[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by e90335e36m3

Where we agree is that it takes a team to get to where HAM and McLaren have gotten. Regardless, my OPINION is that technology has far outpaced driver talent, largely eliminating the driver as variable compared to the technology itself, at least in McLaren's case. F1 is a technological showcase in every respect, and HAM has been an integral part of developing that technology. Perhaps, HAM is the reason why RB has not caught up to McLaren's technological success. Maybe Verstappen's input is just not good enough to get it over the top.

I would say HAM is the best strategist, he is able to translate driver feedback and apply it to technology. At some point he had to do less with more but not for the better part of the past decade. So to me, that doesn't make you the best driver. Best drivers do more with less. At some point HAM did more with less, but today his experience plus the best technology is what's winning it, not pure talent.

I'm on board with 85 percent of this. I will only ask you this: Do you think his talent is less now than it was when he drove the MP4-24 (2009 season)?

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by racerbruce

-Objectivity begins and ends with empirical data
-The data does not suggest, but documents wins, losses, DNFs, poles, fast laps, laps led

-Subjectivity is variable
-People get subjective data by communicating with others
-They can also collect it by making assumptions and judgments based on communications
-The characteristics of the data can vary from person to person or even change based on how one individual feels at a given moment in time

-Using data, one can now look at and process, dissect, equate and compare F1 driver performance
-Data proves there is only two F1 drivers to achieve seven (7) WDC's
-Equating and comparing F1 driver performance for the period of the last five (5) years* proves HAM has achieved the highest percentage of F1 driver performance

* = data comparison of HAM and VER

Per Merriam-Webster "objectivity" is "lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias".

Hmm...

I think Ham is amazing, but I can't say whether he would beat all else in the same car.

To be clear I am not one of the people who has said his success is only the machinery. You guys are generally ignorant to actual objectivity though.

[e90335e36m3]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

I'm on board with 85 percent of this. I will only ask you this: Do you think his talent is less now than it was when he drove the MP4-24 (2009 season)?

Not sure to be honest. I'm more of a casual observer of F1 since Schumacher left Ferrari. I think that McLaren and Ham just got the recipe down in the last decade, not sure exactly when. It's a testament to both that relatively amateur drivers can be so competitive. If only all cars were McLaren or Williams then F1 would be more interesting. Too much disparity in technology. The entire discussion of car vs driver would be moot if F1 more closely approximated nascar.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

Please show me where I've made assertions of somebody being better than somebody else without evidence?

You're the one doing this. The Hamilton vs Russell comments are a perfect example.

Not at all.

I merely stated that having HAM drive the car gives you strategic options that having a rookie in the car does not. In fact, this is demonstrated quite often in with BOT. HAM preserves tires and runs longer than almost any other driver especially his teammate.

You stated that this is a comparison against RUS. I like RUS and know that he is the future of Mercedes.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by e90335e36m3

Not sure to be honest. I'm more of a casual observer of F1 since Schumacher left Ferrari. I think that McLaren and Ham just got the recipe down in the last decade, not sure exactly when. It's a testament to both that relatively amateur drivers can be so competitive. If only all cars were McLaren or Williams then F1 would be more interesting. Too much disparity in technology. The entire discussion of car vs driver would be moot if F1 more closely approximated nascar.

That is fair. I've been a serious fan since I was really young. Stewart and Hunt were my first fav drivers.

The technology is definitely a huge part but since you were around for the MSC years, even adjusting for the team orders, it wasn't often that the #2s were getting more out of the car than MSC. To me, the almost merging of man and machine is where you get to the art of the sport which is beautiful in a completely different way. HAMs 2018 Singapore lap or MSC pulling out 20 qualifying laps in Magny Cours. These are performances that transcend man and machine if you consider them separately but only occur with perfect harmony between the two. We saw it with SEN and MSC...now we are seeing it with HAM.

[racerbruce]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

Per Merriam-Webster "objectivity" is "lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias".

Hmm...

I think Ham is amazing, but I can't say whether he would beat all else in the same car.

To be clear I am not one of the people who has said his success is only the machinery. You guys are generally ignorant to actual objectivity though.

Hmm...
The dictionary definition clearly defines and supports my basis of objective data. I chose the last five years b/c VER began his F1 career in 2015.

The lower formulas (F3000, F3, F2, etc) are spec-racer series with identically prepared PU's, etc.

HAM excelled in the lower formulas, so your point whether HAM "would beat all else in the same car" is not valid.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by racerbruce

Hmm...
The dictionary definition clearly defines and supports my basis of objective data. I chose the last five years b/c VER began his F1 career in 2015.

The lower formulas (F3000, F3, F2, etc) are spec-racer series with identically prepared PU's, etc.

HAM excelled in the lower formulas, so your point whether HAM "would beat all else in the same car" is not valid.

Nailed it!!!

Nicely stated, Bruce!!

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by racerbruce

Hmm...
The dictionary definition clearly defines and supports my basis of objective data. I chose the last five years b/c VER began his F1 career in 2015.

The lower formulas (F3000, F3, F2, etc) are spec-racer series with identically prepared PU's, etc.

HAM excelled in the lower formulas, so your point whether HAM "would beat all else in the same car" is not valid.

My point was that I can't know if he would beat everyone else in the same car...that's not valid? Oook guy.

You guys clearly employ massive favoritism, thus me letting you in on the plain meaning of objectivity.

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Nailed it!!!

Nicely stated, Bruce!!

On that note, I'll let you guys continue to stroke each other for whatever it is that you're actually doing. Congrats?

[SenorFunkyPants]

I don't think anyone is down playing the performance advantage that the W11 has at the majority of tracks or that Russell did a brilliant job driving the W11 on sunday.
However its a naïve suggestion that one great drive on a short fairly simple track by Russell in any way diminishes Hamiltons career in the lower formula and most especially in F1.
I've been a big fan of Russell for quite a while wondering if his pace in the Williams was as impressive as it seemed...so it was especially gratifying to see him drive so brilliantly in the Mercedes.
Maybe in a couple of years time it will be obvious that Russell does indeed have the same innate talent and skill set that Hamilton has.....or he may yet turn out the same as many other drivers who have appeared in F1 with great promise that was never quite fulfilled.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Bartledoo

My point was that I can't know if he would beat everyone else in the same car...that's not valid? Oook guy.

You guys clearly employ massive favoritism, thus me letting you in on the plain meaning of objectivity.



On that note, I'll let you guys continue to stroke each other for whatever it is that you're actually doing. Congrats?

Objectivity cuts in both directions. As I've stated earlier, you are stacking one data point vs 14 years of performance. This is the definition of bias. In any other dataset this wouldn't even merit commentary. Just like your latter sentence.