Most impressive first victory by a driver

I have to say after having investigated what people wrote here, I find either ayrton´s first win or schumacher´s the most impressive. Ayrton because of the sheer dominance, schumacher because he beat senna in his favourite conditions, and the almighty williams of the time. None of them were gifted wins because of someone else dropping out, like gilles or massive car superiority, like barrichelo 2000.

Rubens' win was hardly a car superiority though. McLaren probably had the edge in that race, but the safety car took their advantage away and Rubens gambled on staying on dry tyres unlike McLarens, which paid off.

I think most 'first wins' are impressive by their very nature. I think a more interesting question would be which are the least impressive:

Herbert - Silverstone 1995 - Ran miles behind the front trio of Schumacher, Hill and Coulthard. Hill collided with Schumacher, and Coulthard got a 10 second stop and go penalty, Herbert inherited an easy win.

Kovalainen - Hungary 2008 - Similar to the above, ran third behind Massa and Hamilton who both left him for dust. Hamilton was 19 seconds in front when he suffered a puncture. Kovalainen didn't start catching Massa until the latter backed off completely to look after his car, which expired anyway leaving Heikki the lucky winner.

That Torro Rosso car was a wet weather specialist? Oh please.. You don't have to acknowledge as a great win, but stop discrediting Vettel.

Again. Bourdais pace in the wet that race, makes me believe that Toro Rosso waa, if not the car to have that weekend. One of the best cars over the weekend. Which, makes it a good solid job from Vettel. A surprise, but not better than all the other first winners out there. (and then, please see, not better than all. Then you can choose if you want to think that I mean only better than 1% or better than 99%.) I don't think it was the best first win, and I've written why. It's my personal opinion.

I just noticed nobody has mentioned Fisichella in Brazil 2003. This is a race won in the worst car I can remember. The car was a backmarker for the rest of the season. The race was messy and somehow Fisichella-Jordan-Bridgestone managed to click in these conditions to emerge in front.

First win in the worst car in the worst conditions? I'll nominate Keke Rosberg in the Theodore.

http://en.wikipedia....national_Trophy

Non-championship, you say? You wouldn't know it from the quality of the field.

Won by surviving? In this case, that's a compliment.

Edited by nordschleife, 09 December 2012 - 16:19.

First win in the worst car in the worst conditions? I'll nominate Keke Rosberg in the Theodore.

http://en.wikipedia....national_Trophy

Non-championship, you say? You wouldn't know it from the quality of the field.

Won by surviving? In this case, that's a compliment.

Good shout.

Again. Bourdais pace in the wet that race, makes me believe that Toro Rosso waa, if not the car to have that weekend. One of the best cars over the weekend. Which, makes it a good solid job from Vettel. A surprise, but not better than all the other first winners out there. (and then, please see, not better than all. Then you can choose if you want to think that I mean only better than 1% or better than 99%.) I don't think it was the best first win, and I've written why. It's my personal opinion.

Nobody is saying it is the ultimate best win. It is just a nomination which you are dismissing it as just a good solid job. The car never looked like a winner all season. It was a midfield car all season, and come Monza he took pole in a totally unexpected fashion and drove to flag to win the race. He beat at least 4 top class cars in the qualy, and kept it ahead of them in the race and even pulled away from some. So, no it was definitely not better than those four championship contending cars, and to win over those cars, as a rookie, in wet, that too in the most slipper Monza, was well and truly a great win. To underestimate that win is just a discredit to Vettel and his team of engineers.

What's the most impressive first victory by a driver in your opinion?

The question is IMO almost impossible to answer, since I am not familiar with cirmustances of all F1 wins (I am assuming that's a domain under consideration), but I do not doubt that each driver saw his first win in special light. Panis in his Ligier (1996) was probably surpried more than anyone else, his only win, but circumstances played little bit role. In very recent history I think Sebastian in his TR must have been pleased. From people I do follow and races I have seen, I would give it to then SB for his 2008 Italian GP win. (Admittedly, there might be more impressive wins on the books, but that one has stuck in my mind).

