Definitely not. The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo, but execution got in the way. When they got the execution right at places like Hungary, Zandvoort, and Singapore, they dominated.
I have a feeling that the car is not as good as it was since the ban of their flexi wings. It seems that both drivers look to struggle more than they did before.
Ferrari seems very pessimistic about Qatar. On the other hand it has been nearly impossible to predict the pecking order since Monza or so, so Ferrari could very well overperform while McLaren falls flat.
Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
Nearly every weekend. There maybe 3-4 weekends out of those where they weren't outright fastest in race trim.Ben1980 wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 19:15Eh? Every weekend? Really?
My argument is not "because they dominated on those tracks they should've dominated on all the others". My argument is that we simply saw them be the fastest car on a bunch of weekends and not convert that into wins. Canada, Spain, GB, Monza, Belgium, Mexico, Sao Paolo. The reason they didn't manage to convert those to wins can be debated on a case to case basis. Sometimes it was bad luck (Canada), sometimes poor strategic execution (GB, Monza), and sometimes poor driver execution (Spain, Belgium, Sao Paolo). Point is the car was great during this stretch, clearly the best and most consistent car in race trim. Domination was within reach if the execution had been there.Emag wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 18:43Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
The reasoning of "Since team x dominated on track a,b,c then it must then mean that they should dominate track d,e,f as well" is incredibly flawed. The fact that there are definitely weakly executed races on McLaren's part, does not automatically give you the right to assume total domination was possible with perfect execution without any hint of argument or data to support that claim.
The races they dominated, they did so because they had a lot of pace at hand and no close competitors. The ones they didn't dominate, it's because there was no decisive or overwhelming pace advantage and unless you're incredibly biased, the data speaks for itself in that regard. On top of that, on most of those races there were multiple competitors within arms reach of each other. That means that the slightest mistakes in execution are far more costly position-wise.
Now, of course, you can believe whatever you want. However what you believe and what you can logically conclude on the basis of true statements are two different things. For your reasoning of "The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo" to be true, then you are also implying a couple of other statements that are associated with that claim. I am only going to list 3 here, for the sake of the argument:
1. McLaren are very weak operationally
2. McLaren's drivers are significantly lacking raw pace to RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes drivers
3. McLaren's ultimate performance level for every track, must automatically be assumed to be whatever their performance was, at their best-resulting track.
Now, if you want to make a point for the first two, then go ahead. I wouldn't agree with you, but I don't want to focus on that anyway.
The real point I want to focus on, is the third, since it's the strongest implication that comes from your line of reasoning. Do you sincerely believe that McLaren's pace potential has been the same as it was in a track like Zandvoort for the entire Miami-Brazil stretch, yet the only thing that has held them back has been execution (both in driver and team level)?
If yes and you don't see anything wrong with this statement, then you're deluded.
They have definitely thrown points this season with bad execution, but to claim they could have won every race since Miami is just wrong. Expected and pretty easy to justify why people would say it, but wrong nonetheless.
The reason why people say these things it's down to simple human nature really and in the context of this sport it's just Schadenfreude and Cognitive Bias that comes from fans of other teams. It's really not so complicated. Fan of Team X sees Team Y do good while Team X is doing not so good. Since the fan has motivated reasoning to interpret facts or situations in a way that aligns with their desires or preconceived notions, then of course this fan will paint every situation in a light that minimizes Team Y achievements while making Team X look good (or less bad).
Team X wins a race -> "Oh but it's so easy with a car like that, Team Y (or Z) never had a chance"
Team Y wins against Team X -> "Oh my god I can't believe Team X threw so bad to give up the race win while having the fastest car, that was a pathetic performance"
And so on and so forth.
Bias will unfortunately be excessively obvious in discussions here. From all points of view.
