Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
You state that this is a standard you personally use, and then give a definition of a GP as being the whole event. I have not seen this officially defined anywhere other than as part of an opinion, and my own view of what is a GP is that it is the race alone.
|
Agree. It's not defined for this poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I defended my choice, and hope that my justification contributes to the discussion rather than being a negative factor, which the response to my post seemed to suggest.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I raised the STR situation in response to post stating that my vote for Ferrari was invalid due to the criteria of being the whole event, not just the race.
It was suggested that Ferrari could not be chosen because they 'failed' in qualifying, yet STR's qualifying was worse than their FP results, so it appears their vote was for race alone - something I was criticised for doing with Ferrari.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
As we have both agreed, we all reach our decisions based on differing viewpoints. I made my choice based on race alone, where the only mistake that affected their result was made by one driver on one corner. Otherwise, the rest of the team was faultless.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I accept that this is a way in which people may choose who to vote for, and respect their opinion in doing so. My own process (and everyone should have their own method/view) is to look at starting positions and then form an opinion on which team either maximised their potential or made the least errors over the course of the race.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
My choice for this event was to look at just the race when making my decisions as to the 'Team of the Grand Prix'. I accept that we all may have differing opinions on the validity of this choice, and respect everyone's opinion in the contrary. What I do not accept freely is being criticised for making this choice, without any solid justification of why I was wrong to do so.
|
I grouped the above together (maybe slightly out of order) as I feel my response is the same for each...
The polls are for fun, they really seem to have no defined rules, no doubt everyone has their own idea as to how it should work and probably think their own is absolutely and clearly the best option (as I do mine!
) I rarely participate to this depth in this type of discussion, but either way wouldn't get too upset with contrary opinions. I occasional get fired up by what other people post on topics that I am more passionate about, but I generally take most anything here with a grain of salt given there is no right or wrong answer given how loosely defined the question is.
I still think Ferrari face planted this weekend. With a tiny bit of luck, Leclerc wouldn't have crashed out and Ferrari might have done MUCH better overall, but in the end it didn't happen that way.
But don't take my opinion to heart. It's not a commentary or criticism on your line of thinking, nor is my opinion more valid than yours!
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
I wonder whether more thought goes into your decisions subconsciously than you care to admit? You very eloquently explained a full method in which you reach your conclusion. I feel that this explanation is only possible because of the consideration with which you make your decision.
|
Absolutely. Actually what I should have said is that spent more time converting my internal process to words and then typing it up than I do coming to a conclusion. I absolutely know that I have an internal process (as described) for how I come to the conclusion. However the values on my internal "score card" are very much subconscious vs. conscious. In the end a team name pops out of my head and if you ask me why I can give you an answer, but not much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
If I was to apply your method, and consider the event as a whole, then Ferrari topped the times in every session of FP and set the fastest Q1 time. Surely worthy of merit?
|
Fair point, and I think their performance... up to the point of qualifying would have been in the positive category. However... along with your thinking of just focusing on the race, all parts of the weekend are not equal. So the race is important, next is qualifying (some may say qualifying is more important... but to finish first, first you must finish... so race results remain very important) and then practice is last. So I would tend to "weight" each part. We may be much closer to each other in our line of thinking than you might imagine, but in the end, I still look at more than I think you do.
Richard