignored.

Hamilton is where gut feel and stats are happily married. Hamilton's rookie season is the most successful in F1 history. I think I'm correct in saying that, so why is it something that's used against him? He wasn't a pay driver and it wasn't a fluke season. GP2 champion and he took his chance. It's all good.

He is a world champion, the youngest at the time and will finish up with the most wins as a British driver, he deserves more respect that you are giving him. Not surprising as even in the wonderful hypothetical scenario of him winning with three different teams you can't even give him credit. Which will most defianlty have him amongst the greatest ever. But then how lucky was Fangio, different era so impossible to compare.

His move to Mercedes was more judgement than luck. No luck in joining a Ross Brawn team and discovering it's half decent. He had choices. He was joining for 2014, of course no one knew it would be so dominant but people had a feeling it would be good. Smart move.

The best drivers invariably get themselves into the best cars. Lucky but more a reflection of their talent. Have Alonso's moves been lucky? He got them on merit but they didn't work out for him. He was unlucky in that but not lucky to get the seat in the first place.

Tea 1000

Gillespy wrote: »

Kubica is better than Hill? Hill a world champion, 22 wins, he won in a Jordan, he was a lap away from winning in an Arrows. I'm all for trusting my gut over statistics but over the course of a career, stats can't be ignored.

Hamilton is where gut feel and stats are happily married. Hamilton's rookie season is the most successful in F1 history. I think I'm correct in saying that, so why is it something that's used against him? He wasn't a pay driver and it wasn't a fluke season. GP2 champion and he took his chance. It's all good.

He is a world champion, the youngest at the time and will finish up with the most wins as a British driver, he deserves more respect that you are giving him. Not surprising as even in the wonderful hypothetical scenario of him winning with three different teams you can't even give him credit. Which will most defianlty have him amongst the greatest ever. But then how lucky was Fangio, different era so impossible to compare.

And I stick by my Hill comments. I think he was no more than average in F1 terms. Kubica was top 5 on the grid when he was on it.
His move to Mercedes was more judgement than luck. No luck in joining a Ross Brawn team and discovering it's half decent. He had choices. He was joining for 2014, of course no one knew it would be so dominant but people had a feeling it would be good. Smart move.

The best drivers invariably get themselves into the best cars. Lucky but more a reflection of their talent. Have Alonso's moves been lucky? He got them on merit but they didn't work out for him. He was unlucky in that but not lucky to get the seat in the first place.

I fully agree with the last statment, which is the core of the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to belittle Hamilton here, I'm pointing out that someone's point of judging him if he wins with 3 teams it'll somehow paint him in a better light than the rest. I don't agree with that. I don't agree that it would prove that he was better than Alonso, better than Schumacher, better than Senna, etc.
I've no hesitation in saying that the name Hamilton in Formula 1 terms deserves to be mentioned in the same sentence as many of the greats. But winning 3 more titles with 3 more teams wouldn't change a bit of how I'd perceive him. Same if Alonso won with Ferrari next year and McLaren Honda the following, and maybe Red Bull after that, he'll neither go up nor down in my estimation because he has already proven his capabilities.
Also statistics do help reflect a drivers ability but they're only a small part of the story. I don't think there's a single Hamilton fan on here who thinks 4 time world champion and the youngest champion ever is better than Hamilton.

Gillespy

So you won't have a field day if Hamilton fails to secure the title this season? Title wins will be the be all and end all if that happens I'm sure.

PopePalpatine

I will because I had a bet on Rosberg when he was at 16/1. :pac:

parttime

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I wonder does anybody like Ron Dennis :pac:

I like Ron. Giant of the sport. Will do WHATEVER it takes to win.

mickdw

parttime wrote: »

I like Ron. Giant of the sport. Will do WHATEVER it takes to win.

I like Ron too.
I thought it rather shabby that he was pushed aside and am delighted he is back.
As I think button said earlier this year, Ron being around is guaranteed to make every single person in the factory be that little bit more on their toes.
That can't be bad.
Didn't like how Martin Whitmarsh was disappeared though.

Tea 1000

Gillespy wrote: »

So you won't have a field day if Hamilton fails to secure the title this season? Title wins will be the be all and end all if that happens I'm sure.

Maybe a small, remote, corner field day...

I heard he kills fluffy puppies for fun...

zombieHanalei

I like that Hill v Kubica comparison, although I feel they're fairly closely matched. Hill was a good (as opposed to great) driver, a good driver will win a world title in the best car provided he's better than his team mate.

Seeing as we're talking about luck, I think Hill was lucky in 1996 on a few counts; 1, Williams replaced Coulthard with Villeneuve- a talented rookie who ended up running him very close in the end; Coulthard would have run it even closer, I personally believe Coulthard would have won the '96 title had Williams retained him. 2, Schumacher left Benetton and brought some of their top men with him (Brawn for example), had he stuck with Benetton I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he and Benetton would have won every title until Renault pulled out at the end of 1997.

It really was Hill's to lose in 1996, he was lucky that circumstances all seemed to favour him, and he delivered. Lucky perhaps, but he had more than earned his place with Williams up to that point, as they say; you make your own luck.

Lewis? I don't consider him lucky, in 2007 it was McLaren that got lucky, as far as they were concerned they went into that season with the best driver in the field in Alonso and a promising rookie teammate who they had mentored for the best part of a decade; the vision was probably Alonso to won his third title in a row while their little protege would build experience and chip in with a few wins and podiums. I don't think in their wildest dreams they could have expected Hamilton to be as competitive as he was. They were so evenly matched that you could argue they both cost each other the drivers title. But McLaren were the lucky ones, they took a gamble on a rookie and it paid off.

In 2008, Lewis certainly was lucky in the end, stole it from Massa at the death. But the subsequent years with McLaren were far from lucky, if anything it was characterized by poor decision making at many stages on the part of both McLaren and Hamilton.

His switch to Mercedes wasn't lucky; in 2012 it was widely believed that Mercedes would be the front runners in 2014, it was the right choice for both the team and the driver at the time. Merc accepted that the second coming of Schumacher wasn't working out, so they went for the best they could get. Alonso was committed to Ferrari at the time, Vettel was never going to leave Red Bull at the time; the best option was an out of contract Lewis Hamilton. It was a no brainer really.

Infoanon

For the record, Robert Kubica was Autosport s driver of the year in 2008.