Vettel vs Ricciardo 2014

[basti313]

None of which addresses how one can than make the assertion that Irvine performed better with Schumacher out.

The very fact Schumacher was not driving improved Irvine's results.

Yes, he might have improved, but he didn't become better than Schumacher.

I think it's more about resource allocation.
....
It's just like during a weekend when one driver gets all the new updates on his car and the other will just have to wait until it's diagnosed that the updates do work like intended.

We are talking about Ferrari in 99 and RedBull. So we are talking about teams with nearly unlimited resources. If we think about the updates, there is ONE incident with the allocation of the front wing which obviously did not play a big role. Not more.
So this "updates" argument is just no argument, as RedBull supplies two similar cars to their drivers.

This "testing" updates thing is also no argument: Even Massa and Alonso alternated in testing the not working Ferrari updates. And as the RedBull updates normally work, they supply both drivers with them.

[basti313]

Based on what? The numbers say otherwise, so based on what do you keep making that claim?

Is it really difficult to understand that a driver cannot possibly beat you if he's not racing?

Remember: the idea here is that Irvine was a made a contender by Schumacher's absence, not that he performed better because of Schumacher's absence. There's a difference.

Contender to what?
If you just look at the results, Irvine would have been a contender to Hakkinen no matter if Schumacher would have been there or not because Schumacher would have also taken points away from Hakkinen. Of course he would have been no contender for the WC, just because of two faster drivers...

And second, if you don't understand how #1 status within a team confers an advantage to that driver, we might as well just let this thing go right now, because it's a facet of racing that's been around for ages.

I think you also do not understand how #1 status within a team confers an advantage to that driver. Otherwise you could explain how this really plays a role now. All this update, strategy and development arguments just did not play a role in the previous team battles like Irvine/Schu oder Webber/Vettel.

[mnmracer]

I'm not ignoring you

Yet you still won't answer the question.
Why? Are you afraid that you'll look foolish when you consider that the basis of your accusations are flawed?

[FoxHound]

I'm not ignoring you

Yet you still won't answer the question.
Why? Are you afraid that you'll look foolish when you consider that the basis of your accusations are flawed?

I sense a whacking great dollop of irony

[mnmracer]

I'm not ignoring you

Yet you still won't answer the question.
Why? Are you afraid that you'll look foolish when you consider that the basis of your accusations are flawed?

I sense a whacking great dollop of irony

Yet another post where you're not answering the question.

You claim that being the focal point and having the car designed and altered and whatnot results in 0.015 point per race (statistically negligible) advantage. Yet you are too afraid to answer for it.

[bhall]

[...]

I think you also do not understand how #1 status within a team confers an advantage to that driver. Otherwise you could explain how this really plays a role now. All this update, strategy and development arguments just did not play a role in the previous team battles like Irvine/Schu oder Webber/Vettel.

It seemed to work out pretty well for Raikkonen in 2007.

“In 2007 he was champion, but until Monza I was ahead of him,” said Massa, recalling his battle with Raikkonen some seven years ago.

“Unfortunately, in our team we had an agreement that Monza would decide who is the number 1, and I was ahead of Kimi when I had a problem with my car.

“In 2008 I was in front of him,” Massa added, “and also up until my accident in Hungary in 2009. Nevertheless, Kimi is world champion, and I’m not.”

And who can forget the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix?



They call them #2 because they have to deal with a lot of bullshit.

[basti313]

[...]

I think you also do not understand how #1 status within a team confers an advantage to that driver. Otherwise you could explain how this really plays a role now. All this update, strategy and development arguments just did not play a role in the previous team battles like Irvine/Schu oder Webber/Vettel.

It seemed to work out pretty well for Raikkonen in 2007.

So where is connection to RedBull? How does this play a role in the battle of Ric and Vet in a team with no static teamorder like Ferrari?

Note to self: mnmracer tends to take figures of speech literally. Anyway...

What is wrong about it?

The qualifying gap is a simple illustration [of increased competitiveness relative to the '90s]. Points scored shows the same result. Anything other than "because I say so" concludes the same thing.

Though now I am curious how you conclude a difference in competitiveness without using facts and numbers.

Everything is relative. The smaller gaps these days are the result of regulations so tight that it's virtually impossible to produce anything less than a reasonably capable car. That doesn't necessarily translate to competitiveness, though, because finding gains within such a stringent framework is much more difficult.

