FORUMula1.com

[1Lemon]

So just by going on what we know of each drivers ability the conclusion must be that the Ferrari was a better car judging by what the weaker driver got out of it

So Kimi and Heikki are both two drivers with the same skill set? They are both as weak as eachother? One is a WDC the other isn't, when one drove a Lotus he was able to win races, the other didn't score a single point in literally the same car.

This is all based on opinion of course, as is this entire list; but it always seems stats and figures mean so much to both of you, I thought I'd speak your language.

[Hammer278]

Not going to even get into that first statement which makes no sense and is fundamentally contradictory "If you believe in your post you shouldn't argue it because I'm clearly right"

But anyway, I'm saying that in 2008, Kimi/Massa was a far more powerful pairing than Heikki/Hammy and if Heikki was getting the same results as either Kimi or Massa then McLaren would have most likely pipped the WCC too. That's not to put down what Hamilton did that day, it was mighty impressive, but I don't think it deserved to be so high up the "Greatest victory" list, but there we go that's what I think.

I don't even get why you waste time comparing the 'pairing'. The FACT is that McLaren did not win the WCC that year, which is the basis of my argument.

If you're going to talk about drivers' teammates overperforming/underperforming just to judge great victories, we're wasting time. My question to you is simple, WAS the McLaren that year DOMINANT AKA Redbull's level relative to competition the past 3 years?

If the answer is NO, that would answer your ridiculous question "So are 95% of Vettel's victories great victories???" You brought Vettel (in a different year, in a different car which we can all agree was dominant) into this, and thus my reply. As I said much earlier, I judge great victories in a certain way and others might have their own ways which is cool. But when you ask questions like "Vettel's victories?? Heikki underperformed so they didn't win the WCC blah blah" it's just annoying since you're bringing other immeasurable factors into account.

As myownalias said, great victories are subjective. I asked you how you define great victories out of curiosity, and explained my way. I wasn't even contesting your points, it was a simple question. Please re-read our conversation since my first question and you'll see what I mean.

[CookinFlat6]

So just by going on what we know of each drivers ability the conclusion must be that the Ferrari was a better car judging by what the weaker driver got out of it

So Kimi and Heikki are both two drivers with the same skill set? They are both as weak as eachother? One is a WDC the other isn't, when one drove a Lotus he was able to win races, the other didn't score a single point in literally the same car.

This is all based on opinion of course, as is this entire list; but it always seems stats and figures mean so much to both of you, I thought I'd speak your language.

Uh

Did you read my post? What stats and figures - the ones available have suggest Ferrari were the best team - they won the WCC
You then said apart from those stats that Heikki was a weak teammate and should have got more out of the car resulting in Maca winning the WDC right?
So Heikki underperformed in a good Macca?
So did Kimi, and we know Kimi is much better than Massa and (Heikki)
Therefore using your argument of Hiekki a weak teammate we can also say that if Kimi had not had an off season and driven to his potential (much better than Massa) then Ferrari would have scored many many more points
Massa the weaker teammate scored x points so the car was so good, Kimi an even better driver should have scored 2x points
The Ferrari was very good but Kimi underperformed
The Macca was not as good and Lewis over performed

simples

[1Lemon]

The Ferrari was very good but Kimi underperformed
The Macca was not as good and Lewis over performed

In your opinion.

I'm gonna' clarify something now, I'm not detracting from Lewis's drive (God forbid) it was impressive, but I feel that it shouldn't be as high as 3rd on a top 10 McLaren-Merc victory list; top 10? Yeah I don't see why that shouldn't be in the top 10, but that race 3rd and Spa 2000 in 5th? It just seems odd to me.

Also Hammer you never directly asked what I quantify a 'great' victory as; I was simply saying that I feel races where one person just pulls away, although always a fantastic achievement, isn't something I'd put on a list of 'great' victories. And as MOA said and you reiterated, they are subjective points so stating

Greatest victories are won by pure talent and tenacity

and

It's not hard to get.

isn't exactly leaving it open to subjective interpretation.

[Hammer278]

Also Hammer you never directly asked what I quantify a 'great' victory as; I was simply saying that I feel races where one person just pulls away, although always a fantastic achievement, isn't something I'd put on a list of 'great' victories. And as MOA said and you reiterated, they are subjective points so stating

Greatest victories are won by pure talent and tenacity

and

It's not hard to get.

isn't exactly leaving it open to subjective interpretation.

I think we found the root cause, your reading comprehension skills might need work. I specifically said "Define greatest victories". Do you need a question mark there to understand that I'm asking a question?

And;

Greatest victories are won by pure talent and tenacity

This is how I see it.

It's not hard to get.

It should not be hard to understand HOW I SEE IT.

[1Lemon]

No I get that's how you see it. But you never asked how I see it, which is something you claim to have done.

Maybe you're writing skills need a bit of touching up, maybe we can take a class together.

[Hammer278]

Lemonade.... what does 'define greatest victories' mean? It means, define them. Nothing wrong about being curious to see your definition is there.

Maybe you'rewriting skills need a bit of touching up, maybe we can take a class together.

Lol yes we should take a class, but you'll be the one taking notes.

[1Lemon]

Lemonade.... what does 'define greatest victories' mean? It means, define them. Nothing wrong about being curious to see your definition is there.

Maybe you'rewriting skills need a bit of touching up, maybe we can take a class together.

Lol yes we should take a class, but you'll be the one taking notes.

Maybe predictive text needs to take a class in grammar.

[CookinFlat6]

Blaming ones equipment is usually the admittance of a lost argument

[1Lemon]

Blaming ones equipment is usually the admittance of a lost argument

Or I just couldn't be bothered any more.

[Hammer278]

Blaming ones equipment is usually the admittance of a lost argument

Or I just couldn't be bothered any more.

[CookinFlat6]

Great review of the P1 on Top Gear just now. Clarkson could find no faults and was particularly astounded by the level of detail. Says its a new episode in the history of the car, literally ahead in time of anything else thats ever been made including the Veyron

Ron has really gone and done it this time. The Lewis Hamilton of supercars

The competitors are the LaFerrari but mainly the Porsche 918

Clarkson says he will change his name by deed poll to Jennifer if the Porsche can beat the P1 round the TG track (P1 is rear wheel drive)

[operaman]

Interesting (somewhat artistic) video of the P1 on youtube. Some debate as to the legitimacy of the best lap time. Supposedly an upcoming episode of Top Gear will feature both the Porsche and the McLaren in a shootout.

[1Lemon]

Interesting (somewhat artistic) video of the P1 on youtube. Some debate as to the legitimacy of the best lap time. Supposedly an upcoming episode of Top Gear will feature both the Porsche and the McLaren in a shootout.

And the new Ferrari

[Jabberwocky]

Did anyone else cringe at the special tyres by pirelli in the top gear review

Sent using NCC-1701