FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Talented drivers can move to another team, legacy teams can lose their title sponsor and have their worst season in 30 years all because of poor management decisions.

I think though we're all in agreement than Ron coming back is a very good sign.

[CookinFlat6]

Drivers come and go, teams can last for ever

Some teams can last for ever. The majority of F1 teams have died. Supporters also come and go in generations

However for certain periods through F1 history certain drivers are bigger than certain teams

F1 history is more about those drivers than about the teams.

The man on the street today has heard of Fangio, Senna, Lewis, but would be hard pressed to mention Brabham, Tyrell or Williams

end off

[bud]

I care little for the man on the street, someone who knows F1 knows Williams brabham and tyrell, those folk are worth the time of day.

[CookinFlat6]

You are a purist, as we all are to spend time talking F1 on forums

However for commercial success, as in 'big in Japan' without the public, its just a matter of a big fish in a small pond.

this is why F1 needs widening global audiences, which is why McLaren need sponsors and is why Lewis has xix as his agent

Big = followers = cash money

ergo, Lewis is bigger than an F1 team, and many many followers as well as a top engineer followed him when he moved team

dem der are the facts

[Hammer278]

Drivers come and go, teams can last for ever

Tell that to Lotus lol

[sagi58]

Sagi58, you have just put up a sound argument about the inadequacy of measuring methods for who is more popular, Lewis or a team. So we are debating something, which is all good

A bit different from a one line dismissal of any debate on 'delusional' grounds

Thanks... I think?

By the way, guess who usually jump on statistics to "prove" their point?
The "delusional"!!

(( You set that one up just so beautifully!! ))

[Hammer278]

Why can't statistics be used as an assist to prove one's point? Kindly enlighten me.

For example I say Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver of all time and you say 'stfu that's nonsense'. And I come back with pls point me to another driver with 7x WDCs or more....won't that be legit in proving my point?

[sagi58]

Many casual observers will have heard of Hamilton more than most other teams. And so in the absence of any further proof i think its safe to say that the argument that Lewis is bigger than an F1 team in terms of fans and followers has been proven

TODAY, MOST casual observers will have heard of Schumi more than anyone or anything else related to F1!!
Taking your line of argument, """""""I think it's safe to say that Schumi is bigger than F1"""""""!!

[sagi58]

Or, Lewis moved to Mercedes for financial incentive, career progression, better family life and so did Lowe.

[sagi58]

Why can't statistics be used as an assist to prove one's point? Kindly enlighten me.

For example I say Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver of all time and you say 'stfu that's nonsense'. And I come back with pls point me to another driver with 7x WDCs or more....won't that be legit in proving my point?

Personally, I did not mean that you can't use statistics to prove your point!
Rather that statistics can be used manipulated to prove your point.

[Hammer278]

No one can pinpoint anyone's core motivations unless you know them personally....but I'd say Lowe moved because of Wolff's invitation and they're good friends. Plus the fact that Lowe knew he was in a fast sinking ship and looked for a way out. Lewis was a bonus, a good driver to work with so why not.

Why can't statistics be used as an assist to prove one's point? Kindly enlighten me.

For example I say Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver of all time and you say 'stfu that's nonsense'. And I come back with pls point me to another driver with 7x WDCs or more....won't that be legit in proving my point?

Personally, I did not mean that you can't use statistics to prove your point!
Rather that statistics can be used manipulated to prove your point.

So what stats did Cookin manipulate?

[sagi58]

No one can pinpoint anyone's core motivations unless you know them personally....but I'd say Lowe moved because of Wolff's invitation and they're good friends. Plus the fact that Lowe knew he was in a fast sinking ship and looked for a way out. Lewis was a bonus, a good driver to work with so why not.

Nicely presented!!

[sagi58]

No one can pinpoint anyone's core motivations unless you know them personally....but I'd say Lowe moved because of Wolff's invitation and they're good friends. Plus the fact that Lowe knew he was in a fast sinking ship and looked for a way out. Lewis was a bonus, a good driver to work with so why not.

Why can't statistics be used as an assist to prove one's point? Kindly enlighten me.

For example I say Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver of all time and you say 'stfu that's nonsense'. And I come back with pls point me to another driver with 7x WDCs or more....won't that be legit in proving my point?

Personally, I did not mean that you can't use statistics to prove your point!
Rather that statistics can be used manipulated to prove your point.

So what stats did Cookin manipulate?

It wasn't that he manipulated them, so much as that he presented them without taking into consideration the fact that not everyone on the face of the universe tweets!!
In not using those statistics, he presented a biased set of numbers that suggest that Hamilton is """the""" only F1 driver anyone follows.

[CookinFlat6]

Sagi58, Stats are only needed to persuade the more opiated and subjective F1 followers or the unimaginative

Debate is easy to understand, I propose a motion, you agree or disagree, then you say why you disagree and I am then obliged to provide more evidence or facts etc, you then go silent or you counter with facts or evidence that support your continued opposition

At some point in future, depending how interesting the debate was, one of us runs out of steam and yields to a stronger argument. Of course for many there is the argumentum ad hominem option to resort to discrediting the opponent and not his case.

Worst of all though is when someone opposes a notion and then withdraws without any providing a counter argument to avoid getting roughed up

[CookinFlat6]

No one can pinpoint anyone's core motivations unless you know them personally....but I'd say Lowe moved because of Wolff's invitation and they're good friends. Plus the fact that Lowe knew he was in a fast sinking ship and looked for a way out. Lewis was a bonus, a good driver to work with so why not.

Why can't statistics be used as an assist to prove one's point? Kindly enlighten me.

For example I say Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver of all time and you say 'stfu that's nonsense'. And I come back with pls point me to another driver with 7x WDCs or more....won't that be legit in proving my point?

Personally, I did not mean that you can't use statistics to prove your point!
Rather that statistics can be used manipulated to prove your point.

So what stats did Cookin manipulate?

It wasn't that he manipulated them, so much as that he presented them without taking into consideration the fact that not everyone on the face of the universe tweets!!
In not using those statistics, he presented a biased set of numbers that suggest that Hamilton is """the""" only F1 driver anyone follows.

Ok Sagi58, I have provided a link to stats about every single driver and team on the grid wrt media following. You obviously didn't read it . Try reading it and then return with a counter argument that backs up the case for Lewis not being more popular and followed and of more interest to more fans than at least one F1 team

We can all have a different idea of why things happened, we can all put forward our opinions. But to counter or dismiss anothers opinions you need to have a reason, evidence or facts to the contrary.
Otherwise it becomes my opinion vs your opinion, eventually leading to who can shout loudest. This is fairly uncivilised. Much better to accept someone elses opinion as just as valid as yours and to challenge them only if you are prepared to bring a proper argument backed up by more than 'this is my opinion so it must be right'

So you dont agree that Lewis is bigger than a team in terms of followers and interest, then please explain why using evidence or facts, just saying 'because I dont think so' is primitive. Ok so not everyone tweets, what is your evidence that out of those that dont tweet etc Lewis is still not more popular than a whole F1 team?

Showtime Sagi58, take your time do it right