Again. Bourdais pace in the wet that race, makes me believe that Toro Rosso waa, if not the car to have that weekend. One of the best cars over the weekend. Which, makes it a good solid job from Vettel. A surprise, but not better than all the other first winners out there. (and then, please see, not better than all. Then you can choose if you want to think that I mean only better than 1% or better than 99%.) I don't think it was the best first win, and I've written why. It's my personal opinion.

Its fine if its only 'your' opinion. But you still havent anwered my questions about how Bourdais impressed you with his pace that day?

Nobody is saying it is the ultimate best win. It is just a nomination which you are dismissing it as just a good solid job. The car never looked like a winner all season. It was a midfield car all season, and come Monza he took pole in a totally unexpected fashion and drove to flag to win the race. He beat at least 4 top class cars in the qualy, and kept it ahead of them in the race and even pulled away from some. So, no it was definitely not better than those four championship contending cars, and to win over those cars, as a rookie, in wet, that too in the most slipper Monza, was well and truly a great win. To underestimate that win is just a discredit to Vettel and his team of engineers.

But then again, those four champ. condending cars, only two made it into top 10 in qual, and only one of them in top 5 in the race. Was those drivers really that slow that weekend, or did they just happen to be very slow in rain, at that weekend. Or did Toro Rosso have a good car that weekend? I do quote " Vettel acknowledged the support of his team, saying the set-up of the car perfectly suited the way the race developed".
For me it is a bit similar to Force India at Spa in 09. A very good job, but if Fisi had won (Kimi kept his car ON the track in T1), it wouldn't been one of the most amazing wins. The car was fast that weekend. If you do have a fast car, the other fast cars somewhat screws up. Then a win is a solid job.

Its fine if its only 'your' opinion. But you still havent anwered my questions about how Bourdais impressed you with his pace that day?

Bourdais seemed on pace that weekend. He was slower than Vettel as always - and, as 99.5% of all the drivers most likely would be. But it looked like he finally had the pace for a major point-score, top 5, or maybe podium. But sadly it wasn't meant to be. He didn't have many good races in his career. Melbourne was ok, Monza was good, and Japan was also ok, but he got robbed from the points.

From what I've seen since I've been watching:

Maldonado @ Spain 2012
Drove a perfectly-controlled race and managed to bring Williams back onto the top step of the podium for the first time in ages.

Vettel @ Italy 2008
Wet race, dry setup, first win for the former Minardi team. The car was hardly as uncompetitive as Minardis usually were, but the combination of the driver, the team, the heritage, and the location made it very, very special, in my opinion.

Button @ Hungary 2006
When everybody else was losing their heads in the wet, Button--as we now know he tends to do in such situations--kept it on the road and managed to score Honda's first win as a constructor in heaven knows how long.

Alonso @ Hungary 2003
First win for Renault as a constructor in a very long time, if I'm not mistaken. He beat Kimi Raikkonen's McLaren and lapped Michael Schumacher's Ferrari. Need I say any more?

I also understand that Schumacher, Senna, and Barrichello (weird seeing his name next to theirs in the same context ) all had impressive first wins, as well.

But then again, those four champ. condending cars, only two made it into top 10 in qual, and only one of them in top 5 in the race. Was those drivers really that slow that weekend, or did they just happen to be very slow in rain, at that weekend. Or did Toro Rosso have a good car that weekend? I do quote " Vettel acknowledged the support of his team, saying the set-up of the car perfectly suited the way the race developed".
For me it is a bit similar to Force India at Spa in 09. A very good job, but if Fisi had won (Kimi kept his car ON the track in T1), it wouldn't been one of the most amazing wins. The car was fast that weekend. If you do have a fast car, the other fast cars somewhat screws up. Then a win is a solid job.



Bourdais seemed on pace that weekend. He was slower than Vettel as always - and, as 99.5% of all the drivers most likely would be. But it looked like he finally had the pace for a major point-score, top 5, or maybe podium. But sadly it wasn't meant to be. He didn't have many good races in his career. Melbourne was ok, Monza was good, and Japan was also ok, but he got robbed from the points.

Is that also just your opinion? Or do you have solid facts to back it up. Not facts like 'oh he qualified 4th' or 'he actually got the second fastest lap of the race you know'.

It is what I thought after seeing the race. And that was before I actually knew about the "live-timing"

If he was a rookie, then who was that guy who drove the second Jordan in the 1991 Belgian GP?

