The same reason I think Verstappen should be considered amongst the "greats"; because watching him drive over the years, you get the feeling he's getting more out of the car he's driving than he should. The overriding memory of Vettel driving is that as soon as he comes up against a challenger, he comes off second best. This is purely subjective. What I asked SKY was why he thought the CAR was slower, which is an entirely different question to who is or is not a great driver.
There was no loaded question. I wasn't giving an opinion one way or another. I just wanted to know why on that particular day, without knowing anything about set-up of the cars, did he think the Red Bull was inferior to the McLarens.
Sunny's response, with actual data, showed he strung together his best sectors for the lap that mattered, whereas Piastri and Norris didn't. That goes some way to demonstrating the Red Bull shouldn't have been on pole, and it was Max that made the difference. SKY's response was to say "ask anybody in the pit lane", which has nothing to do with the question and seems like an answer to a question nobody was asking. It's possible that Max could be the best driver AND also in the fastest car in that particular qualifying set-up.
Got to say man, I never cease to be susprissed by your hability to find aurguments with other people. Really.
I asked you why you thought the Red Bull was inferior. It wasn't a loaded question. There was no motive. Sunny was able to give me an answer that didn't turn into an argument.
Contradicting and funny, cause when Sunny has came up with the data, it seems like it does not favor your point.
I don't have a "point". You made a statement and I wondered how you got there. Sunny replied with an argument that backed up the idea that Max outperformed Piastri and Norris, and I agreed. No argument. You were unable to do that.
The reasons tend to be always quite similar. You mention Vettel vs Alonso. I agree. Why? Cause I have seen Alonso many, many times, do things with a certain car that other drivers do not seem able to do. Can't say the same about Vettel. Someone who got beaten by Ricciardo during the only season they spent together in RB, went to Ferrari and got beaten by the then rookie Leclerc and then run away to AM to get quite close to Stroll, who is not going to be remembered as a great driver, let's be honest. This is a clear pattern, because all those many variables you mention, can affect someone in one lap, one race, one championship. Not during several years.
Vettel was winning strongly while Hamilton achieved nothing in McLaren and then his first season in MB. I never thought Vettel was the better pilot. Not once. The difference is some drivers only win with the best car. Others are able to win or surprise with the second, the third or the fourth car.
Debating about this sounds just like arguing for the sake of it.
You're pretty much agreeing with everything I'm saying, yet because you're in "fight" mode you're not realising it.
Let me try one more time to make myself clear, and this time I will reword my initial question:
"What was it about that particular qualifying session makes you think the Red Bull was an inferior car?" Note, this has nothing to do with Max being, or not being, the best driver. It's about the car. Just saying "because Max is the best driver on the grid" isn't relevant; he can be both in the fastest car and the best driver at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The data Sunny produced does demonstrate that Max drove the best when it mattered, and Piastri and Norris underperformed, which again, does suggest the Red Bull should be slower than the McLarens. You could have said similar, but you didn't. What you replied with was a "feeling".
I guess I was hoping for something tangiable to back up the idea that the Red Bull was slower than the McLarens. The data shows it. Unfortunately, you didn't provide the data. Instead your reasoning seemed to be "because Max was driving", which doesn't objectively tell us anything.