I think it's fair to argue we could have dominated the podium in a set period of time, particularly the top step, but I don't think the advantage in pace over a lap or a race, was ever particularly dominant. Yes, if we'd done our jobs properly then we'd have some more wins and who knows, perhaps the WDC might have been realistic, but that doesn't make the car dominant over the field over one lap. It is fair to say that the car was consistently one of the best over most of the season and that the results didn't match the cars potential.Cs98 wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 20:27My argument is not "because they dominated on those tracks they should've dominated on all the others". My argument is that we simply saw them be the fastest car on a bunch of weekends and not convert that into wins. Canada, Spain, GB, Monza, Belgium, Mexico, Sao Paolo. The reason they didn't manage to convert those to wins can be debated on a case to case basis. Sometimes it was bad luck (Canada), sometimes poor strategic execution (GB, Monza), and sometimes poor driver execution (Spain, Belgium, Sao Paolo). Point is the car was great during this stretch, clearly the best and most consistent car in race trim. Domination was within reach if the execution had been there.Emag wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 18:43Such a big logical fallacy with statements like this, it's not even worth countering anymore, but I'll chip in this one last time. Won't bother anymore for this season.
The reasoning of "Since team x dominated on track a,b,c then it must then mean that they should dominate track d,e,f as well" is incredibly flawed. The fact that there are definitely weakly executed races on McLaren's part, does not automatically give you the right to assume total domination was possible with perfect execution without any hint of argument or data to support that claim.
The races they dominated, they did so because they had a lot of pace at hand and no close competitors. The ones they didn't dominate, it's because there was no decisive or overwhelming pace advantage and unless you're incredibly biased, the data speaks for itself in that regard. On top of that, on most of those races there were multiple competitors within arms reach of each other. That means that the slightest mistakes in execution are far more costly position-wise.
Now, of course, you can believe whatever you want. However what you believe and what you can logically conclude on the basis of true statements are two different things. For your reasoning of "The Macca could've dominated nearly every weekend from Miami-Sao Paolo" to be true, then you are also implying a couple of other statements that are associated with that claim. I am only going to list 3 here, for the sake of the argument:
1. McLaren are very weak operationally
2. McLaren's drivers are significantly lacking raw pace to RedBull, Ferrari and Mercedes drivers
3. McLaren's ultimate performance level for every track, must automatically be assumed to be whatever their performance was, at their best-resulting track.
Now, if you want to make a point for the first two, then go ahead. I wouldn't agree with you, but I don't want to focus on that anyway.
The real point I want to focus on, is the third, since it's the strongest implication that comes from your line of reasoning. Do you sincerely believe that McLaren's pace potential has been the same as it was in a track like Zandvoort for the entire Miami-Brazil stretch, yet the only thing that has held them back has been execution (both in driver and team level)?
If yes and you don't see anything wrong with this statement, then you're deluded.
They have definitely thrown points this season with bad execution, but to claim they could have won every race since Miami is just wrong. Expected and pretty easy to justify why people would say it, but wrong nonetheless.
The reason why people say these things it's down to simple human nature really and in the context of this sport it's just Schadenfreude and Cognitive Bias that comes from fans of other teams. It's really not so complicated. Fan of Team X sees Team Y do good while Team X is doing not so good. Since the fan has motivated reasoning to interpret facts or situations in a way that aligns with their desires or preconceived notions, then of course this fan will paint every situation in a light that minimizes Team Y achievements while making Team X look good (or less bad).
Team X wins a race -> "Oh but it's so easy with a car like that, Team Y (or Z) never had a chance"
Team Y wins against Team X -> "Oh my god I can't believe Team X threw so bad to give up the race win while having the fastest car, that was a pathetic performance"
And so on and so forth.
Bias will unfortunately be excessively obvious in discussions here. From all points of view.
Where did I state that??venkyhere wrote: ↑24 Nov 2024, 19:20The newest narrative by DTS F1 fans is - "Max won the WDC because he built up a points lead buffer in the first five races, before Miami, before Mclaren became the real 2024 car".PapayaFan481 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2024, 10:36Norris never really had a chance. Only the media and some fans thought he did.