I'm sure you know that his gearbox failed at Eau Rouge in the first lap in 91, making the 92 race his first whole Spa race.
Hence a rookie.

I'm sure you know all that but it seems you just want an argument for an arguments sake.

I'm sure you know that his gearbox failed at Eau Rouge in the first lap in 91, making the 92 race his first whole Spa race.
Hence a rookie.

I'm sure you know all that but it seems you just want an argument for an arguments sake.

That is a ridiculous point. You are right that I know what happened in the 1991 Belgian GP though.

That is a ridiculous point. You are right that I know what happened in the 1991 Belgian GP though.

If you knew what happened, then you'd know that Spa 91 weekend was nothing like a usual weekend for MS.
Jumping into the car in the middle of the season with almost no prior testing and no experience in an F1 car. Then he placed that car in 7th place in quali.
And then retired after a couple of hundred meters with a broken gearbox.

Spa 92 was his first proper Spa race.
But I'm sure you already knew that. Don't get why you want to argue about that.
I bet you have your motives though...

Barrichello for me. I never saw such emotion in F1 before then.

That is also an impressive last win.

From the races I have watched, that is since 1999, Vettel.

somebody hates Maldonado

If you knew what happened, then you'd know that Spa 91 weekend was nothing like a usual weekend for MS.
Jumping into the car in the middle of the season with almost no prior testing and no experience in an F1 car. Then he placed that car in 7th place in quali.
And then retired after a couple of hundred meters with a broken gearbox.

Spa 92 was his first proper Spa race.
But I'm sure you already knew that. Don't get why you want to argue about that.I bet you have your motives though...

Spa 92 was not his first Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. He was not a rookie there. It is not even a debatable point.

As much as Webber's first victory was an awesome drive, I can't help but think back to what possibly could've been his first victory at Fuji 2007.

Barrichello's for mine though, from 18th on the grid and then his reaction on the team radio and podium afterwards, touching stuff. "RIDE WITH RUBENS IT'S A JOY!"

How about Bergers at Mexico 1986?

Hard to look past Vettel s Monza ... Probably the best in the last 20 years closely followed by Ham s first in 2007

Spa 92 was not his first Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. He was not a rookie there. It is not even a debatable point.

It is debatable actually.
But not with you obviously.

*pfft* to Vettel @ Monza, see post #80 as to why it absolutely wasnt an amazing win.

Vettel in Monza, no doubt. No one saw that comming. His car was good on the day, but McLarens were way better, and he had one very close to him starting the race. The other screwed. And he did not put a feet wrong all weekend.

Vettel and Lewis in recent times, definitely.

The Toro Rosso may have been good in the wet in 08, but he still had to edge out everyone and perform the deed in the race and he did it in perfect fashion in his first full season. One of the greatest F1 victories in general, not even considering it was his first win.

The Mclaren was the best car in Canada 07, but Alonso choked in the last sector in qualifying and Lewis drove a very good race and dealt with the pressure of many safety cars as a rookie.

Kubica also deserves a mention. Yea, Lewis took himself and Kimi out, but Kubica was set to challenge for that win regardless.

It is what I thought after seeing the race. And that was before I actually knew about the "live-timing"

Ah ok. So Bourdais' pace was so impressive that day, you could see it while he charged back to 18th place?

And what exactly did the knowledge about the live timing tell you? It would be nice if you could enlighten us. Im not asking about that 'second fastest lap'. There were 52 other laps, you know.

Not strictly the first win, but probably the most impressive I know of was Jackie Stewart's at the Nürburgring 1986 1968. Sometimes visibility a mere 50 meters !! and other craziness.

I just noticed nobody has mentioned Fisichella in Brazil 2003. This is a race won in the worst car I can remember. The car was a backmarker for the rest of the season. The race was messy and somehow Fisichella-Jordan-Bridgestone managed to click in these conditions to emerge in front.

