I don't agree. In the first 5 races Force India never managed to qualify one of their cars ahead of both Toro Rosso's, Toro Rosso always had the highest grid position of the 4 cars in all 5 races and Force India always had the lowest.
Grid positions in first 5 races: VET BOU FIS SUT ====================== AUS 9 17 16 22 MAL 15 18 17 20 BAH 19 15 18 20 ESP 18 16 19 20 TUR 14 18 20 19
Looking at that I'd day say Toro Rosso had a clear advantage, especially when you consider both drivers were in their first full seasons.
You seem so sure on your word massa will never win a title and Lewis will in the future.
I hate to be having a go at you, but you spoke first about looking at stats. Forget stats, and theres Senna to prove that. Theres alot more to prove its on the track that counts, and clearly, Lewis has proved that too.
And its weird seeing you calling Massa shit. If hes shit, id really love to know what that makes you?
The WDC comes down to driver as well as team. Both must be quick in order to compete for the the WDC. Whoever has the best car/combo will compete for the WDC and will win the WDC.
Everything else about who should of won, deserved to win, whose a better driver etc is all speculation and open to interpretation. The only way to truely compare drivers would be to put them in a single car and see who wins (but god forbid anyone mention single manufacturer for F1).
Hamilton won the WDC meaning as a driver, driving a McLaren he is the best on the grid for the season. The end!
when they were using LAST year's car....
how amazing could that be that they improved significantly when they finally got their hands on THIS year's car~?
My bad, I guess it could look like I was arguing with you.
I'm not, I was agreeing, and following on from your comment. It makes no sense to call Massa "shit" to me either.
From what I have watched, Massa has only gotten better over the last few races. He certainly is WDC material. It's just that he has some unfortunate failures and team errors. He was simply unlucky in the end. A lot like how Hamilton was unlucky last year.
If you really think he will never win a championship, that's like someone saying last year that Hamilton will never improve to win a championship. Or it's like saying Hamilton will never win a championship again (which although I don't like it he most certainly will).
or what if Massa didn't spun out in Malaysia all by himself...
or whatever happened at Australia (was it an engine failure that eventually put him out~? but he was down at the back anyway after being the only car that spun on the first corner thanks to the first ever start with no TC).
he might be unlucky in the end, but don't forget he also had an extremely crappy start to the season.
Hamilton is only in his 2nd year on F1 too, he still got plenty to learn and plenty to improve on, where as how many years it took Massa (and a few others but I can't be bothered naming them) to reach the level of performance he's at now~?
How much more of an influence did F1 design ace Adrian Newey have on THIS years Torro Rosso compared to its predecessor?
Which engine would Ferrari have given Vettel for the final race - a standard 'customer' engine, or a full on bang up to date tweaked to perfection works Ferrari engine ?
It wouldn't surprise me if Torro Rossos 'package' for Brasil was at least as competitive as Maclarens.
Regarding Massa. He does not have the 'complete package'. He cant win if you start him from the 2nd row, doesnt move through the pack at all when he's had a compromised start, and around half of his overtaking attempts are either futile or woefully misjudged (hense he doesnt move up the field).
Hamilton is ofcourse erratic. No other driver in F1 would have come so close to throwing it all away in Brazil, especially after having thrown it away the year before. What he is though is more complete, task Hamilton with a recovery drive and he'll deliver. Task him with chasing somebody down and he's more likely to pass his target than Massa. Task him with leading from the front and he's just as good as Massa (at Massa's only real skill, he wont buckle when leading). Hamilton is stronger in more situations than Massa.
By mid-season, if anything, Vettel had compromised his market value from the previous year - don't quote me, that's what Martin Brundle said... He came good and for sure he started to deliver some might impressive performances - nay, the word I want is 'astounding', but like Kubica we havn't seen him in all those multitude of different situations yet.
If Vettel was up the front we'd get the chance to be critical of him just like we can be with Massa and Hamilton. At the moment if he has a bad day he can dissapear into the pack and we wont notice.
The same is true of Kubica. He has shown some superb driving this year, as did Sutil when he wasnt crashing.
Put Kubica or Vettel into a top car week in and week out and we'll get to see where their weeknesses are too, and can be as critical of them as Hamilton and Massa.
I make no appologies for support Hamilton, but I do get a bit annoyed when i'm bundled in with the 'fanboy' label. I'm very aware of Hamiltons short comings. I just think that Massa is 'even more shit' if you want to put it that way, although in reality, I know enough of F1 drivers to know that they're both damned good.
But seriously, if I was going to be in a race and could chose my oponnent, i'd go for Massa as I reckon i'd stand a better chance of beating him - and that might not have any real evidence, but it is scientific fact.
Am i gonna have to read through all 28 pages of this thread to try to find out how we got to that point ?. On second thoughts, i don't wanna know. Seriously, i really don't wanna know
Anyway, i know it's late in the day, but, i just wanna say what a thrilling end to what turned out to be one of the most exciting, frustrating, puzzling and dramatic seasons i think i've ever seen (and i've seen quite a few). Feel really sorry for Massa, he drove a near flawless race despite all that pressure, yet it was in the (last) lap of the gods as to who would become WDC. On the whole i think the right man won it in the end despite making all those rookie mistakes. Either Massa or Hamilton would have made a good F1 Champion, but perhaps Lewis brings just that bit more attention (and controversy) to the sport, which can only be a good thing. Only a fool would think he doesn't fully deserve it
Your telling me you cant comprehend someone making ANY comparison between 2 racing drivers on racing matters??
regardless of that - i wasnt making comparisons, your taking the comment out of context and simply reading it on the basis of one post and not the whole discussion before it, so whether you know it or not, your taking my comment out of the context it was put.
