FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Well knowing what I know about Mark Hughes, I'll take his word as a technical expert over yours(about whom I know nothing) No disrespect implied there. You are wrong on some facts. The alterations were on the car for Silverston and Heikki could not run with them so needed additions on the car.
I accept something of what you said in your last paragraph about the way the car developped AFTER those changes written about in that article.It developped in a way that Lewis could drive more easily than Heikki. Also the low grip option tyres are handled better by Lewis than other drivers. Next year with the stickier tyres Heikki may be closer. Will post article on this when I can find it, late for work now!

[mattF1]

Well knowing what I know about Mark Hughes, I'll take his word as a technical expert over yours(about whom I know nothing) No disrespect implied there. You are wrong on some facts. The alterations were on the car for Silverston and Heikki could not run with them so needed additions on the car.
I accept something of what you said in your last paragraph about the way the car developped AFTER those changes written about in that article.It developped in a way that Lewis could drive more easily than Heikki. Also the low grip option tyres are handled better by Lewis than other drivers. Next year with the stickier tyres Heikki may be closer. Will post article on this when I can find it, late for work now!

Well you won't have to take his word over mine, because I was agreeing with him, except for the part where he says "it went totally against Hamilton's preferred driving style". He is slightly exaggerating, instead of saying "he had to modify his driving style by turning easier into corners." I can understand why a journalist would do that, it adds drama to the story, but in so doing it gives a somewhat false impression of the events, which then leads to readers like you who apparently understand it to mean "McLaren made a conscious effort to develop the car in a direction that was diametrically opposite to Lewis' style", which is completely wrong. It wasn't diametrically opposite. He didn't have to completely change his driving style, only modify it.

He also says that "Kovalainen by contrast was not yet at ease with it", and didn't use the same updates in Silverstone nor Hockenheim. So he agrees with the other article that Kovalainen didn't use them until Hungary, which Kovalainen himself confirmed. So I don't see a problem there either. The issue Kovalainen had in Silverstone was the same he had in Canada, and it had to do with his driving style and the tyres, and not about adapting to new parts. Nor did Hughes ever claim that, the only one who did was you.

[Rorschach]

Well knowing what I know about Mark Hughes, I'll take his word as a technical expert over yours(about whom I know nothing) No disrespect implied there. You are wrong on some facts. The alterations were on the car for Silverston and Heikki could not run with them so needed additions on the car.
I accept something of what you said in your last paragraph about the way the car developped AFTER those changes written about in that article.It developped in a way that Lewis could drive more easily than Heikki. Also the low grip option tyres are handled better by Lewis than other drivers. Next year with the stickier tyres Heikki may be closer. Will post article on this when I can find it, late for work now!

Well you won't have to take his word over mine, because I was agreeing with him, except for the part where he says "it went totally against Hamilton's preferred driving style". He is slightly exaggerating, instead of saying "he had to modify his driving style by turning easier into corners." I can understand why a journalist would do that, it adds drama to the story, but in so doing it gives a somewhat false impression of the events, which then leads to readers like you who apparently understand it to mean "McLaren made a conscious effort to develop the car in a direction that was diametrically opposite to Lewis' style", which is completely wrong. It wasn't diametrically opposite. He didn't have to completely change his driving style, only modify it.

He also says that "Kovalainen by contrast was not yet at ease with it", and didn't use the same updates in Silverstone nor Hockenheim. So he agrees with the other article that Kovalainen didn't use them until Hungary, which Kovalainen himself confirmed. So I don't see a problem there either. The issue Kovalainen had in Silverstone was the same he had in Canada, and it had to do with his driving style and the tyres, and not about adapting to new parts. Nor did Hughes ever claim that, the only one who did was you.

But it does go against his driving style. He's not a smooth Bunsen type. He punches the thing into corners. Everything else is semantics.

[mattF1]

But it does go against his driving style. He's not a smooth Bunsen type. He punches the thing into corners. Everything else is semantics.

Yes, like I said he modified his driving style, but I'd claim there's a world of difference between "McLaren made a conscious effort to develop the car in a direction that was diametrically opposite to Lewis' style" and "McLaren changed the aerodynamic setup so Hamilton had to modify his driving style by turning easier into corners." Sounds a lot more than semantics to me.

Especially when a claim like that is used to reason that they put the drivers in simulators to adapt their driving to the new car. lewis adapted Heiki didnt(and lewis was further away to start with!!) This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and leiws did well. heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developped.

According to racechick Lewis adapted Heikki didnt - (completely false - Heikki adapted once he got the simulator time), Lewis was further away to start with - (completely false - Lewis only had to slightly modify his driving, Heikki had to change his completely different driving style to match Lewis), This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and Lewis did well. - (completely false - Kovalainen had problems in Silverstone with the tyres, because of his own driving style, which he was still using), Heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developed - (completely false - Heikki called the developments a step in the right direction, and adapted to them - once he got the time to test them before Hungary).

Not a single thing in her claims was true. I'd say that's far beyond semantics.

[bud]

Heikki did badly at Silverstone? he got pole position!!!!

[mattF1]

Heikki did badly at Silverstone? he got pole position!!!!

He did great qualifying in the dry and driving a couple of laps, but in the race in low grip conditions in the wet his tyres were degraded after a few laps. Scroll up a few posts and you'll catch up.

