2014 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal

[iotar__]

Either way, I agree, I'm confident Hamilton would have passed Rosberg even if neither had any issue.

And I'm confident Rosberg would have won. It looked as if though his problems started just after his first pit stop ad that allowed Hamilton to catch him at a very quick pace.

No, the power unit problems had not begun at that point – hamilton was simply much quicker on the softs.

Not fast enough to make a mistake or two? It's another exercise in would have, could have, should have, like second run in Monaco Q or perhaps second run in Canada Q. I'm fairy confident Rosberg would have won Barcelona had Mercedes given him as good a strategy as Hamilton in Canada. The same tyres and pitstop one lap later, not 3 and primes, they screwed Rosberg with pitstop today too. This is how Spain could have looked like instead of "split strategies". Any doubts about that now?

The only problem I saw was going off track - If Rosberg was driving by himself - fine, warning is enough but he was in a direct enough duel with Hamilton at the time, you can't pretend he didn't do it on purpose, after a mistake of course, he didn't even try to make a corner and gained

[gandharva]

RBR --- up easy 1-2 by bad strategy in a race they never would have been able to win without kers problems at both Mercs. Disappointing race from both Ferrari.

[Spacepace]

Does anyone remember in 2012 when Schumacher was out driving Rosberg but constantly had mechanical issues

[RicerDude]

It saddens me to see a Championship play out like this. 4 race wins, two DNF's through no fault of his own. Teammate has two wins and has finished every race. The championship shouldn't be decided on who's car is more reliable, it should be decided on who actually wins the most races. Isn't that what racing is about anyways?

Absolutely, FIA should have realised early on that these cars were going to be unreliable thus championship results being skewed and implemented a system like they used to have where only 75% of the results count towards the championship.

[iotar__]

This is why, as posted in another thread, some of us feel that the best 17 out of 20 races should make up the championship. So far the only reason why Lewis is not first is because of mechanical problems with his car.

Not true, Australia is an unknown and so is Canada without issues, same as China without Rosberg's issues, same as Barcelona without bad strategy for Rosberg and using boost by LH, same as Bahrain without fouling and cutting across, same as Monaco with proper second run in Q.

As for knee jerk reactions: apply your rule to 2008 and Massa is a world champion and the only claim for LH's greatness disappears. Pick and choose whenever it suits you, right?

[hibbsie]

Reliability is 100% part of motorsport. Take that out of the sport and we have the most boring races in the face of the planet. Even the best championship battles in the history of motorsport have been made more dramatic by reliability issues.

This is racing in the real world.

[RZS10]

Bizarrely enough, when Lewis was chasing Nico in the first stint, Nico came on the radio and asked what sort of brake balance Lewis was using. The reply from his engineer was that Hamilton's balance was more biased towards the rears.

I find it bizarre that Mercedes think that live data sharing like that is fair. Without telemetry from the cars I personally think that Hamilton would be wiping the floor with Rosberg. NR is a very very good driver and it's a credit to him that he's able to copy and built upon what Lewis is doing, but I have no doubt that he's gaining a huge amount by being able to study what Lewis is doing through natural talent.

And then you can read about Rosberg complaining to german media that Hamilton is copying from him, because when he and his engineers find something the other crew knows about it instantly .... oh god ...

Hamilton was closing in on Rosberg after both had the issues ... had Ham backed off then his car might have survived ... maybe his push for first was what made the brake problems worse compared to Rosberg ...

[the user]

This is why, as posted in another thread, some of us feel that the best 17 out of 20 races should make up the championship. So far the only reason why Lewis is not first is because of mechanical problems with his car.

Not true, Australia is an unknown and so is Canada without issues, same as China without Rosberg's issues, same as Barcelona without bad strategy for Rosberg and using boost by LH, same as Bahrain without fouling and cutting across, same as Monaco with proper second run in Q.

As for knee jerk reactions: apply your rule to 2008 and Massa is a world champion and the only claim for LH's greatness disappears. Pick and choose whenever it suits you, right?

I really don't understand the Hamilton worship that this forum is full of. Everytime he is hyped up so much and then when it doesn't go his way - all you're reading here is excuses and what ifs.

[60DShim]

This is why, as posted in another thread, some of us feel that the best 17 out of 20 races should make up the championship. So far the only reason why Lewis is not first is because of mechanical problems with his car.

