The Fanboy Yin Yang Thread

[SectorOne]

Yes you are, and that´s not playing devil´s advocate.

for example,

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process

"Yeah, Vettel was quicker than Dan in ONE session all weekend - case closed!"

Basically the opposite of playing the devil´s advocate.

[djos]

No not true, I did see the Renault report f a faulty sensor but it's much more fun to pretend the faulty sensor was in Vettel's right foot.

PS, that tactic I adopted prolly has more in common with Ring Wingers propaganda efforts, basically they latch on to one isolated piece of information and build a straw man argument around it.

Classic example is "trickle down theory" which completely ignores that money flows uphill to the rich, not downhill to the poor.

[SidSidney]

After a painful 2012 AUS i think Hamilton will bring this home with Rosberg completing the 1-2.

Despite getting poles galore, Hamilton has a bit of a habit of stuffing it up strategically/tactically during the race, then being mystified at what happened. That costs him dearly in the annual WDC hunt and ultimately his full career achievement.

I always like to look at what I call "pole conversion" to gauge if a guy has a the goods for multiple WDCs: what fraction of pole positions convert to victories?

It's not a hard rule but drivers like Lauda, Prost, Schumacher, & Alonso convert better than unity i.e. more than one victory per pole. That implies something other than just having the fastest car for single lap qualifying speed - they can create victories through some other in-race strategy than just having the fastest car on the day.

Vettel converts at 87%, but I believe that will strongly rise over his full career. The easiest way to change that stat positively is to stop getting poles at the races you win . That sounds stupid, I know, but I think he has started to figure out why that matters, as I will explain below, and Hamilton has not yet done so.

Hamilton is converting at something like 70% right now. Again that could rise, but he's already behind the curve: even gaining pole and winning all 19 races this year only improves him to 82%. Over a full career, that's probably inadequate for a multiple WDC winner. Again, if he could hold off winning poles, and maybe work on his race strategy, he would improve that ratio drastically - just defocussing the qualifying effort, by winning only 4 poles, but re-focussing on the strategy to win half the races, pushes him into an entirely different orbit, close to unity. More importantly it would indicate a new, more mature way of thinking.

You could easily argue this is just a BS ratio, but I think it indicates another level of thinking, somebody who has matured from pure hotshoe single lap speed to thinking a race through from beginning to end - the tortoise, not the hare. Hamilton in my opinion is still the hare. But look at the last couple of season and you will see that Vettel is starting to think like a wise old turtle: 144% conversion in 2013, compared to 83% in 2012, and just 73% in 2011...

Of course this is not foolproof - you can easily find examples like Button who have low numbers in both categories but staggering percentages, like 200%+. But again, as someone who raced Jenson back in the day, I think that number still indicates an ability to take a slower car and hump it into first place at a strike rate that is probably signifcantly better than pure luck.

[mkay]

After a painful 2012 AUS i think Hamilton will bring this home with Rosberg completing the 1-2.

Despite getting poles galore, Hamilton has a bit of a habit of stuffing it up strategically/tactically during the race, then being mystified at what happened. That costs him dearly in the annual WDC hunt and ultimately his full career achievement.

I always like to look at what I call "pole conversion" to gauge if a guy has a the goods for multiple WDCs: what fraction of pole positions convert to victories?

It's not a hard rule but drivers like Lauda, Prost, Schumacher, & Alonso convert better than unity i.e. more than one victory per pole. That implies something other than just having the fastest car for single lap qualifying speed - they can create victories through some other in-race strategy than just having the fastest car on the day.

Vettel converts at 87%, but I believe that will strongly rise over his full career. The easiest way to change that stat positively is to stop getting poles . That sounds stupid, I know, but I think he has started to figure out why that matters, as I will explain below, and Hamilton has not yet done so.

Hamilton is converting at something like 70% right now. Again that could rise, but he's already behind the curve: even gaining pole and winning all 19 races this year only improves him to 82%. Over a full career, that's probably inadequate for a multiple WDC winner. Again, if he could hold off winning poles, and maybe work on his race strategy, he would improve that ratio drastically - just defocussing the qualifying effort, by winning only 4 poles, but re-focussing on the strategy to win half the races, pushes him into an entirely different orbit, close to unity. More importantly it would indicate a new, more mature way of thinking.

You could easily argue this is just a BS ratio, but I think it indicates another level of thinking, somebody who has matured from pure hotshoe single lap speed to thinking a race through from beginning to end - the tortoise, not the hare. Hamilton in my opinion is still the hare. But look at the last couple of season and you will see that Vettel is starting to think like a wise old turtle: 144% conversion in 2013, compared to 83% in 2012, and just 73% in 2011...

Of course this is not foolproof - you can easily find examples like Button who have low numbers in both categories but staggering percentages, like 200%+. But again, as someone who raced Jenson back in the day, I think that number still indicates an ability to take a slower car and hump it into first place at a strike rate that is probably signifcantly better than pure luck.

This is a BS ratio.

