Quote:
Originally Posted by M5theonlyone
^ I'm sure I'm more a fan than you give credit for and I do give praise where it's due. If it was as clear cut as you perceive then indeed it would be more shall we say fair.
Again I go back to what I've been saying all along largely ignored that Merc have always had the 2-3 odd years advantage with the hybrid in pace and tractability as they knew it was coming while the others didn't.
In the meantime in the quest for fairness I think it's reasonable to make suggestions to make the racing more competitive for others rather than having a 'one man show' (which has been going on for far too long) most of the time with an obviously subserviant teammate making the racing for HAM a cakewalk.
Thanks.
|
Formula One is the ultimate meritocracy. You build a fast car and combine it with a good driver and you win races. Combine a fast car with a great driver and you have dominance. This isn't the fault of HAM and Mercedes any more than it is the fault of the valedictorian of a class that someone flunked out of school. This is faulty reasoning.
And remember, without HAM, Ferrari wins the WDC and WCC in 2017 and 2018. The prizes were there for the taking with Mercedes behind much of the season.
Why don't you spend time savaging Red Bull, Christian Horner, Helmut Marko, Adrian Newey and Dieter Mateschitz about their lack of vision, horrible performance, and inability to manage drivers? Your time would be better spent trying to IMPROVE their performance rather than tearing those down who are successful.
Edit: The reason for the performance of the Mercedes engine being so extreme compared to the others is that they employed a fundamentally different turbocharger configuration which was radical and non-traditional. Please show me, with proof, that they had a 2-3 year head start.