Following two race stoppages, countless crashes and equally as much safety car periods, Lewis Hamilton emerged first at the finish line of a very wet Brazilian Grand Prix. Nico Rosberg joined him in the podium in second place while Max Verstappen mastered the conditions to climb back from 15th to 3rd in the final 15 laps.
Your veneer of taking the high road went all kinds of sideways with your last line. Anyone saying there's little to pick between Hamilton and Rosberg is either delusional or extremely biased.turbof1 wrote:This is still a mechanical sport. Luck plays a huge factor when there's little to pick between 2 drivers.
Most of the time they end up first and second. That is my definition for little to pick between the 2. It's certainly not a Mark Webber versus Sebastian Vettel situation, where not only one is being outclassed by his teammate, but also being often beaten by other drivers. It's a receipe for this kind of situation. Is Rosberg beaten on overall performance? Yes. Was he dominated? No, that would be incorrect to claim.TAG wrote:Your veneer of taking the high road went all kinds of sideways with your last line. Anyone saying there's little to pick between Hamilton and Rosberg is either delusional or extremely biased.turbof1 wrote:This is still a mechanical sport. Luck plays a huge factor when there's little to pick between 2 drivers.
The wet tires are bigger diameter so they raise the ride heightAndres125sx wrote:snip
At the spanish TV they said they miss those sunday warm-ups where they could set-up the car for the rain raising ride height.
He was probably back on the set that did 8 laps behind the safety car between the two red flags. So they wouldn't have been worn much at all.Jolle wrote:Interesting that Max, according to this graphic, wasn't on new wets for the last stint.....ChrisDanger wrote:This graphic is interesting. I didn't realise Bottas and Magnussen finished on inters.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxLHNU2XUAEv88s.jpg:large
They gambled for the win. I think they realized that even though finishing 2d was pretty much a guarantee with the normal strategy, to take the fight to Hamilton they needed more pace. That pace was in the intermediate tyre for a while, but when the rain came down harder and with the last safety car making the race line too wet again, this fell apart.Unc1eM0nty wrote: The Redbull decision to go to inters was just pain daft, if your running 10th or 12th and have nothing to loose they yes its worth a punt, Verstappen was already in a podium position though so why ? His excellent drive was wasted due to that decision, "always be on the right tyre !".
I'm not sure I agree on Rosberg driving well enough. IMO he didn't, but that point is hard to argue given he ended up 2nd in the end. What definitely worked in his favor was the daftness of RedBull to go inters and the fact that Perez acted as a great road block behind him.Unc1eM0nty wrote:Lets face it, the title race is over, I'm a Hamilton fan I was praying for rain this weekend and I got it, this was the chance to shake the field up. Fair play to Nico though, I thought he drove very well, he's really struggled in some wet races but not today, he wasn't the fastest but he did what he needed to do which was keeping it facing the right way.
The Redbull decision to go to inters was just pain daft, if your running 10th or 12th and have nothing to loose they yes its worth a punt, Verstappen was already in a podium position though so why ? His excellent drive was wasted due to that decision, "always be on the right tyre !".
Prob start: first set (13 laps),ChrisDanger wrote:He was probably back on the set that did 8 laps behind the safety car between the two red flags. So they wouldn't have been worn much at all.Jolle wrote:Interesting that Max, according to this graphic, wasn't on new wets for the last stint.....ChrisDanger wrote:This graphic is interesting. I didn't realise Bottas and Magnussen finished on inters.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxLHNU2XUAEv88s.jpg:large
Well now you're just defending your statement. You could have simply ended it with "This is still a mechanical sport. Luck plays a huge factor" and everything you've argued would hold true. But again, it's the when there's little to pick between the two that clearly shows where you're coming from. Nothing against it, it's an opinion and it's yours to have but it's my opinion that; 1 there's plenty to pick from between the two and hence why Nico has lost out o Lewis three years running. 2 Mechanical failure has not just been "luck" as luck would have it, it's been decidedly and by Mercedes' own admission "inexplicable". And the reason he wasn't dominated being the luck you're referencing is a argumentative circle that is illogical when you look at it from the outside.turbof1 wrote:Most of the time they end up first and second. That is my definition for little to pick between the 2. It's certainly not a Mark Webber versus Sebastian Vettel situation, where not only one is being outclassed by his teammate, but also being often beaten by other drivers. It's a receipe for this kind of situation. Is Rosberg beaten on overall performance? Yes. Was he dominated? No, that would be incorrect to claim.TAG wrote:Your veneer of taking the high road went all kinds of sideways with your last line. Anyone saying there's little to pick between Hamilton and Rosberg is either delusional or extremely biased.turbof1 wrote:This is still a mechanical sport. Luck plays a huge factor when there's little to pick between 2 drivers.
