Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)

[PhilAsia]

skeeterm5 said:

GiantCardboardPlato said:

He clearly did a better job than Russell, i find that a rather easy argument to make.

Please make that argument.

I would say that for a first year in a new car and beating LH by quite a margin in the drivers standings by the end of the year makes that an impossible argument to (sensibly) make.

Unless of course you were being ironic and I missed it.

I would say both were in a new car. Russell did extremely well and, if you only look at the points, your argument is solid. Where it falls down somewhat is if you take into account all factors affecting the points throughout the season...especially the second half.

[GiantCardboardPlato]

skeeterm5 said:

GiantCardboardPlato said:

He clearly did a better job than Russell, i find that a rather easy argument to make.

Please make that argument.

I would say that for a first year in a new car and beating LH by quite a margin in the drivers standings by the end of the year makes that an impossible argument to (sensibly) make.

Unless of course you were being ironic and I missed it.

Hamilton beat Russel in qualifying more times than the opposite.

If you exclude races where external influences affected their finishing order, basically mechanical failure and safety car interventions/timing (i.e. control for chance influences on finishing order), Hamilton finished ahead more often.

In races, Hamilton was usually faster than Russell.

There you go.

[paulguitar]

skeeterm5 said:

GiantCardboardPlato said:

He clearly did a better job than Russell, i find that a rather easy argument to make.

Please make that argument.

I would say that for a first year in a new car and beating LH by quite a margin in the drivers standings by the end of the year makes that an impossible argument to (sensibly) make.

Unless of course you were being ironic and I missed it.

'The Race' Podcast had Hamilton ahead of Russell for the season. That's a good listen and goes into depth as to why they rank them that way.

Text explanation linked below, a lot more detail on the podcast.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/the-top-10-formula-...

[PhilAsia]

Teddy Lop said:

Orchardab said:

Plus they benefitted from that Fez data in following seasons.

TBF, the FIA, under the direction of max "Ron Dennis bummed my mum and I hate him" Mosely, undertook a forensic examination of McLaren's entire operation and found no trace of the Ferrari dossier info in use or existence...

Is there new evidence you have that you wish to share with us?

This was my understanding of the data usage.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

LP670 said:

What other option would they have had other than throwing the team and drivers out of the championship that season? They chose the WWF route and faked a thrilling end to the season.

As I mentioned a few posts back, if the intent was to make it so that McLaren could win neither the WDC nor WCC then the more transparent thing would have been to dock them a load of points going into the season such that it would be statistically impossible to win.

It would have been no more unfair than the punitive and vindictive $100million fine that Mosely imposed. Which still seems disproportionate to me to this day, especially given the (lack of evidence) that McLaren acted upon the Ferrari data,

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 7th December 11:30

[paulguitar]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

It would have been no more unfair than the punitive and vindictive $100million fine that Mosely imposed. Which still seems disproportionate to me to this day, especially given the (lack of evidence) that McLaren acted upon the Ferrari data,

It's well-known that Mosely basically hated Ron Denis and described the fine as “$5 million for the offense and $95 million for Ron being a tt”.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

paulguitar said:

It's well-known that Mosely basically hated Ron Denis and described the fine as “$5 million for the offense and $95 million for Ron being a tt”.

Indeed

[lauda]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

paulguitar said:

It's well-known that Mosely basically hated Ron Denis and described the fine as “$5 million for the offense and $95 million for Ron being a tt”.

Indeed

I believe he used a rather less flattering term than tt.

[LP670]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

LP670 said:

What other option would they have had other than throwing the team and drivers out of the championship that season? They chose the WWF route and faked a thrilling end to the season.

As I mentioned a few posts back, if the intent was to make it so that McLaren could win neither the WDC nor WCC then the more transparent thing would have been to doc them a load of points going into the season such that it would be statistically impossible to win.

It would have been no more unfair than the punitive and vindictive $100million fine that Mosely imposed. Which still seems disproportionate to me to this day, especially given the (lack of evidence) that McLaren acted upon the Ferrari data,

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Wednesday 7th December 11:21

Are you talking about 2008? For clarity im talking about the end to the 2007 season where the knowledge of data transfer was only discovered partway through that season.

[Muzzer79]

GiantCardboardPlato said:

He clearly did a better job than Russell, i find that a rather easy argument to make. The case is much less clear cut for Norris or drivers in other series.

Maybe we need an AI to work it out for us.