And I don't think points tallies have ever really been indicative of competitiveness. They only express outcomes irrespective of any other factors e.g., force majeure.

That is why they had to reintroduce the 107% rule?
No, it is obvious that nowadays the cars are closer just because the teams are better. Up to the mid 90s more than half of the field even failed to finish in more than half of the races. Some teams only finished one or two races per season. And I can not remember only one season in the 80s and early 90s with more than two cars being constantly able to finish the races without getting lapped by the leader. Ore more than two engines being competitive.

[bhall]

So where is connection to RedBull? How does this play a role in the battle of Ric and Vet in a team with no static teamorder like Ferrari?

I never said there was a connection. I just used recent history to point to a possibility with the hope it might help folks see that not everything is cut and dry, black or white.

That is why they had to reintroduce the 107% rule?
[...]

You have your way of seeing things, I have mine. The cool part is that neither of them change reality, whatever it may be.

[turbof1]

So we had the topc derailing again. Lies, Statistics, lies about statistics, evilness in statistics blababla. I fail to see how all of this relates back to the topic's title.

I personally have no issues with reviving old glory into this topic and that some talk about that is going on. However, try to keep it meaningful. The moment you went on to hit eachother's buttons nothing serious came out of it anymore. Nobody can ignore us moderators had a LOT of patience with this topic. And it's running out.

One more chance; it takes up a lot of time each time to clean up, time that could have been used to take car of the other threads. Please be considerate. I cleaned out the last few pages. Remember: last chance.

[FoxHound]

@mnm and cc'd turbof1

You disagreed with my assessment that Irvine was performing better without schumacher.
Your own very skewed stats back it up.

You then resort to saying my posts are lies, and that I'm scared of being made a fool.

Debate is not possible in such an environment especially when such contradiction takes place.

[basti313]

So where is connection to RedBull? How does this play a role in the battle of Ric and Vet in a team with no static teamorder like Ferrari?

I never said there was a connection. I just used recent history to point to a possibility with the hope it might help folks see that not everything is cut and dry, black or white.

So this would fit in the "Rai vs. Alo" Thread. But here it is black or white: Same cars, development only to make the car faster and no static teamorder (and no need for static teamorder this season as there is no WC to comped about...).

That is why they had to reintroduce the 107% rule?
[...]

You have your way of seeing things, I have mine. The cool part is that neither of them change reality, whatever it may be.

I appreciate it if this is as far as you can go.

One more chance; it takes up a lot of time each time to clean up, time that could have been used to take car of the other threads.

So why do you do it? This thread nearly contains more ying-yang than the ying-yang-Thread. One page of jibber jabber will can not spoil a thread that is already spoiled.

[basti313]

You then resort to saying my posts are lies, and that I'm scared of being made a fool.

No one is saying your posts are lies. But if you post completely wrong things like the 0.5sec gain of Irvine you should not be offended if someone says this is just wrong. And your subtle allegation with such wrong things towards Vettel may give a

[turbof1]

So why do you do it? This thread nearly contains more ying-yang than the ying-yang-Thread. One page of jibber jabber will can not spoil a thread that is already spoiled.

Let's call it a social experiment which I can abuse to write thesis's about and make money on my dear fellow members.

Btw, I disagree it's really ying-yang. This came from the previous page:

Everything is relative. The smaller gaps these days are the result of regulations so tight that it's virtually impossible to produce anything less than a reasonably capable car. That doesn't necessarily translate to competitiveness, though, because finding gains within such a stringent framework is much more difficult.

And I don't think points tallies have ever really been indicative of competitiveness. They only express outcomes irrespective of any other factors e.g., force majeure.

That's a well thought out post. Maybe not really on topic, but things can be a bit loosened up since it isn't a car thread. Overall, this thread shows this quality mostly through (although I had something to do with that...). But next you know it snapped and then we got into... well... "weirdness".

[FoxHound]

Ok my bad for the exaggeration.

The point still stands he was a number 2, elevated to a number one and showed more competitiveness.

[mnmracer]

Ok my bad for the exaggeration.

=D> =D> =D>

The point still stands he was a number 2, elevated to a number one and showed more competitiveness.

The cause of that having nothing to do with being number 2 or number 1 (i.e. favoritism) but simply with having a faster driver no longer be there.