I was making the point that Senna became the Senna that people remember after a couple of years when he'd worked his way up the grid. People will remember all the great things he did, the daring moves, the unbelievable achievements, and the big mistakes. People remember everything he did in the prime of his career, they dont talk about the mistakes they make because they were young and inexperienced at that level because they werent being watched so closely, their mistakes didnt really make much of an impact because they werent that important because they werent significant people at the time. Everyone is watching the front runners, the people who have a certain expectation put on them, the rest are just expected to do their best really, if they stay out of trouble then they'll remain in the shadows of the top drivers.
Lewis hasnt got that shadow to hide in, he's having to learn from his mistakes in the spotlight and thats probably his own fault because he started so impressively. Had he started with your average rookie results, people wouldnt have slammed him for making mistakes, look at Kovi and Piquet during there time in the Renault for their rookie seasons, its not a rubbish car, its at the front of the mid-pack teams for certain, but they werent that impressive and their averageness meant people accepted their mistakes, meanwhile Lewis would take harsher critisism because he'd shown he had the pace and ability in previous races.
Had he been further back down the grid in a less significant team, people would dismiss his mistakes as n00bish, but if he shows signs of having something about him, isnt scared of racing the top drivers, and then dares to slip up... he gets harshly critisised for it.
His initial performances brought higher expectation, the way he started his career when people expected him to be very much the pupil learning from his mentor (Alonso) and possibly picking up the odd result, but after leading the standings for about 75% of the season he's kinda been expected to make the decisions and whatnot with the knowledge that past champions have had.
Is it unfair to compare 2-3 people from different era's to say who's better? absolutely... but tell me why its unfair to compare the conditions in which the 2-3 entered the sport. Senna and Schumacher entered the stage quietly and they came through over time, Lewis hasnt got that, he's now expected to perform flawlessly, to make all the right decisions, and end 3rd world debt
Then they'd have made their mistakes in a Williams instead.
Everyone makes mistake, as rookies and as multiple champions, but very few are thrown in at the deep end of the pool and expected to come so impressively. Maybe there would be quite a few if they were given the chance, Lewis is extremely fortunate, but you cant pretend that past world champions entered F1 and just started pulling wins out their arse, they've all made mistakes, and they always will, Lewis is no different.
Out of interest, do you think Senna or Schumacher could have got to the last race of their first season with a 7pt lead in an ever so slightly 2nd best car on the grid? Personally i cant see it, but I will say that i think Lewis probably had 'easier' opposition to get into that situation. Schumacher wouldnt have stood a chance, not with Senna, Prost & Mansell all having plenty of years behind them and i think all had been crowned world champion by then. Senna had Lauda and also Prost in there, i think Keke was in there too. Lewis was also lucky that he didnt have Schumacher, although still had Alonso (in the same car) and Kimi who'd already shown he was a title contender.
If Senna/Schumi came in when Lewis did... thats a different story
Senna in a Williams, maybe he'd win a race or 2, but i dont see him beating Lauda, Prost & co to the drivers title. Schumi wouldnt have stood a chance either vs Senna, Prost & Mansell.
When you consider what it requires to come into F1 as a rookie and do well, its no easy task. Your talking about coming in from a lower form of racing, most likely as the champion, and then taking on the very best drivers in the world, drivers who've won titles at that level, have bags of racing experience behind them as well as F1 experience and knowledge, to come in as an absolute rookie (not a Villeneuve/Andretti experienced rookie) and challenge for ANYTHING let alone win races on merit and come so close to winning the drivers title it was almost impossible for him to lose it... its unbelievable.
They probably made you lol as much as they made me lol when you try and pretend that they're one of the so-so teams on the grid at the end of the season, and now saying that the only reason they've done so well in the 2nd half (when the car is poor) is purely down to Kubica.
If thats the case, if we can just make up stuff, then im saying Kubica was poor in the first half of the season, and his results then were purely down to the car.
But hey, his car was so bad at the end of the season it was faster than Lewis and Seb when he insisted on unlapping himself. That was all him though of course?
Maybe the car wasnt as strong as it was at the start, but you cant claim his less impressive results in the first half of the season with a very competitive car, compared to his more impressive points haul in what your suggesting was a below-par car is entirely down to 1 drivers results... which were remarkably similar to his teammates too.
Your story just doesnt add up. Im not saying he's rubbish, i can see him challenging for a title when he gets a car capable of doing that asthe 08 BMW was never that, at any stage, he just managed to get some good results off the back of other peoples poor results (and credit to him for that) but not once was he challenging for a win on merit, and i find it very hard to believe someone who cant win races on merit will be a real threat on the WDC, whether they're Kubica, Schumacher or Sato. Its like thinking you can win a WDC while being unable to win a race off the front row
Vettel wasnt faster than Lewis, he qualified ahead of him due to stupid tyre choice then random scrutineering stopping him from making a proper attempt. In the race Lewis would have won from 15th, passing most of those places on the track, while Vettel had no challenger to worry about, and if the weather hadnt changed shortly after Hamilton went onto slicks and just laps before Vettel needed to pit anyway, things would have been very different.
Still, had it been dry i dont think Vettel would have had a chance, however it wasnt dry and thats what happened.
But i strongly disagree that he was faster than Lewis, he out played him, but he wasnt faster.
