Nico Rosberg retires from F1
Discussion
Disastrous said:
37chevy said:
Disastrous said:
Driver B, obviously, as he won. To finish first, first you have to finish.
Right.....so the slower driver is the best driver because his mechanic did a better job....so you realise how stupid you sound?Gary C said:
Disastrous said:
37chevy said:
Disastrous said:
Driver B, obviously, as he won. To finish first, first you have to finish.
Right.....so the slower driver is the best driver because his mechanic did a better job....so you realise how stupid you sound?
Disastrous said:
Bit pointless having a WDC if the best don't win, isn't it?
There have been quite a few times when the WDC has been won by the person who wasn't the best driver that season, but here's the thing the WDC is decided by the most consistent that doesn't mean the best it comes down to the simple principle "to finish First First you must finish" & this year Nico did this best next year it'll be someone else.ZX10R NIN said:
Disastrous said:
Bit pointless having a WDC if the best don't win, isn't it?
There have been quite a few times when the WDC has been won by the person who wasn't the best driver that season, but here's the thing the WDC is decided by the most consistent that doesn't mean the best it comes down to the simple principle "to finish First First you must finish" & this year Nico did this best next year it'll be someone else.I'm pretty certain that the idea of a sporting contest was first created in order to objectively settle who was best.
And as sport matured and evolved, we developed the notion of world championships, in pretty much every sport I can think of, purely as a way of settling who the best in the world at that moment was.
So either F1 is the only world championship in existence where the best doesn't win - and is consequently useless and irrelevant - or in 2016, Nico Rosberg was the best.
It can't be a meaningful championship when Hamilton wins it and not when his team mate does - the Hamiltonites can't have it both ways.
Christ, I don't even like Rosberg but the lack of critical thinking here makes me want to argue for him.
ZX10R NIN said:
I agree that the term best is often confused with the most exciting/best racer.
For me Nico was the best driver in 2016
Agreed - and in case it came across like I was meaning you in the post above, I wasn't. I just quoted you as I think you posted some sense.For me Nico was the best driver in 2016
For me, Max was the most exciting driver of the year (opinion) and Nico the best (fact).
Let me try and explain it to Disastrous, I am sure he/she will understand in the end.
Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Let me try and explain it to Disastrous, I am sure he/she will understand in the end.
Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
Ah, so F1 isn't actually a proper world championship and a driver is only actually champion if he fulfills a set of nebulous criteria you devise?Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
The WDC is a points based competition and the driver with the most points at the end of the season is declared champion, as he has done the best.
Luck, team and equipmetn all play a role in this, as they do every year, just as in all sports.
Anything else is just rubbish I'm afraid.
Disastrous said:
The WDC is a points based competition and the driver with the most points at the end of the season is declared champion, as he has done the best.
'Done the best', agreed, as in points scored. But this does not equal the 'best driver', merely the driver who has done the best in terms of points scored. The two things are very different.KevinCamaroSS said:
'Done the best', agreed, as in points scored. But this does not equal the 'best driver', merely the driver who has done the best in terms of points scored. The two things are very different.
+1One is an objective mathematical result.
The other is subjective opinion.
Disastrous said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
Let me try and explain it to Disastrous, I am sure he/she will understand in the end.
Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
Ah, so F1 isn't actually a proper world championship and a driver is only actually champion if he fulfills a set of nebulous criteria you devise?Part A - The winner of the WDC is the best driver if, and ONLY if, the following applies:
A) All cars in the championship have the same reliability, AND
B) All cars in the championship have the same performance
Part B - In any other circumstance the winner of the WDC is likely to be the driver of the fastest car in the field who has either:
a) more reliability, or
b) more skill given equal reliability
If there is anything you do not understand in the above please let me know and I will try an explain it further.
In 2016 part A did not apply as it never does in F1, teams have differing performance in their cars, and also differing reliability.
Therefore Part B applies, and in 2016 the driver with better reliability won. This does not make him a better driver, just more lucky in terms of reliability.
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.
The WDC is a points based competition and the driver with the most points at the end of the season is declared champion, as he has done the best.
Luck, team and equipmetn all play a role in this, as they do every year, just as in all sports.
Anything else is just rubbish I'm afraid.
Rosberg is WDC. Nobody is saying that he isn't ; or even that he shouldn't be! I'm one of the few who has said for years, that he's fast and underrated. I said it before Hamilton became his teammate. I credited him with showing Schuey up the whole time they were paired.
The people who are anti-Hamilton are ten times more passionate and bias than those who are 'for'Hamilton and you are an example of this.
The best driver does not always win the WDC. It's a mechanical sport. If it was the best driver; why have an official poll at the end of each season asking the team principals; who they thought was the best driver? Genuinely.... why does it even get asked!?
When people say, oh well; that means that Hamilton wasn't necessarily the best driver when he won his WDC's... Well, yes, exactly!!!!! Except, it just so happens, Hamilton was also voted best driver, those years also. Whether he was or wasn't, the people who matter, believed that to be the case. You may not like it - but tough cookies.
This isn't a 'Hamilton should be WDC' post / argument. I've been, simply, pointing out that you're wrong; WDC doesn't mean best driver; and yes - that can apply to Hamilton also.
Like, without being sarcastic; do you honestly not get this?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff