mnmracer wrote:The funny thing with you is that you are always ready to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your world view, yet you are never ready to substantiate your claims.
"I can't say why it's wrong, or how it could be better, I just know it's wrong."
It reminds me of how little children discuss: na-uh! why not? because!
Only a [insert preferred pejorative epithet here] would think it's even possible that something like this can be objectively substantiated in the manner you've chosen. Yet, you went ahead and did it anyway. So, naturally, the burden of proof falls on you to make it stick.
In other words, I don't have to substantiate anything, because I'm not the one who used highly questionable criteria to support a highly dubious notion. It's on you to explain how and why the raw data is both subjective and incomplete; why first-lap overtakes are omitted; why variable race strategies, car/team performance, starting positions, penalties, etc. have not been taken into account.
You laid this egg, not me.