F1 2022 thread - see post 1 for rules

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119752874#Comment_119752874

I was going to ask for opinions on how the hell you judge Mick. Mazepin was very poor. And in the second half of last year, Mick started spinning a lot too. But Mazepin has the nickname Mazespin by then and the reputation stuck.

On the other hand, Mick struggled a lot compared to magnussen at the start of this year, and recently he's been more or less matching him. So has Kmag slowed down or has Mick sped up or what?

I think it's fair to say Mick won't be a superstar no matter if he got another couple of years.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119752970#Comment_119752970

I think most people assume KMag is out performing Mick considering he has more points, but I would suggest the opposite is true. And Mick, being in his second year, has a far higher ceiling, probably not a future WDC contender, but maybe he can have a career like a Checo is he's given the chance.

I can see why Hulkenberg is an attractive option, but as I said, utterly uninspiring.

This is a tweet posted yesterday that shows Mick has race pace advantage over KMag.

https://twitter.com/FormulaStats_/status/1581368831536402432

He also leads the head to head for the season by (iirc) 11-7. And again, if I'm remembering right, Mick has been hampered by poor tactics more than KMag. Can't remember the figures, but KMag is hammering Mick in the quali head to head, which I think makes the race head to head record more impressive.

quokula

A great visual representation of how much healthier the sport is now with the new rules and higher level of competition than in the dark days of the hybrid era, finally starting to recover to where it was before 2014 up and down the grid.

quokula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119753742#Comment_119753742

Another thing that's hampered the perception of Schumacher is that Magnussen was quick out of the blocks when Haas had a decent car at the start of the season and people were taking notice when he was outracing guys like Hamilton on equal terms. On the other hand while Mick has become much more competitive relative to his teammate over the course of the year, the car itself has gone backwards in the development race so his performances have gone under the radar.

However, that is surely not a fact that the team themselves or Steiner could have missed, so I'm surprised by the stance the team has generally taken, at times this year it's almost seemed like they want Mick to fail.

dulpit

It's simple. Mick keeps crashing the car into bits, costs them a fortune. There's no major upside to him remaining, he's not going to be a race winner and the consistency isn't there. They would absolutely have more points now if Hulk had been with them this year.

If Mick's surname wasn't Schumacher it wouldn't even be a talking point...

mickdw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119753984#Comment_119753984

You would have to heavily factor in the fact that McLaren was comically off the pace as a reason for lack of sponsorship as well.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119754859#Comment_119754859

Plus a completely different management structure within the team then and now

klose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119753984#Comment_119753984

Still mad how Zac got Google to sponsor Mclaren, **** google who need no publicity as they're the default browser for the world essentially haha.

On mick/hulk/haas seems to be haas are not happy with mick causing damage to cars costing them money seems to be the final straw. Hulk is probably a safer pair of hands and at least as competitive?

PsychoPete

In fairness Mick only has two race "dnf's" while Kmag has 4, how many times this season has Kmag damaged his front wing trying to battle the likes of Hamilton on lap 1 then ends up ruining the whole race. Kmag is only 10 points off Mick but some of the Haas strategies have been awful. The criticism of Mick is a bit harsh, qualifying and practice seem to be his down fall

quokula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119755880#Comment_119755880

Yeah the big crashes have been more unfortunate than anything. I don’t know if statistics are available but I’d guess Mick hasn’t lost control and gone off any more than average across the grid, it’s just that on a couple of occasions it’s happened to have more severe consequences because of the speeds involved and the location and orientation of the barriers.

I don’t think it’s a sign of worse driving if Schumacher hits a barrier after spinning off vs Sainz spinning into gravel for example, both equal mistakes and the rest is a result of the track design. There is no real competitive reason to take less risk when there are walls past the track edge compared to gravel, a DNF is a DNF.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119755919#Comment_119755919

Ignores the reality of a cost cap. A spin in gravel is a dnf, a spin into the wall is a dnf, a new chassis, a big chunk of money that could go elsewhere. Not comparable.

PsychoPete

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119755919#Comment_119755919

I don't know how accurate these stats are but interesting read

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/xnmael/total_career_dnfs_of_the_2022_drivers/

dulpit

Would be more interesting to see percentages too...

quokula

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119756190#Comment_119756190

The outcome is not comparable but that’s not really in the driver’s hands, it’s just luck and a quirk of any given track design.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119757875#Comment_119757875

Ya, but the good drivers know when they can push it and when they can't. If you're booting it down the straight and there's a wall just next to you then you need to drive differently than if there is run off or gravel traps...