That just pisses me off. That narrative is sweeping the most important aspect under the carpet. As much as I would have liked a close WDC fight, and a new WDC winner, the 'buffer' was never really reduced by Norris, despite having the best car underneath him after Miami. To put things in perspective, that's 17/22 races, having the faster of the two cars, and having 100% success with updates, against a string of terrible backwards band-aid-fix updates by Redbull.
If we take a big picture view of the season so far,
a) within first 5 races, there was one DNF for Max and 4 wins.
b) the races that followed after the 'transformative' 6th Miami race, where McLaren became the faster car and became kinder to tyres - Imola, Canada, Barcelona -- Max won, by the tiniest of margins - strategy skill of the pitwall or driving skill of driver, or both.
c) Redbullring. Austria. The first signs of a 'proper fight' - Max grabbed a P5 with a puncture sacrifice, while Norris suffered terminal damage.
d) Silverstone was a huge opportunity lost with mickey mouse strategy by McLaren. Max had the 3rd/4th fastest car, but still finished P2 (great last stint on H) ahead of Norris.
e) Then came Hungaroring, Spa and Zandvoort - the RB20 was terrible by now compared to the McLaren, and still Max kept picking up P5 P4 and P2
By now, McLaren is the totally dominant machine and Redbull is surely the 3rd/4th fastest car.
f) Now comes Monza and Baku, and Max's car has almost become a midfielder (horrible setup change after FP3 in baku) and yet again Max is squeezing everything out of the car and bagging P6 and P5
g) The big change for Redbull happened in Singapore, for which they ditched their simulators and setup the car using FP1,2,3 data. Though the car was still much inferior to McLaren, it was best of the rest and Max grabbed an important P2, miles behind Norris nevertheless.
h) The RB20 became more predictable and some sort of floor solution was obtained (frankenstein diffuser or not) for COTA, and Max got to the podium in P3. The reason Norris finished behind, despite having a clearly superior car, was because he couldn't pass a much slower Max for almost 10+ laps, being in the DRS. That was a defensive masterclass from Max, and we could see a nervous Norris, afraid to attack.
i) All the fixes from Singapore and COTA didn't prove their worth in the rarefied air of Mexico, and the RB20 was a dud, miles behind the rampaging McLaren. But still Max picked up a patient (or impatient, rather, after the penalties) P6.
j) Brazil - we all know, it had less to do with the car, it was all driver. " #cojones "
k) LasVegas - again, Redbull was the 3rd fastest car and Max grabbed the 'par' P5 finish. However, McLaren ruined their car setup and Norris finished behind, at P6
When they say 'it was all because of the buffer built at the start' , look at all those points picked up by Max, from b) through j), That is the reason he is world champion (the only exception is Austria, where Norris came worse off a wheel to wheel battle, suffering more damage than Max. Hence can't blame Norris not picking up points there). . And not just because of those 4 wins from the first five races. And for what it's worth, it wasn't as if Norris was finishing outside the points in those first five races, he finished on the podium twice.
So much for the 'it was all from the initial wins' narrative. Max literally drove like a robot (excepting some brain fade moves in Mexico) and consistently grabbed what was possible with the car he had. That's why he won the WDC. Norris, on the other hand, didn't utilize the monster machine he was given by his engineers - whether by volition of his own driving or whether due to mistakes by the pitwall, the 'opportunity with the superior machine' was squandered.
The fact is that Lando and McLaren were not consistent enough and did not make the most of the races where we had the fastest car.
Leclerc had a big lead over Verstappen in 2022 and it was reversed.PapayaFan481 wrote: ↑25 Nov 2024, 21:53Where did I state that??venkyhere wrote: ↑24 Nov 2024, 19:20The newest narrative by DTS F1 fans is - "Max won the WDC because he built up a points lead buffer in the first five races, before Miami, before Mclaren became the real 2024 car".PapayaFan481 wrote: ↑24 Nov 2024, 10:36
Norris never really had a chance. Only the media and some fans thought he did.