Fisi was out on track at the right time though when they aborted the race due to the downpour. And that Fisi was credited the win, was because of some observant member on this very BB (not me). Even the FIA forgot that the race result is counted the lap prior to the race being aborted. Fisi was hauled in no time by Kimi, after Kimi got a set of rain tires. Kimi was ahead of Fisi in a less than a lap, but that was the lap the race was aborted. So IMO the win was rather lucky. IIRC Eddie Jordan claimed that they gambled with the possibility of a red flag. So they left Fisi out for another lap.

EDIT messed 1968 with 1986 :facepalm:

Edited by HP, 10 December 2012 - 01:34.

Ah ok. So Bourdais' pace was so impressive that day, you could see it while he charged back to 18th place?

And what exactly did the knowledge about the live timing tell you? It would be nice if you could enlighten us. Im not asking about that 'second fastest lap'. There were 52 other laps, you know.

Bourdais wasn't as bad as reading a Wikipedia page will tell you, either. Vettel outperformed him no doubt, and the Toro Rosso was obviously decent in the wet that weekend, but Vettel was the one who could take it home in convincing style.

I take Maldonado's over Rosberg's and specially Vettel's, anyday.

STR had a great car for the rain and even in dry it was like 4th car during races in the last part of that season. Bourdais also showed that the car, more than the driver, had the speed there. Plus, all top drivers/cars were starting behind in the pack and dealing with traffic and etc.

Rosberg also had a great car that weeked and Mercedes was on a 1-2 in the first stint which was interrupted by a pit mistake in MSC's case.

Maldonado simply put the car where Senna didn't give impression it could, in Q and race. After a might Q performance, Pastor had to battle with Alonso for the win after he lost first position in the start.

Maldonado win was not one fluke one, it was genuine performance. I wouldn't pick it as the most impressive ever but I would rate it above these 2 you brought up

Actually , the fact that Seb is a 3 time champ , in a row And youngest to boot, tells you that his win wasnt a fluke. Unless you are in the category who beleives that his 3 years were also a fluke..in my eyes Monza as appears with the benefit of hindsight, Was just a harbinger of things to come..

If Rosbesrg and Maldano go on to become title holders , then we should put even more weight on their wins as it will be proven not to be flukes which right now is mere speculation based on Senna and Schumis performance that day.

Fisi was out on track at the right time though when they aborted the race due to the downpour. And that Fisi was credited the win, was because of some observant member on this very BB (not me). Even the FIA forgot that the race result is counted the lap prior to the race being aborted. Fisi was hauled in no time by Kimi, after Kimi got a set of rain tires. Kimi was ahead of Fisi in a less than a lap, but that was the lap the race was aborted. So IMO the win was rather lucky. IIRC Eddie Jordan claimed that they gambled with the possibility of a red flag. So they left Fisi out for another lap.

Wrong. All wrong. Race was red flagged by Alonso crashing into Webber´s car debris with a SC already deployed, not by a downpour.

Fisichella had just passed Räikkönen, and was pulling away, and every single Bridgestone tyred car was lapping fast while every single Michelin car was lapping slowly, because BS wet tyres coped with dryish tarmac way better. Every car had one more stop to make, as soon as turn 3 and last kink in the run up to the finish line finally got ready for slicks. There was like 15 laps to go and no sign of slicks being safe in turn 3 or main "straight", so Fisi would have opened a gap for still some laps. Would that be enough? Who knows.

Lucky?? Yes. He was on the right tyres and got near the frontrunners because of last SC. But no, it´s not how you tell it.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 10 December 2012 - 02:00.

Bourdais wasn't as bad as reading a Wikipedia page will tell you, either. Vettel outperformed him no doubt, and the Toro Rosso was obviously decent in the wet that weekend, but Vettel was the one who could take it home in convincing style.

Of course he isnt a bad driver. But when Mark Webber is dismissed (not in wikipedia )as a mediocre journeyman, what chance does Boudais have?

Besides, the STR was neither a shitbox nor a dominant car that day. It was a competetive car that a 21 year old kid took by the scruff of the neck to bring home safely, when he could have binned it in those not too easy to drive conditions.

What I dont understand though is, when Senna or Schumi or Lewis do a good race in the wet, wet weather driving is supposed to be the one thing that seperates the men fron the boys. But when Vettel does it in the wet, its all because the car perfectly suited the conditions. Mind boggling stuff.

Edited by gillesthegenius, 10 December 2012 - 02:25.