Not true, Australia is an unknown and so is Canada without issues, same as China without Rosberg's issues, same as Barcelona without bad strategy for Rosberg and using boost by LH, same as Bahrain without fouling and cutting across, same as Monaco with proper second run in Q.

As for knee jerk reactions: apply your rule to 2008 and Massa is a world champion and the only claim for LH's greatness disappears. Pick and choose whenever it suits you, right?

How is it an unknown? He won 4 in a row with a car that was working. Do you honestly think he wouldn't have won today or in Australia had his car not let him down? Come on, I understand not liking someone but what's the point in being so bias you will ignore the obvious?

The "points" you make about China, Barcelona, Monaco, and Bahrain don't have much to do with the post you quoted.

Nico has finished every race, Lewis hasn't. Lewis when he has finished has outperformed Nico 4-2. By that the championship should be setup to where he would be leading as he's done the better job.

Nico winning the championship because his teammate/top competitor has a "more" unreliable car, isn't a well deserved championship in my book and I can't fathom how anyone could think it is.

The best driver should win. Period. And as it stands Lewis has done a better job than Nico in races where they both finish. That is doing a better job and he should be the man to win when it's all said and done.

[ChrisDanger]

It saddens me to see a Championship play out like this. 4 race wins, two DNF's through no fault of his own. Teammate has two wins and has finished every race. The championship shouldn't be decided on who's car is more reliable, it should be decided on who actually wins the most races. Isn't that what racing is about anyways?

Absolutely, FIA should have realised early on that these cars were going to be unreliable thus championship results being skewed and implemented a system like they used to have where only 75% of the results count towards the championship.

Why should consistency and reliability not be rewarded?

[astracrazy]

This is why, as posted in another thread, some of us feel that the best 17 out of 20 races should make up the championship. So far the only reason why Lewis is not first is because of mechanical problems with his car.

Not true, Australia is an unknown and so is Canada without issues, same as China without Rosberg's issues, same as Barcelona without bad strategy for Rosberg and using boost by LH, same as Bahrain without fouling and cutting across, same as Monaco with proper second run in Q.

As for knee jerk reactions: apply your rule to 2008 and Massa is a world champion and the only claim for LH's greatness disappears. Pick and choose whenever it suits you, right?

iotar your just going though and picking out bits that suit you too. There was nothing wrong with the driving in Bahrain + you forget to mention Nico used the boost there as well. Oh and Nico saved himself a bit by cutting the corner too day.

works both ways

[iotar__]

This is why, as posted in another thread, some of us feel that the best 17 out of 20 races should make up the championship. So far the only reason why Lewis is not first is because of mechanical problems with his car.

Not true, Australia is an unknown and so is Canada without issues, same as China without Rosberg's issues, same as Barcelona without bad strategy for Rosberg and using boost by LH, same as Bahrain without fouling and cutting across, same as Monaco with proper second run in Q.

As for knee jerk reactions: apply your rule to 2008 and Massa is a world champion and the only claim for LH's greatness disappears. Pick and choose whenever it suits you, right?

iotar your just going though and picking about bits that suit you too. There was nothing wrong with the driving in Bahrain + you forget to mention Nico used the boost there as well

No there was everything wrong if they are team-mates driving according to rules and you're the one picking one example an ignoring everything else: that's picking one example that suits you. Next.

[evered7]

Mechanical unreliability are a part of the racing world. Just have to try harder the next time. It is not like Rosberg put sugar in Hamilton's gas tank.

[60DShim]

It saddens me to see a Championship play out like this. 4 race wins, two DNF's through no fault of his own. Teammate has two wins and has finished every race. The championship shouldn't be decided on who's car is more reliable, it should be decided on who actually wins the most races. Isn't that what racing is about anyways?

Absolutely, FIA should have realised early on that these cars were going to be unreliable thus championship results being skewed and implemented a system like they used to have where only 75% of the results count towards the championship.

Why should consistency and reliability not be rewarded?

Because the drivers championship is about who is the BEST driver, to me the BEST means who has won the most races. The WCC should be decided on reliability/consistency but the WDC should be decided on race wins alone.

That is an extremely easy fix for the FIA. Keep the points system, change the drivers championship to whomever has the most race wins, wins.

[mnmracer]

Reliability is very much a part of F1, no arguing there.
But in judging driver performance, and how their relative performances are judged, reliability and strategy are things that should be taking into consideration. Because if you don't, by that reasoning you'll have to come to conclusions like "Damon Hill was better than Senna because in their entire time together, he lead him in the championship standings". Which is just silly.