That just pisses me off. That narrative is sweeping the most important aspect under the carpet. As much as I would have liked a close WDC fight, and a new WDC winner, the 'buffer' was never really reduced by Norris, despite having the best car underneath him after Miami. To put things in perspective, that's 17/22 races, having the faster of the two cars, and having 100% success with updates, against a string of terrible backwards band-aid-fix updates by Redbull.
If we take a big picture view of the season so far,
a) within first 5 races, there was one DNF for Max and 4 wins.
b) the races that followed after the 'transformative' 6th Miami race, where McLaren became the faster car and became kinder to tyres - Imola, Canada, Barcelona -- Max won, by the tiniest of margins - strategy skill of the pitwall or driving skill of driver, or both.
c) Redbullring. Austria. The first signs of a 'proper fight' - Max grabbed a P5 with a puncture sacrifice, while Norris suffered terminal damage.
d) Silverstone was a huge opportunity lost with mickey mouse strategy by McLaren. Max had the 3rd/4th fastest car, but still finished P2 (great last stint on H) ahead of Norris.
e) Then came Hungaroring, Spa and Zandvoort - the RB20 was terrible by now compared to the McLaren, and still Max kept picking up P5 P4 and P2
By now, McLaren is the totally dominant machine and Redbull is surely the 3rd/4th fastest car.
f) Now comes Monza and Baku, and Max's car has almost become a midfielder (horrible setup change after FP3 in baku) and yet again Max is squeezing everything out of the car and bagging P6 and P5
g) The big change for Redbull happened in Singapore, for which they ditched their simulators and setup the car using FP1,2,3 data. Though the car was still much inferior to McLaren, it was best of the rest and Max grabbed an important P2, miles behind Norris nevertheless.
h) The RB20 became more predictable and some sort of floor solution was obtained (frankenstein diffuser or not) for COTA, and Max got to the podium in P3. The reason Norris finished behind, despite having a clearly superior car, was because he couldn't pass a much slower Max for almost 10+ laps, being in the DRS. That was a defensive masterclass from Max, and we could see a nervous Norris, afraid to attack.
i) All the fixes from Singapore and COTA didn't prove their worth in the rarefied air of Mexico, and the RB20 was a dud, miles behind the rampaging McLaren. But still Max picked up a patient (or impatient, rather, after the penalties) P6.
j) Brazil - we all know, it had less to do with the car, it was all driver. " #cojones "
k) LasVegas - again, Redbull was the 3rd fastest car and Max grabbed the 'par' P5 finish. However, McLaren ruined their car setup and Norris finished behind, at P6
When they say 'it was all because of the buffer built at the start' , look at all those points picked up by Max, from b) through j), That is the reason he is world champion (the only exception is Austria, where Norris came worse off a wheel to wheel battle, suffering more damage than Max. Hence can't blame Norris not picking up points there). . And not just because of those 4 wins from the first five races. And for what it's worth, it wasn't as if Norris was finishing outside the points in those first five races, he finished on the podium twice.
So much for the 'it was all from the initial wins' narrative. Max literally drove like a robot (excepting some brain fade moves in Mexico) and consistently grabbed what was possible with the car he had. That's why he won the WDC. Norris, on the other hand, didn't utilize the monster machine he was given by his engineers - whether by volition of his own driving or whether due to mistakes by the pitwall, the 'opportunity with the superior machine' was squandered.
I am not a DTS fan, can't stand that trash.
Fact is Max did build a points gap at the start of the season. Lando would have had to overcome the largest deficit in F1 history to win and McLaren did not have the dominant car, unlike what your so-called DTS fans will claim, and Lando and McLaren are still learning how to fight at the front, so understandably did not have the consistency that Max and Red Bull were able to manage, even when their car was 3rd or 4th fastest some weekends.
The problem McLaren faced was that, where Max had a clear advantage at the start of the season, Mclaren often had Ferrari or Mercedes in the mix as well.
So I actually agree with everything you said, apart from the beginning where you made false claims about what I have said.
