graniteharbor502 said:Ferrari seems to be taking the most aggressive approach. Naturally—with a strategy like that—they’ll either crash and burn or hit the jackpot. I’m betting on the latter, and I expect them to seriously threaten Mercedes' dominance.
My take? Mercedes will bump their performance from 70% to 80% this year, maintaining a comfortable half-second cushion over Ferrari. 👍
They'll just have to deal with the whining when Ferrari grabs three or four wins they'll claim were "earned."
Not at all. It was just amusing to see what people were arguing about in the oldest thread on this subforum—if it had been started yesterday, it would actually be relevant, unlike most of the garbage on the last page 😁
By the way—it’s probably worth reviving a twelve-year-old thread (the final page of this PDF) just so people can see how things used to be. And what we're about to face all over again... 😬
Generally speaking, the specific year you fail matters most—those in my circle who tanked their freshman year rarely even made it to junior year.
As for those who hit a snag during their sophomore year or later (and only once)—there’s honestly no difference between them and the students who breezed through on schedule.
But then again, how did you actually fail? Did you pass most of your credits and just miss the mark on one single class—or whatever the standard is for failing a semester under this credit system 😁—or did you simply fail everything?
And more importantly, why bother switching majors now?
Lewis Hamilton lost roughly 7-8 seconds to Nico Rosberg during his in-lap through the second sector. Regardless—Mercedes decided to play it risky and pulled him into the pits.
neonfox65 said:Man, if I were in Nika's shoes—just for a second—I wouldn't be playing nice. Instead of offering a hand on those stairs, I’d be spitting right in his face, then watching that champagne splash all over the steps.
mellowtiger83 said:From what I can gather, when people talk about driver skill—specifically keeping two different cars with equal power at their optimal RPM—they aren't changing the math. It’s really just a matter of individual talent, track layout, and how the gear ratios are tuned for a specific circuit.
Exactly.
But the actual question was who ends up faster—and the consensus is whoever can adapt to a wider variety of scenarios. In a perfect vacuum, two cars with identical power-to-weight ratios should be neck and neck, but then you factor in the chaos of NASCAR drivers—where neither you nor I would want to be.
If you take the same driver in two different cars—identical horsepower but different torque curves at different RPM ranges—which one wins?
For example: we have an Audi A3 1.8 with 150 hp delivering 250 Nm at 3,000 RPM, versus a Honda Civic 1.6 with 150 hp peaking at 145 Nm at 7,000 RPM. Assuming they weigh the same and share identical suspension setups, which car is faster on a track?
Was Isaac Newton out of his mind? We can hold a poll if you want—let's see what this community actually thinks.🙂
Whichever one has the better driver.😬
Or rather—whichever one the driver can actually rely on.
There is this concept called "Area under the curve"—it’s easiest to visualize using an engine's power curve, where the area beneath that line tells the real story.
Take two engines—for instance, two I've driven quite a bit that are rated at almost identical outputs—the BMW M52b28 and the Toyota 2 ZZ-GE, both sitting right around 190 hp.
Now, once you actually drive them, you start wondering which idiot claimed they were equally powerful. One delivers power across the entire rev range, while the other requires you to scream past 5,500 RPM just to feel alive.
I doubt even a NASCAR car stays in its optimal RPM window all the time—which is exactly why this distinction matters.
Tyler Ross56 said:The folks over at ESPN were claiming there's only Schumacher left with more, and that he's tied with Prost—though I’d take that statistic with a grain of salt.
stormybadger8 said:They’re being objective to the point of insanity...🤦 Did they use the Stars and Stripes as a napkin before scribbling these scores down?🤣
Give me a break. Rosberg actually had a better race than Hamilton... First off, his team absolutely screwed him over with the Safety Car timing. They pulled him into the pits way earlier than Hamilton—way more chaotic traffic than what Lewis dealt with, if I recall correctly. He had to clear Massa, Ricciardo, and whoever else was in front, yet he still managed to close the gap to Hamilton just as fast, if not faster. And more importantly, he started behind Vettel and finished right on Hamilton's tail. So he didn't lose ground from the grid, whereas Hamilton... Plus, I honestly feel like if the race went another 3 or 4 laps, he probably would've overtaken him. Even without the pit lane disaster, I wouldn't be surprised if he caught Lewis...
As for Kimi and all the nonsense he dealt with? Not even worth discussing. Honestly, after the restart, he might have actually driven the best race out of everyone behind the Safety Car... Sure, it makes sense that Vettel stayed ahead because his qualifying and start were miles better than Kimi's, but it wouldn't be a stretch if they'd given them the same rating... But there is absolutely no way in hell Kimi belongs in the same group as those other 7s...
Well, he's had his week—and Schmidt is in Aston Martin too.🕺
