TomTom94
Well-Known Member
I figured you'd say that, to which I say: 2010? Webber and Vettel were fighting up until the final race; Hamilton and Alonso weren't far off in terms of pace either.
Lets settle it democratically - Best Looking Car on the Grid This Year
- Thread starter Bob Bobbinz
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I figured you'd say that, to which I say: 2010? Webber and Vettel were fighting up until the final race; Hamilton and Alonso weren't far off in terms of pace either.
If the Mclaren, Red Bull and Ferrari and about equal pace then yes Button and Hamilton will be taking points off each other, but they will also be taking points of Vettel and Alonso, and Alonso will be taking points off Button and Vettel. Basically they will all be taking points off each other so it does not matter that much if it is from a team mate or another rival in a different car. The only time is would matter is if the Mclaren were distinctly only good on a certain type of circuit and not so good another type of circuit.
Oh, I see!
I can't say that I've ever felt the need to do that (not because I'm Casanova or anything, I just prefer to cut my losses and settle for burger and chips followed by the sobering walk home).
He's got a very valid point, last season both their drivers took points off each other and Button even took his team-mate out at one race. How many points did Webber take from Vettel?
If you'd had Massa as Button's team-mate last season Button might have been WDC, someone do the maths........
TomTom94
Well-Known Member
I don't buy this argument. Button still managed to come second, beating Webber, who had the same car as Vettel, the same RB7 that was supposedly dominant, and Alonso, who HAD Massa as his team-mate.
My point being that BECAUSE McLaren have two very good, fairly equal drivers it hinders their chances of getting the drivers title.
I'm not saying Button (or Hamilton) could have been champions with lesser team-mates, but they would certainly have scored more points.
Alonso and Vettel lost virtually no points to their team-mates in comparison. It's something interesting to consider in any case.
I'm not saying Button (or Hamilton) could have been champions with lesser team-mates, but they would certainly have scored more points.
Alonso and Vettel lost virtually no points to their team-mates in comparison. It's something interesting to consider in any case.
I think the point David is making is that Button and Hamilton kept on finishing ahead of each other, whereas this is far less the case with Red Bull and Ferrari. (I'm trying to remember any occasion in fact. Did it happen at all last season?). The thing is that when one's team mate is ahead in addition to whoever else might be ahead, it always deprives one of the points one would have got for being another place further up. Vettel and Alonso, for whatever reason, were not deprived of points by their respective team-mates (so far as I can recall).
David does have a point.
TomTom94
Well-Known Member
It's a fair point but I really dislike it, both in terms of the spectacle of F1 and the points I've mentioned.
Also how DID this topic end up the way it did?
Also how DID this topic end up the way it did?
It's not because of Hamilton and Button being 'equal' drivers. The argument is that a team that treats both drivers with complete equivalence will struggle in the WDC to beat a team that favours one of its drivers over the other. 2007 backed this up: if Hamilton had deferred to Alonso in all those races in which he finished one place ahead then Raikkonen wouldn't have sneaked in and snatched the WDC by a single point. Even so, it's a big risk to put all your efforts into one driver - if he (and your car) can't beat all the other teams' drivers then it's irrelevant which driver you favour. Also, your drivers have to be relatively well matched in order for one to move over to maximise the other's points haul - they can't do that if they're not line astern. Having two decent drivers will increase the team's chances in the WCC, too. That's all from the team's perspective, though. From the driver's point of view it makes no difference whether your teammate's as good as you: you have to beat everyone to win the WDC.
Hamilton may have deprived Button of points last season but Button still finished ahead of Alonso, who wiped the floor with Massa. There are too many variables to claim one way is certainly better than the other. If 2007 proved one thing then 2010 proved the complete opposite. OK, Button was out of contention by Abu Dhabi but going into the penultimate race two teams had two drivers who could have won the WDC and one of those teams did win it.
Hamilton may have deprived Button of points last season but Button still finished ahead of Alonso, who wiped the floor with Massa. There are too many variables to claim one way is certainly better than the other. If 2007 proved one thing then 2010 proved the complete opposite. OK, Button was out of contention by Abu Dhabi but going into the penultimate race two teams had two drivers who could have won the WDC and one of those teams did win it.
TomTom94
Well-Known Member
2007 Mclaren only lost because of Hamilton's inexperience combined with Alonso's badly-timed retirement in Japan and the Ferrari's resurgence near the end of the season.
It's my opinion that having two well-matched drivers, especially if they are both quality, makes the most sense, even if it does require you to break the bank. It means you can cut wait longer before throwing your effort behind one or the other, it means you don't run the risk of nominating the inferior candidate... and if they're taking points off each other, they're still taking points off their rivals as well.
It's my opinion that having two well-matched drivers, especially if they are both quality, makes the most sense, even if it does require you to break the bank. It means you can cut wait longer before throwing your effort behind one or the other, it means you don't run the risk of nominating the inferior candidate... and if they're taking points off each other, they're still taking points off their rivals as well.
Exactly: too many variables. If this and because that.
I prefer to see a team behind both drivers, too - mainly because it's devilishly exciting to watch teammates going hammer and tongs at each other in equal machinery. It's so disappointing to watch a driver chase down and catch his teammate and then hold station to the end of the race.
I also prefer to see a team backing both drivers. Apart from anything else, it adds a perspective for an audience which does not exist when a team's efforts are orchestrated, especially if this occurs very early in the season as was the case with Schumacher even when he was behind after the odd poor start to a season!!
Nonetheless, it takes courage for a team to consistently allow its drivers to battle it out on track. Very few do this in F1 and McLaren are the clearest example (which I applaud).
What happened here? 
To bring this back on track... The McLaren is sexeh and sem-man uses the 2am rule.
To bring this back on track... The McLaren is sexeh and sem-man uses the 2am rule.
You're right, there's too many variables. Last year, the McLaren was clearly better than the Ferrari, which is the main reason Button finished ahead of Alonso. Hamilton failed to finish too many times and Massa was generally poor.
Regarding the best looking car, I'd have to go with the McLaren until the new nose grows on me. At this stage that's a long way off happening.
Sent from my HTC Sensation XE with Beats Audio using Tapatalk
There have been a few new members joining recently. Can I add my welcome to those aimed at DavidJW and also welcome MikeyC and now Basil3. They seem to speak a lot of sense too. I like anyone who begins a reply to one of my posts with, "you're right." 
Welcome from me too. More sense is always welcome.