I'm not anti-Hamilton but I wouldn't describe it as an "easy argument"

Russell scored more points, more poles and more wins.

Hamilton scored more podiums, took more risks at the start of the season on setup and was subjectively less lucky with safety cars, etc.

I think it was fairly even but if I was George, I may be a little bit miffed about the guy I beat getting an award for best British driver.
But I'm sure he's not bothered.

[MustangGT]

Muzzer79 said:

I'm not anti-Hamilton but I wouldn't describe it as an "easy argument"

Russell scored more points, more poles and more wins.

Hamilton scored more podiums, took more risks at the start of the season on setup and was subjectively less lucky with safety cars, etc.

I think it was fairly even but if I was George, I may be a little bit miffed about the guy I beat getting an award for best British driver.
But I'm sure he's not bothered.

Apart from the fact that Lewis had the best of the qualifying, by 13 - 9. Most in the second half where the extreme set-up trials were no longer in the equation.

[Muzzer79]

MustangGT said:

Muzzer79 said:

I'm not anti-Hamilton but I wouldn't describe it as an "easy argument"

Russell scored more points, more poles and more wins.

Hamilton scored more podiums, took more risks at the start of the season on setup and was subjectively less lucky with safety cars, etc.

I think it was fairly even but if I was George, I may be a little bit miffed about the guy I beat getting an award for best British driver.
But I'm sure he's not bothered.

Apart from the fact that Lewis had the best of the qualifying, by 13 - 9. Most in the second half where the extreme set-up trials were no longer in the equation.

Indeed - fairly even then.....

[MarkwG]

Muzzer79 said:

MustangGT said:

Muzzer79 said:

I'm not anti-Hamilton but I wouldn't describe it as an "easy argument"

Russell scored more points, more poles and more wins.

Hamilton scored more podiums, took more risks at the start of the season on setup and was subjectively less lucky with safety cars, etc.

I think it was fairly even but if I was George, I may be a little bit miffed about the guy I beat getting an award for best British driver.
But I'm sure he's not bothered.

Apart from the fact that Lewis had the best of the qualifying, by 13 - 9. Most in the second half where the extreme set-up trials were no longer in the equation.

Indeed - fairly even then.....

The Autosport awards are not designed to be objective or data driven; they're designed to engage readers, to boost circulation numbers. If it was just about the data, Russell finished ahead of Hamilton - but then you wouldn't need to poll the readership to reach that conclusion...& that story has already been told.

[skeeterm5]

MustangGT said:

Apart from the fact that Lewis had the best of the qualifying, by 13 - 9. Most in the second half where the extreme set-up trials were no longer in the equation.

But last time I looked you don’t get points for qualifying. As with every sport that runs over a season the table doesn’t lie.

[MustangGT]

skeeterm5 said:

MustangGT said:

Apart from the fact that Lewis had the best of the qualifying, by 13 - 9. Most in the second half where the extreme set-up trials were no longer in the equation.

But last time I looked you don’t get points for qualifying. As with every sport that runs over a season the table doesn’t lie.

The table simply tells you the points, it does not have any way of telling you what went on during the season. Because of this the table should not be taken as 'gospel'.

For example, a driver finishes second in every race in a 20 race season and scores 360 points. His team-mate finishes first in 14 races, but fails to finish the remaining 6 races because somebody else takes him out. He has only scored 350 points so is behind the team-mate in the table. Yet he is obviously better since he beat his team-mate every time they both finished. Very unlikely I know, but possible.

[HustleRussell]

As long as Hamilton is racing he is a candidate for best British driver. He is British and he's the all-time most successful driver in the world, or at the very least one of an elite few.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

HustleRussell said:

As long as Hamilton is racing he is a candidate for best British driver. He is British and he's the all-time most successful driver in the world, or at the very least one of an elite few.

Quite. Plus, as others have pointed out, this was voted for by Autosport readers so the award is a matter of opinion anyway so any talk of statistics and tables is moot anyway.

[Kevin Cozner]

LP670 said:

2007 had some very suspicious data movement from one team to another also.

Just don't ask Alonso about that as he knows nothing about it.

[Muzzer79]

HustleRussell said:

As long as Hamilton is racing he is a candidate for best British driver. He is British and he's the all-time most successful driver in the world, or at the very least one of an elite few.

It’s British driver of the year, not driver of all time.

If Hamilton has a crap year, he’s very much not a candidate.

But anyway, as pointed out by others, it’s moot as it’s a popularity contest.

[n3il123]

Nice from Lewis