2014 Singapore GP - Marina Bay, September 19-21

[SectorOne]

It´s irrelevant really. What we can conclude though is first place thanks to the problems was impossible.

[Phil]

I'm not factoring those in because we don't know how things would have gone if everything went alright. Most if not all of your arguments about the races are based on assumptions. Well reasoned arguments mind you, but still assumptions.

Assumptions, they may be, but not that far fetched if you think about it. Take Hungary and Hockenheim for example: The technical issue caused Hamilton to start 20th (end of the grid, bar one) and Hungary from the pitlane. The assumption of a front-row start is easy, because the Mercedes is that dominant. Nothing far fetched at all. If Hamilton was able to get to 3rd by the end of the race from back of the grid in those two races, the reasonable logical assumption is that starting further up the grid, would result in at least 2nd. So the net-loss I calculated in the above analysis was only 3+3 points where I am assuming he might have finished 2nd instead of 3rd (I actually made an error in my analysis - Hockenheim was a los of 3pt, not 5pt for Hamilton). Not that much, and not that crucial. So, assumptions they may be - but those very assumptions are actually working in Rosbergs favour here (I assumed a straight victory in Hungary and Silverstone after all for him).

Still raises the question of he would have outqualified Rosberg, or what would have happened in the race. It was indeed impossible to finish in front of Rosberg with his issues, but we can't just assume he would have finished in front either. That's why I rather elect to not include this.

But my analysis never assumed that he would have. In fact, I assume he wouldn't have, which is why I think finishing 2nd in those races and assuming a straight victory for Rosberg is in his favour.

We can only compare what's really lost to the potentional maximum loss. Problems during FP and Q can't be quantified, only what happens at the end of the race can be. Again, I totally agree with you that Hamilton had the biggest share of bad luck. However, we can't call it one-sided anymore.

Fair enough if you want to limit looking at it from that point of view. IMO, that's not really fair - as i.e. in Canada, if Hamilton did not have that brake failure and both cars got to the end, Hamilton would have been ahead of Rosberg. So the best-case situation for Rosberg still ends up being the 18 points he eventually got. Now, if Rosberg had been in front when Hamilton had his brake failure, I'd have assumed a straight 7 points loss for Rosberg and only 18 point loss for Hamilton. But it wasn't like that.

Also, Spa - was his own doing. If he hadn't crashed his front wing into Lewis's tire - Lewis still would have been ahead of Rosberg. So the logical assumption is, without the DNF to capitalize on, he still would have only got 18 points. Even more; The fact that Rosberg didn't capitalize on the full 25 points is of his own doing. The only sole and important fact remains that however you put it; Hamilton lost big time in Spa.

So, while you are correct that Rosberg lost more to the maximum potential he could have achieved during Lewis's DNFs, that to me only underlines Rosbergs own failings at capitalizing. It just doesn't seem fair to assume Rosberg could/would/should have won every race Hamilton had a DNF without at least looking at their respective positions when the DNF influenced the race. And at that point, we're still ignoring the qualifying issues Hamilton had that had some impact on the race and will probably have some effect on his usage on his car (though that doesn't seem to have been a factor so far)...

[turbof1]

It´s irrelevant really. What we can conclude though is first place thanks to the problems was impossible.

The issue is how you quantify it then . I'm not denying that Hamilton had more issues, or that he was quite a bit more disadvantaged overall, but you'll always get someone "hold on, what if he did not finish that position or what if rosberg did do that...". And that's only natural.

I mean I can claim it's now a 5 race championship without excuses, but whoever wins we'll always get one person if "if Hamilton only didn't had that issue" or "if Rosberg didn't had that wiring loom problem..." even if those 5 races are flawless for both of them.

Hence why I rather like to view this now as a reset . No bothering about what happened, only about what's going to happen.

But my analysis never assumed that he would have. In fact, I assume he wouldn't have, which is why I think finishing 2nd in those races and assuming a straight victory for Rosberg is in his favour.

It was a direct reply to SectorOne, so wasn't relevant to what you were commenting.

Fair enough if you want to limit looking at it from that point of view. IMO, that's not really fair - as i.e. in Canada, if Hamilton did not have that brake failure and both cars got to the end, Hamilton would have been ahead of Rosberg. So the best-case situation for Rosberg still ends up being the 18 points he eventually got. Now, if Rosberg had been in front when Hamilton had his brake failure, I'd have assumed a straight 7 points loss for Rosberg and only 18 point loss for Hamilton. But it wasn't like that.

Strictly speaking, no it isn't fair. But again, what counts for me personally they now have an equal chance to win the championship. I feel that keep going back into the past will only make the WDC battle sink further into a pit of "what if's".

[SectorOne]

The issue is how you quantify it then

There´s no need to quantify anything

All you need to know is that Hamilton was not given the chance to win the race because of the Qualifying problems.
Take Germany, even if he had passed Bottas there´s no way in hell he would have been able to mount a challenge to Rosberg who was 20 seconds up the road.

Therefore we can´t just exclude those two Qualifying incidents "because the Merc is so good" as someone said.

If you now want to speculate on Germany and Hungary, give them one each.
I know who i´m more inclined to believe would have won those based on their racing this year and the fact that he´s got 7 wins to his name by now despite all of that.

Let´s look at the races Hamilton finished but did not win. Maybe we can find a red thread through all of them.

Monaco 2nd - we all know what happened in Qualifying
Austria 2nd - Started 9th (through his own fault in Qualifying)
Germany 3rd - Technical problems, last on grid.
Hungary 3rd - Engine fire Qualifying, start from pits.


So what do we have left? Wins and DNF´s.
Given a normal front row start with no technical failures, Hamilton has been victorius every single time.
Rosberg has not.

