>>150716060
>"Hyperbole aside" your whole claim gets reduced to what?
To >>150715543, which you claimed was cherry picked, and thought best to ignore.
>That's trivial.
Not by the slightest, the current cars are extremely reliable in comparison, so it, along with reliability between manufacturers not being universal, becomes a valid argument.
>in front of everyone else over a whole season consistenty. Your claims were outlandish
Just open wikipedia bro. It's not that hard.
>b-b-b-b-but they're only 1 lap down!! that's not the same as 10 laps down!!! waaaah!!
kek, this is your stance now
>They are most definitely better in that one regard. And they're below him in the list, not above.
KEK you still haven't managed to figure what "above" means. Sometimes smaller number is better :^)
>Now, sure, we can debate whether that one trait (getting a podium) is worthwhile
You sure put a lot of value on it since you claimed that Antonelli exhibits this super sikrit talent for snatching podiums that nobody else has that has nothing to do with scoring more points consistently than the other guy.
>Why does that matter in regards to anything we're discussing here
because it means your car is the fastest, so it SHOULD have 2 cars on podium in the ideal situation. not 1 or 0
>A car does not need to win to be a strong car
You're the one who said this bro, I said that "mercedes won because it was a strong car" and then you went "nu-uh ferrari's strong too", so clearly you understand what my criteria for "strong" means here.
>True. But irrelevant.
How? Are you okay?
>They had the chance to both be on the podium.
They were running P10 and P8 on the final stint, on a track with hardly any overtaking opportunities. Dare I challenge your expertise on the matters of racing on this occasion?
>>150716076
>I quite literally did not
You did. Or did you think that calling my challenge of your retardation "trolling" was it? Why is snatching a podium some esoteric skill only Antonelli has?