Mind I neither agree with your statement I'm either delusional or extremely biased. Especially the latter is making me frown as I always have, and always will, stayed objective without any prejudgement. I never have expressed favouritism towards one or other driver. Relative speaking and given both Rosberg and Hamilton have the same dominant car, there is simply little to pick between them; too little to make bad luck not a crucial factor. That's not delusional, that's not biased, that's simply a realistic view on how things let up to the current situation. Historically, most of the titles where 2 drivers where this close, there always were moments of luck or bad luck that decided on the title. That is simply how F1 comes and goes.
Max doesn't remind me of Senna. He reminds me of Hamilton in his first year. Very fast and arrogant because he knows he's knows he's very fast. Not awed by the established names around him. If he can keep his ego under control, there's no reason he can't win a title or two.Andres125sx wrote:Finally new Senna proved some merit for such praise.
In the post race interview VES was talking about covering RIC, at the first stop they (max' side of the garage) were afraid of being undercut by their teammate. It was clearly an error not to split the drivers in these changing circumstances. The different strategies in past races and the criticisms it got is probably the reason why.turbof1 wrote:They gambled for the win. I think they realized that even though finishing 2d was pretty much a guarantee with the normal strategy, to take the fight to Hamilton they needed more pace. That pace was in the intermediate tyre for a while, but when the rain came down harder and with the last safety car making the race line too wet again, this fell apart.Unc1eM0nty wrote: The Redbull decision to go to inters was just pain daft, if your running 10th or 12th and have nothing to loose they yes its worth a punt, Verstappen was already in a podium position though so why ? His excellent drive was wasted due to that decision, "always be on the right tyre !".
I think regardless wether it was a smart idea or not, you have to give Red Bull some credit for not simply settling for second and trying to force a win, albeit far fetched.
If you look at the average difference between them in qualifying, it was 3 tenths last year (until USGP) and 4+ tenths this year. In some races it was 5 tenths. The only reason why Nico starts next to him, is because the advantage that Mercedes has over the field. If this was from 2010, 2012 or 2013, you would have seen another 3 to 4 cars between them in the space of 3 to 4 tenths. That would have invalidated your statement. In races, they have much larger advantage over the field that always gives them a 1-2.turbof1 wrote:Most of the time they end up first and second. That is my definition for little to pick between the 2.TAG wrote:Your veneer of taking the high road went all kinds of sideways with your last line. Anyone saying there's little to pick between Hamilton and Rosberg is either delusional or extremely biased.turbof1 wrote:This is still a mechanical sport. Luck plays a huge factor when there's little to pick between 2 drivers.
9 wins out of 20 races for Lewis, where once (Spain) he was taken out by Nico and for 3 races (China, Russia and Spa) he did not even had an opportunity to challenge for the win and once (Malaysia) got a DNF while leading.turbof1 wrote:It's certainly not a Mark Webber versus Sebastian Vettel situation, where not only one is being outclassed by his teammate, but also being often beaten by other drivers. It's a receipe for this kind of situation. Is Rosberg beaten on overall performance? Yes. Was he dominated? No, that would be incorrect to claim.
Senna was just like that! He was blistering fast, made many mistakes and kicked against the establishment, team bosses and drivers.Just_a_fan wrote:Max doesn't remind me of Senna. He reminds me of Hamilton in his first year. Very fast and arrogant because he knows he's knows he's very fast. Not awed by the established names around him. If he can keep his ego under control, there's no reason he can't win a title or two.Andres125sx wrote:Finally new Senna proved some merit for such praise.