[bud]

ive read it mate, ive actually passed you! you see what has wet weather conditions got to do with the car development? The teams developments all revolve around dry running so using the Wet Silverstone race as any kind of judgement for Heikki is invalid. For in the dry running and that is the LONG RUNS on friday Heikki had the pace on Lewis.

learn some more about F1 youll catch up

[mattF1]

ive read it mate, ive actually passed you! you see what has wet weather conditions got to do with the car development? The teams developments all revolve around dry running so using the Wet Silverstone race as any kind of judgement for Heikki is invalid. For in the dry running and that is the LONG RUNS on friday Heikki had the pace on Lewis.

learn some more about F1 youll catch up

Now you've completely lost me. What does car development have to do with Kovalainen's driving style causing the tyres to degrade much more rapidly than for Lewis, whether it's dry or wet? And how does learning more about F1 make me understand that?

You were saying Heikki didn't have any problems in Silverstone based on his qualifying. I was pointing out in the race he did have big problems with tyre degradation, he even said so himself. Didn't you see him spinning out on the track. The same thing happened in Canada. Now how does car development come into this, other than what they did later to fix it?

[darwin dali]

The teams developments all revolve around dry running so using the Wet Silverstone race as any kind of judgement for Heikki is invalid.

Hope you apply that kind of logic also to judge FM

[racechick]

But it does go against his driving style. He's not a smooth Bunsen type. He punches the thing into corners. Everything else is semantics.

Yes, like I said he modified his driving style, but I'd claim there's a world of difference between "McLaren made a conscious effort to develop the car in a direction that was diametrically opposite to Lewis' style" and "McLaren changed the aerodynamic setup so Hamilton had to modify his driving style by turning easier into corners." Sounds a lot more than semantics to me.

Especially when a claim like that is used to reason that they put the drivers in simulators to adapt their driving to the new car. lewis adapted Heiki didnt(and lewis was further away to start with!!) This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and leiws did well. heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developped.

According to racechick Lewis adapted Heikki didnt - (completely false - Heikki adapted once he got the simulator time), Lewis was further away to start with - (completely false - Lewis only had to slightly modify his driving, Heikki had to change his completely different driving style to match Lewis), This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and Lewis did well. - (completely false - Kovalainen had problems in Silverstone with the tyres, because of his own driving style, which he was still using), Heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developed - (completely false - Heikki called the developments a step in the right direction, and adapted to them - once he got the time to test them before Hungary).

Not a single thing in her claims was true. I'd say that's far beyond semantics.

So whats your point here? You agree with most of the Hughes article but at the same time say " not a single thing in her claim was true".

[deMuRe]

He is capable of doing it but Lewis is the number one driver there no matter what Ron Dennis says to the press

Another Coulthard-Hakkinen esque situation...

When I read the thread title my first thought was DC saying so many times, "This is my year".

Agree with 8-Ball, Kovi will be allowed to go as fast as possible, without upsetting Hamilton...

[mattF1]

But it does go against his driving style. He's not a smooth Bunsen type. He punches the thing into corners. Everything else is semantics.

Yes, like I said he modified his driving style, but I'd claim there's a world of difference between "McLaren made a conscious effort to develop the car in a direction that was diametrically opposite to Lewis' style" and "McLaren changed the aerodynamic setup so Hamilton had to modify his driving style by turning easier into corners." Sounds a lot more than semantics to me.

Especially when a claim like that is used to reason that they put the drivers in simulators to adapt their driving to the new car. lewis adapted Heiki didnt(and lewis was further away to start with!!) This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and leiws did well. heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developped.

According to racechick Lewis adapted Heikki didnt - (completely false - Heikki adapted once he got the simulator time), Lewis was further away to start with - (completely false - Lewis only had to slightly modify his driving, Heikki had to change his completely different driving style to match Lewis), This is why Heikki did so badly at Silverstone and Lewis did well. - (completely false - Kovalainen had problems in Silverstone with the tyres, because of his own driving style, which he was still using), Heikki couldnt cope with the way the car had developed - (completely false - Heikki called the developments a step in the right direction, and adapted to them - once he got the time to test them before Hungary).

Not a single thing in her claims was true. I'd say that's far beyond semantics.

So whats your point here? You agree with most of the Hughes article but at the same time say " not a single thing in her claim was true".

Didn't you just quote the post where I already answered that question?

I agree with Hughes' article, not with the opinions you came up with based on it. You completely misrepresented what he wrote, coming up with claims Hughes never said, and which are not true.

[racechick]

Then you've misunderstood what I said.

[racechick]

He is capable of doing it but Lewis is the number one driver there no matter what Ron Dennis says to the press

Another Coulthard-Hakkinen esque situation...

When I read the thread title my first thought was DC saying so many times, "This is my year".

Agree with 8-Ball, Kovi will be allowed to go as fast as possible, without upsetting Hamilton...

Hamilton will not react as Alonso did to a challenge from within the team, he will just be more determined to be faster. Which will be good for the team all round. Kovi should go better next year , the stickier tyres will suit him better so they should be closer.

[KyrosV]

I dont think Kovi is up to it personally, Hes a quickfix #2 driver