AMKC

I am in total agreement with that survey.

Only less than a 5th of fans want more sprint races so that is good with me. Hope it stays like that or goes down even abd more people start to see sense and want less to no sprint races.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760094#Comment_119760094

Yeah I agree with that survey too. More people in favour of sprints than those who want fewer.

49% want the same or more sprints and 46% want fewer sprints.

Fair play for making the case that the plurality of fans are already happy with the sprints.

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760388#Comment_119760388

Rubbish.

In that case I could just as easily say that 81% wants fewer sprint races.

And only 19% want more using your logic.

That's good with me.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760623#Comment_119760623

You could say that but not based on the survey you posted. Only 46% want fewer sprints and 49% want more sprints or are happy with the same.

Just as a matter of interest, how would you interpret the stats to support the claim that 81% want fewer sprints? I read it as 46% want fewer sprints.

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760870#Comment_119760870

Just as a matter of interest, how would you interpret the stats to support the claim that 81% want fewer sprints? I read it as 46% want fewer sprints.

The same you read it that 35 per cent who say keep the current amount might want more sprints I read it that maybe a per centafe if them woukfmd prefer less or no sprints at all but if I use your logic which is the 35% + the 19% equal 54 per cent want more then it also works with 35% + 46% = 81% want less.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760933#Comment_119760933

Ah right. So you're interpreting "keep the current amount" as wanting less. Why would you do that?

And if you don't understand statistics, why did you bring them up in the first place?

Fact is, your stat shows a plurality of fans surveyed (49%) are happy with the current number of sprint races or want even more sprints, ehile only 46% want fewer sprints. Is that the point you were trying to make?

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119760388#Comment_119760388

Ehhh, that wasn't what they asked them in the survey. So how do you know if people are in favour of keeping them if they had no option to voice that? Odd way of reading into a survey.

bennyx_o

It's also a poll on YouTube that doesn't (that I can see anyway) show many many people voted, can you really rely on that as the voice of the full F1 fanbase? I'd wager not

quokula

So last week Craig Slater, the only presenter on Sky who tends to deal in facts and could pass themselves off as a credible journalist, said his sources reported that the minor overspend from Red Bull was due to differences between Red Bull and the FIA in their interpretation of long term sick pay. In the last day or two some websites have picked up reports that suggest the difference was over Adrian Newey's wages.

If both of those are true, it doesn't take much of a leap to look at the fact that Newey was in a serious cycling accident last July, which left him hospitalised and put him out of work until October. If Red Bull believed sick pay wasn't included and the FIA later decided it should be then that would show the discrepancy between the submission that was under budget and the interpretation the FIA came up with to take it slightly over.

Other theories are that, as the rules state the top 3 highest paid employees are exempt, Newey was obviously one of those and therefore exempt in Red Bull's eyes, but the FIA have decided he shouldn't count as he's not a full time employee and does other work outside of F1, therefore his entire salary counts towards the budget and it's actually their fourth highest paid employee on a significantly smaller wage that is exempt instead, which would again be a different interpretation to take them over the budget.

Still speculation of course. Nobody knows the details except for the FIA auditors themselves and whichever one of them was directly feeding information to Toto Wolff in advance, even Red Bull themselves didn't know as the whole process has been shrouded in secrecy. Hopefully the FIA come clean and shed light on the procedure soon.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761370#Comment_119761370

If I asked you to pick between:

A: Getting punch in the face

B: Getting a kick in the head

C: Getting a slap on the arse

There is no option for you to avoid any of these...so to say that people want to keep Sprints when they never had that option to pick from, that is a bit misleading.

bennyx_o

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761599#Comment_119761599

C is the lesser of 3 evils, but I do see the point you're making. I didn't take too much notice of the options on the poll being honest

muckwarrior

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761250#Comment_119761250

"Less" would also encompass zero.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761695#Comment_119761695

"Less" COULD encompass that, but not always.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761250#Comment_119761250

It'd not an odd way of interpreting the results, it's just a poor survey. Any decent survey should have included an option forgetting rid of sprints.

I didnt bring it up. Someobe else posted it and didn't get what it actually days. But given the data presented, more fans surveyed want the same or more sprints races (49%), than want fewer sprint races (46%). Are we agreed on that much from that survey?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119761599#Comment_119761599

Right. And if you were asked to respond to this survey and you want zero sprint races, which option would you have picked from the options in the survey?

Would you have picked C "fewer sprint races" or would the situation have confuses you so much you wouldn't have known what answer to give?