[turbof1]

Therefore we can´t just exclude those two Qualifying incidents "because the Merc is so good" as someone said.

You can't, but neither can you reject the notion the car minimizes the damage.

And the reason why you need to quantify it, is that qualy, wins or DNFs eventually don't matter. Your point score matters.

[SectorOne]

You can't, but neither can you reject the notion the car minimizes the damage.

But it´s not about minimizing damage, it´s about one car given full chance to win the race while the other is not.
My response was made because someone brushed over the qualifying incidents claiming it´s not so bad when the car is so good which is not true, because one car is now completely out of any chance to win the race.

And the reason why you need to quantify it, is that qualy, wins or DNFs eventually don't matter. Your point score matters.

True, but now the discussion started about them being equalized in bad luck which is simply not true.


It´s 3-2 in retirements and 2-0 in Qualifying incidents that have been so severe it removed any chance for that person to win the race.
Points are somewhat equalized but the bad luck is far from it.

[prince]

The issue is how you quantify it then

There´s no need to quantify anything

All you need to know is that Hamilton was not given the chance to win the race because of the Qualifying problems.
Take Germany, even if he had passed Bottas there´s no way in hell he would have been able to mount a challenge to Rosberg who was 20 seconds up the road.

Therefore we can´t just exclude those two Qualifying incidents "because the Merc is so good" as someone said.

If you now want to speculate on Germany and Hungary, give them one each.
I know who i´m more inclined to believe would have won those based on their racing this year and the fact that he´s got 7 wins to his name by now despite all of that.

Let´s look at the races Hamilton finished but did not win. Maybe we can find a red thread through all of them.

Monaco 2nd - we all know what happened in Qualifying
Austria 2nd - Started 9th (through his own fault in Qualifying)
Germany 3rd - Technical problems, last on grid.
Hungary 3rd - Engine fire Qualifying, start from pits.


So what do we have left? Wins and DNF´s.
Given a normal front row start with no technical failures, Hamilton has been victorius every single time.
Rosberg has not.

Just a point on Performance Trending. Even when Lewis started from 2nd, he created opportunities to win. He won from 2nd in Bahrain and moved ahead in Belgium before... we know what. In Monaco, impossible to pass and it was a status quo. In Canada, he got almost ahead despite starting from 2nd. Whereas Nico never managed to get ahead of Lewis when he started behind Lewis. Monza was an exception due to launch control problem for Lewis, but still Lewis came back.

Which essentially gives benefit to Lewis where he had qualifying problems in Hungary and Germany. Even if he would have qualified behind Nico, there could have been potential opportunity to get ahead. It means, there was opportunity to gain 14 points by attacking Nico.

Note: I read somewhere in this discussion that Safety Car screwed Nico in Hungary. People have short memory. He lost because he couldn't pass Vergne.

[basti313]

Therefore we can´t just exclude those two Qualifying incidents "because the Merc is so good" as someone said.

You can't, but neither can you reject the notion the car minimizes the damage.

And the reason why you need to quantify it, is that qualy, wins or DNFs eventually don't matter. Your point score matters.

You could rename the thread to Hamilton Vs Rosberg 2014.

Oh wait...there is already a thread with that title closed by.......

Putting some spice:

The only sole and important fact remains that however you put it; Hamilton lost big time in Spa.

Still it is nonsense to mix up technical DNFs and crashing the car. The technical DNFs in Q, Australia, England or Singapore were inevitable, whereas just not insisting on the race line or not pushing Rosberg off track by Ham or just not "making a stupid point" by Ros would have resulted in a 1/2. You can not count a fact what resulted in three CLOSED threads here.

[turbof1]

Therefore we can´t just exclude those two Qualifying incidents "because the Merc is so good" as someone said.

You can't, but neither can you reject the notion the car minimizes the damage.

And the reason why you need to quantify it, is that qualy, wins or DNFs eventually don't matter. Your point score matters.

You could rename the thread to Hamilton Vs Rosberg 2014.

Oh wait...there is already a thread with that title closed by.......

Putting some spice:

The only sole and important fact remains that however you put it; Hamilton lost big time in Spa.

Still it is nonsense to mix up technical DNFs and crashing the car. The technical DNFs in Q, Australia, England or Singapore were inevitable, whereas just not insisting on the race line or not pushing Rosberg off track by Ham or just not "making a stupid point" by Ros would have resulted in a 1/2. You can not count a fact what resulted in three CLOSED threads here.

A) The current discussion has elements the ham vs ros thread rarily showed: good arguments and respect for your fellow member. You tell me why I had to close that thread. Hint: it didn't have anything with the content (well, maybe with the lack of it in the end).
B) Admittingly, I didn't want a small opinion to expand this way; I'll move to the mercedes team thread later on.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

The man himself said it: 5-2.



2:05

[dren]

The sad thing is the last race is double points and Mercedes current reliability is a coin toss. The drivers can only do so much.

[strad]

You must be the only person still breathing who thinks that Hamilton was in anyway at fault in his retirement at Spa. Even Rosberg has admitted it was his fault!

Under duress mate,, under duress.
AND in my mind it was Lewis not giving the room he should have.
I've said it wasn't very smart of Nico, but he was far enough up that Lewis was obligated to leave room.

[SectorOne]

2 guys with Rosberg in this universe then. The rest realized instantly he broke the code of conduct, even confessed to it himself.

[dans79]

I've said it wasn't very smart of Nico, but he was far enough up that Lewis was obligated to leave room.

for the right hander yes, not for the left hander.

[basti313]

I've said it wasn't very smart of Nico, but he was far enough up that Lewis was obligated to leave room.

for the right hander yes, not for the left hander.

However, the technical DNFs of Ham and Ros could not be avoided by leaving some space for the teammate. No matter if obligated or not. So it is just not the same.