I don't particularly want to fight about the oscar data article, but I see what the other person is saying? like, if the article was just framed as "oh, it's interesting to see why oscar was struggling" then it was fine, it served its purpose. But it's framed as "here's why it can't be team bias", so surely it would make sense to show how it can't be? because I agree with you that there isn't any bias, but simply showing why Oscar loses time doesn't show that? which is why that person continues to say there may be bias
and i think thats the point of the rb comparison? not that mclaren and rb are anything alike, just to point that, in rb's case, there very much was bias and also the same points could be made about perez's driving that the article made about oscars?
like, obv there isn't any bias, but the article would probably have had more weight if it like, talked about all the ways mclaren have helped oscar. instead of just highlighting how his driving style doesn't work at certain tracks
Hi anon. I'm not looking to fight either, I'm just calling out the fact that this "bias" discourse is damaging to everyone, especially the people at McLaren, cos what it implies is that they aren't doing their job.
First, the argument was "something is wrong with Oscar's car" and since Oscar himself said there is nothing wrong with his car, the argument has flipped to "McLaren are only helping Lando and not helping Oscar."
I'm going to address particular sections of your ask, cos it'll be easier that way.
"but simply showing why Oscar loses time doesn't show that? which is why that person continues to say there may be bias"
It does show that, though. The data is quite literally showing that Oscar is losing time. If you also saw the lap comparison video, you will see how Lando was using a lot more of the kerbs than Oscar and could manage a better exit through each turn. (Oscar was slightly faster on the straights, btw) All of this compounded to Lando being six-tenths faster. Sometimes that's all there is. Lando did a better job.
"just to point that, in rb's case, there very much was bias and also the same points could be made about perez's driving that the article made about oscars?"
Why would the article even bring up RB or Perez's driving style? It's an unrelated topic. RB and Perez's problems were completely different to the topic at hand.
"but the article would probably have had more weight if it like, talked about all the ways mclaren have helped oscar."
Do we know of these? Does the person who wrote the article know of the ways McLaren could've helped Oscar? Has McLaren disclosed that information? And let me also just say, McLaren is under no obligation to disclose anything.
The person who wrote the article had access to the data. They analysed the data and were able to present a clear reason as to why Oscar was slower. Saying or implying anything else would quite literally be poor journalism.
The last thing I want to say is that yes, Oscar is having a bad run. But it's definitely not as bad as people are making it out to be. Sure, he performed exceptionally at the very beginning of the season, but Lando was right behind him, in a car that wasn't suiting him.
All of this "bias" discourse and overanalysing why Oscar is slower diminishes the fact that Lando has improved.