2020 Formula One

Remove this Banner Ad

darth_timon said:
I see you're back to your usual rude, arrogant bluster, then you complain about using emotions rather than logic. I forgot, we have to worship your opinion as fact

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No, but you could at least use some logic to argue instead of Hamilton fanboisms like usual. It's amazing how only one driver is always affected, but Hamilton is not yet again. The astounding lack of logic is mindboggling but not unbelievable.

For the record, I don't proclaim Hamilton to be the greatest of all time, though I would rate him as *one* of the greats. He's proven that throughout his career, his peers (including multiple champions like Alonso and Vettel) rate him as one of the greats, and one win for Russell wouldn't invalidate any of that. Obviously having the best car helps, but by your logic, a driver at the back of the grid stepping into Senna's 1991 McLaren and beating Berger would diminish Senna.
Click to expand...

Like when Mika Salo stood in for Schumacher and won all those GP. Or DC when Senna died.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bradesmaen said:
No, but you could at least use some logic to argue instead of Hamilton fanboisms like usual. It's amazing how only one driver is always affected, but Hamilton is not yet again. The astounding lack of logic is mindboggling but not unbelievable.
Click to expand...

As I said, provide some logic yourself. Russell beating Bottas won't mean anything unless it's over the course of several races. It won't even truly reflect on *Bottas* in one race. You wouldn't normally judge any driver on the basis of one Grand Prix.

But to look at your 'logic', Hamilton beat Alonso in five of the first eight races of the 2007 season, as a rookie driving an F1 car in anger for the first time. By your logic, does it weaken Alonso, since he wasn't beating the new kid consistently?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
 
darth_timon said:
As I said, provide some logic yourself. Russell beating Bottas won't mean anything unless it's over the course of several races. It won't even truly reflect on *Bottas* in one race. You wouldn't normally judge any driver on the basis of one Grand Prix.

But to look at your 'logic', Hamilton beat Alonso in five of the first eight races of the 2007 season, as a rookie driving an F1 car in anger for the first time. By your logic, does it weaken Alonso, since he wasn't beating the new kid consistently?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I provided it, you have only rebutted with "cause it doesn't".

We all know the Hamilton at McLaren story and how he took the Alonso data but never fed any back the other way. Provided with a fair fight Alonso would have trounced him.
 
Bradesmaen said:
I provided it, you have only rebutted with "cause it doesn't".

We all know the Hamilton at McLaren story and how he took the Alonso data but never fed any back the other way. Provided with a fair fight Alonso would have trounced him.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. This sounds more and more that you cannot remove the blinkers regarding Hamilton. All you've so far said is anyone winning in the best car detracts from the legacy of the drivers on that car, yet you didn't even respond to the point about Senna and Berger in 91. To offer up another question, if someone had stepped into the 88 McLaren in an emergency and beaten either Senna or Prost in one race, would you take the gloss off their accomplishments and place similar doubts upon their abilities?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Beejay Crow said:
He's number 2 in the best team on the grid and coming second in the championship. He's just doing what is expected.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus his DNFs have been a bit of bad luck and not his fault. His quali pace is good enough and he has out-qualified Lewis on the odd occasion. Where he does let himself down a bit is on his starts, he sometimes does not get off the line as well as he should.

The other handicap he has as the second driver is team strategy. If he is front of Lewis they will always try to switch Lewis onto a different strategy to try and make up the position. If he is behind Lewis his strategy will be the same as Lewis with no hope of making up the position with clever strategy. It is a bit of a handicap for a second driver to have. It is boring for the fans if the team will not let his side of the garage decide the race strategy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

happy_eagle said:
Russel is auditioning for Valteri's seat next time his contract is up (next year I think?) and doing a good job thus far.
Click to expand...
Why stop there, if he wins by 10 seconds and qualifies on pole might as well save 60mil a year and dump Hamilton now they will win with Russell next year
 
Beejay Crow said:
He's number 2 in the best team on the grid and coming second in the championship. He's just doing what is expected.
Click to expand...

Hamilton has almost 1.5x the points of Bottas. With how good that car is, that is just not good enough.
Sure he is P2 in the WDC but it he is so far off Hamilton it's not funny.

One day, and there will be a one day, Mercedes won't be the fastest car and they will need a strong guy there to be closer. Bottas is not that guy
 
It’s not as simple as Russell beating valteri and the rest and makes Lewis’s achievements null and void.
Looking at it like that is way too simplistic.
He’s been the best if not the best in clearly the best car that will always lead to dominance ala McLaughlin
 
Last edited:
skam85 said:
Hamilton has almost 1.5x the points of Bottas. With how good that car is, that is just not good enough.
Sure he is P2 in the WDC but it he is so far off Hamilton it's not funny.

One day, and there will be a one day, Mercedes won't be the fastest car and they will need a strong guy there to be closer. Bottas is not that guy
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Bottas would be more valued to MB if they weren't that good (3rd or lower in the wcc).

F1 teams are big. MB can cash in with Hamilton when they're the dominant team because they know what'll happen if they do the work and follow their procedures. When you're slightly off (like 3rd in the wcc), they're going to have to make the most of both cars to get the best result. So there won't be any of the BS going on that we've seen the last couple of years.

If the scenario occurred that MB were the 3rd best team and Bottas wanted an alternate strategy. Even if it the data said it wouldn't be as good he'd still get his wish. They're more likely to want to roll the dice.
 
What I don't get is why Hamilton would be okay with all of this.

If I were him I'd be pulling a Smithers.


083.png


Russell gets pole position and / or wins the race, it isn't a good look for Hamilton.

I say this as a casual racing fan, which most racing fans are.
 
Would Vandoorne have done any worse with his extra knowledge as their test driver (and not that many less starts)?

Maybe this was all Hamilton's idea 😅
 
FR0GGY said:
It’s not as simple as Russell beating valteri and the rest and makes Lewis’s achievements null and void.
Looking at it like that is way too simplistic.
He’s been the best if not the best in clearly the best car that will always lead to dominance ala McLaughlin
Click to expand...
This. Very much this.

Anyone would win in the best car... If we assume that's true and we assume one victory is enough data to form a definite judgement (btw, such an argument is dismissive of how good Russell is), we could dismiss the achievements of any top driver in a scenario where anyone else stepped into their car and won. Imagine Yannick Dalmas replacing one of McLaren drivers in 88 for one race and winning it. Would anyone question the ability of Senna or Prost? We're they not only winning comfortably because they had a vastly superior car?

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

powerpowerpower
Jack Doohan Watch
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
imadodgyumpire
imadodgyumpire

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top