Nah, seriously though - you have to pro forma for races where the driver had to retire from the lead, did not have a car to win races (W04 was not a race winning car 80% of the time); happened to Vettel and Lewis quite a lot over the past few years. For Lewis:

2013 Silverstone - was cruising towards a win and had a tyre blow out
2012 Abu Dhabi - retired from lead
2012 Singapore - retired from lead

Also, given that last year his car had no business winning races given (i) the Pirellis in the first half of the season and (ii) the resurgence of RBR in the second half of the season. The W04 was a rocketship on Saturday but an okay car on Sunday. That also has to be taken into account; there is nothing that Lewis could have done to win all the races he didn't win from pole - other cars were just that much faster.

And you resort to the cliche about Lewis being the biggest dumbf*ck in F1... #please

[SectorOne]

On the flipside Hamilton and Vettel might just grab poles the car just wasnt deserving always.

Some other guys that also have this ratio is Senna and Jim Clark.

coincidentally all four are considered the fastest guys of their time.

edit: Fangio is another,

[SidSidney]

And you resort to the cliche about Lewis being the biggest dumbf*ck in F1... #please

You are of course entitled to your view, I did say that a) it wasn't a hard rule and that b) it may well be BS. I personally like it, you don't have build your beliefs around it.

But I did not say that about Hamilton. I simply said he was not converting his poles into victories, and my personal view is that it's related to the focus on poles. There are no points for poles.

[Emerson.F]

After a painful 2012 AUS i think Hamilton will bring this home with Rosberg completing the 1-2.

Despite getting poles galore, Hamilton has a bit of a habit of stuffing it up strategically/tactically during the race, then being mystified at what happened. That costs him dearly in the annual WDC hunt and ultimately his full career achievement. Did you watch the last few seasons at Mclaren where costly mistakes where almost the norm? Have you got some specific examples?

I always like to look at what I call "pole conversion" to gauge if a guy has a the goods for multiple WDCs: what fraction of pole positions convert to victories? A fraction? 32 poles against 22 victories. (Add Sigapore and Abu Dhabi 2012.)

Vettel converts at 87%, but I believe that will strongly rise over his full career. The easiest way to change that stat positively is to stop getting poles at the races you win . That sounds stupid, I know, but I think he has started to figure out why that matters, as I will explain below, and Hamilton has not yet done so. Well what a suprise..have you watched the last 5 years of F1? Two words RED BULL.

Hamilton is converting at something like 70% right now. Again that could rise, but he's already behind the curve: even gaining pole and winning all 19 races this year only improves him to 82%. Over a full career, that's probably inadequate for a multiple WDC winner. Again, if he could hold off winning poles, and maybe work on his race strategy, he would improve that ratio drastically - just defocussing the qualifying effort, by winning only 4 poles, but re-focussing on the strategy to win half the races, pushes him into an entirely different orbit, close to unity. More importantly it would indicate a new, more mature way of thinking. 70% is not bad in my book. So your saying he should not go for pole because it may increase his chance of winning races? What a load of bollocks.

You could easily argue this is just a BS ratio, but I think it indicates another level of thinking, somebody who has matured from pure hotshoe single lap speed to thinking a race through from beginning to end - the tortoise, not the hare. Hamilton in my opinion is still the hare. But look at the last couple of season and you will see that Vettel is starting to think like a wise old turtle: 144% conversion in 2013, compared to 83% in 2012, and just 73% in 2011... Dont you think driving a Red Bull has anything too do with that?

Of course this is not foolproof - you can easily find examples like Button who have low numbers in both categories but staggering percentages, like 200%+. But again, as someone who raced Jenson back in the day, I think that number still indicates an ability to take a slower car and hump it into first place at a strike rate that is probably signifcantly better than pure luck.

There is so much unfounded and speculative remarks that dont really hold a candle in reality. I will try too keep it short. Your logic is flawed ad biased.

[Powershift]

After a painful 2012 AUS i think Hamilton will bring this home with Rosberg completing the 1-2.

Despite getting poles galore, Hamilton has a bit of a habit of stuffing it up strategically/tactically during the race, then being mystified at what happened. That costs him dearly in the annual WDC hunt and ultimately his full career achievement.

I always like to look at what I call "pole conversion" to gauge if a guy has a the goods for multiple WDCs: what fraction of pole positions convert to victories?

It's not a hard rule but drivers like Lauda, Prost, Schumacher, & Alonso convert better than unity i.e. more than one victory per pole. That implies something other than just having the fastest car for single lap qualifying speed - they can create victories through some other in-race strategy than just having the fastest car on the day.

Vettel converts at 87%, but I believe that will strongly rise over his full career. The easiest way to change that stat positively is to stop getting poles at the races you win . That sounds stupid, I know, but I think he has started to figure out why that matters, as I will explain below, and Hamilton has not yet done so.

Hamilton is converting at something like 70% right now. Again that could rise, but he's already behind the curve: even gaining pole and winning all 19 races this year only improves him to 82%. Over a full career, that's probably inadequate for a multiple WDC winner. Again, if he could hold off winning poles, and maybe work on his race strategy, he would improve that ratio drastically - just defocussing the qualifying effort, by winning only 4 poles, but re-focussing on the strategy to win half the races, pushes him into an entirely different orbit, close to unity. More importantly it would indicate a new, more mature way of thinking.

You could easily argue this is just a BS ratio, but I think it indicates another level of thinking, somebody who has matured from pure hotshoe single lap speed to thinking a race through from beginning to end - the tortoise, not the hare. Hamilton in my opinion is still the hare. But look at the last couple of season and you will see that Vettel is starting to think like a wise old turtle: 144% conversion in 2013, compared to 83% in 2012, and just 73% in 2011...

Of course this is not foolproof - you can easily find examples like Button who have low numbers in both categories but staggering percentages, like 200%+. But again, as someone who raced Jenson back in the day, I think that number still indicates an ability to take a slower car and hump it into first place at a strike rate that is probably signifcantly better than pure luck.

You are making the assumption that HAM is sacrificing the race(or race pace) for the pole(or qual pace), he is not, nor would his team/engineers allow him to. You have basically wasted your time with a BS metric and wasted our time reading that foolish post based off a BS metric.

[SidSidney]

Well what a suprise..have you watched the last 5 years of F1? Two words RED BULL.

I have watched the last 37 years of F1. Teams rise and fall. Williams, Ferrari, McLaren, Brabham, Benetton, Red Bull - even Lotus - have all dominated for periods.

70% is not bad in my book. So your saying he should not go for pole because it may increase his chance of winning races? What a load of bollocks.

Not quite. I am saying that the attitude that goes into a fastest single lap may not be the same attitude that goes into race winning.

Dont you think driving a Red Bull has anything too do with that?

Short run, yes. In the long run, no.

I will try too keep it short. Your logic is flawed ad biased.

Thanks for your comments.

[SidSidney]

You are making the assumption that HAM is sacrificing the race(or race pace) for the pole(or qual pace), he is not, nor would his team/engineers allow him to. You have basically wasted your time with a BS metric and wasted our time reading that foolish post based off a BS metric.

I did not make that assumption, but thanks for taking the time to comment.

[mkay]

On the flipside Hamilton and Vettel might just grab poles the car just wasnt deserving always.

Some other guys that also have this ratio is Senna and Jim Clark.

coincidentally all four are considered the fastest guys of their time.

edit: Fangio is another,

Was about to say this as well.

[SidSidney]

On the flipside Hamilton and Vettel might just grab poles the car just wasnt deserving always.

Some other guys that also have this ratio is Senna and Jim Clark.

coincidentally all four are considered the fastest guys of their time.

edit: Fangio is another,

Senna is an interesting one. Overall he is low, like 60%-70%. But a) his career was cut short in his prime, and b) his stats were changing markedly before his crash:

1989: 46% (6 wins, 13 poles)
1990: 60% (6 wins, 10 poles)
1991: 87% (7 wins, 8 poles)
1992: 300% (3 wins, 1 pole)
1993: 500% (5 wins, 1 pole, against Prost in the Williams)

I'm genuinely not knocking Lewis. I just think as careers develop the great drivers become more wily about scoring points, and that kind of pattern demonstrates it vividly.

[ringo]

And you resort to the cliche about Lewis being the biggest dumbf*ck in F1... #please

You are of course entitled to your view, I did say that a) it wasn't a hard rule and that b) it may well be BS. I personally like it, you don't have build your beliefs around it.

But I did not say that about Hamilton. I simply said he was not converting his poles into victories, and my personal view is that it's related to the focus on poles. There are no points for poles.

I don't see what you are getting at with the previous post. And why you are creating some arbitrary standard of what makes a multiple WDC?
You simply ignore that a dominant car is necessary. That's what all those other multiple WDC had.
A driver doesn't do strategy, his team does. And a team with the fastest car has more flexibility with strategy.
Your pole to race win conversion stat = multiple wdc is BS as stated before; not to offend you. But it's the same overanalysis of Hamilton that happens every other day. It's quite intriguing how he creates these interesting types of studies around performance and greatness and why he is on the wrong side of said subject matter. He's the lebron james of F1 it seems..

Oh one last thing.. Your choice of words "stuffing it up strategically" reveals your motives anyway. No need for BS stats veiled with the cool cucumber approach.

[SectorOne]

Senna is an interesting one. Overall he is low, like 60%-70%. But a) his career was cut short in his prime, and b) his stats were changing markedly before his crash:

1989: 46% (6 wins, 13 poles)
1990: 60% (6 wins, 10 poles)
1991: 87% (7 wins, 8 poles)
1992: 300% (3 wins, 1 pole)
1993: 500% (5 wins, 1 pole, against Prost in the Williams)

1994: 0% (0 wins, 3 poles, against Schumacher in the Benetton)

As for knocking Lewis, i don´t care about that to be honest. I don´t think your argument is strictly confined to Lewis.

[Powershift]

But look at the last couple of season and you will see that Vettel is starting to think like a wise old turtle

Yes a "wise old turtle" that is constantly being pleaded with to look after tires and fuel and not set fast laps at the end of races.... complete clap trap

A BS metric made up to fulfill a BS bias