Wrong. All wrong. Race was red flagged by Alonso crashing into Webber´s car debris with a SC already deployed, not by a downpour.

Fisichella had just passed Räikkönen, and was pulling away, and every single Bridgestone tyred car was lapping fast while every single Michelin car was lapping slowly, because BS wet tyres coped with dryish tarmac way better. Every car had one more stop to make, as soon as turn 3 and last kink in the run up to the finish line finally got ready for slicks. There was like 15 laps to go and no sign of slicks being safe in turn 3 or main "straight", so Fisi would have opened a gap for still some laps. Would that be enough? Who knows.

Lucky?? Yes. He was on the right tyres and got near the frontrunners because of last SC. But no, it´s not how you tell it.

You're right. I confused things for whatever reason . Meanwhile I refreshed my memory by reading the race report. It was DC who was in front, after Rubens retirement, heading to the pits at the wrong time dropping him from 1st to 4th. Fisi won because he just started lap 56 when the race was aborted. With other front runners retiring (especially Rubens) or crashing out at various stages of the race it still was a rather lucky win.

Ah ok. So Bourdais' pace was so impressive that day, you could see it while he charged back to 18th place?

And what exactly did the knowledge about the live timing tell you? It would be nice if you could enlighten us. Im not asking about that 'second fastest lap'. There were 52 other laps, you know.

Now, I'm not able to tell you what i was thinking, how I approached the race, or the information, it's over 4 years ago. And it's hardly anything like watching your first death in motorsport (Monza, 2000, when the marshal died. I was on holiday on Corfu Island, talked with the hotel manager to put on the F1 race on a channel if possible, he did. I watched though I didn't understand the language, learned later that a marshal died. That I do remember clearly!)
However, I do remember the impression I had after the race, after watching, hearing the commentators talk about "that other Toro Rosso". And the analysis made on the norwegian F1 forum after the race, when I, as an old Minardi-fan was over the moon. Got lectured about Bourdais.

What I dont understand though is, when Senna or Schumi or Lewis do a good race in the wet, wet weather driving is supposed to be the one thing that seperates the men fron the boys. But when Vettel does it in the wet, its all because the car perfectly suited the conditions. Mind boggling stuff.

For me, it's about what the other drivers do in the same race. If drivers like Hamilton had been high up the whole weekend, and clearly the fastest (with the exception of Vettel), I problably would've been more impressed. But when none of the usual wet weather warriors are near the top, it looks... weird.


Anyway - there are no point in going on - we will never agree anyhow, and it just drags out and out.

Edited by Myrvold, 10 December 2012 - 04:39.

It is overwhelmingly apparent that many commentators in the thread greatly undervalue a win in formula one. Of all the drivers that have appeared in the formula very few have won a race, now there are various reasons one could attribute however this thread appears focused primarily on a drivers performance and any disagreement follows the well worn rebuttals of car quality, race circumstances and other drivers apparent bad luck.

As far as I am concerned any driver able to win a race at this level is deserving of all the accolades that come with it; when one thinks of the effort that has gone into reaching that first rung of F1 success winning a race it is indeed a rare event. Which one you choose as a favorite will of course be guided by your own prejudice to any particular driver so arguing about it amongst each other is a pissing contest that in my view has no bearing on the extraordinary achievement of winning your first race in F1.

I do blame the blasé approach to the significance of winning a GP on the Shuey/Ferrari era any newcomer could have been lulled into a sense of as long as you have a dominant car it's a piece of cake. The effort and talent needed to produce a racing package at this level to dominate for five years with a driver that could remain focused throughout is just incredible, and that Redbull has done for 3 on the trott in this era is just as impressive.

Certain drivers do make a difference of that I am sure and most agree, certainly the teams do. In the terms of what is considered impressive I look to constructors that won their first race as the accolade then includes the whole team, like Torro Rosso's first win.

Abu Dhabi 2012.

I suppose returning back to the sport after 2 years can be measured as a "New Win" against other 5 World Champions on the grid, major rule changes with tyres, DRS, Full tanks & stepped noses. Practically a new series....

Especially when general media hype was created to the extent of claiming this said driver was "not good enough". So a brilliant drive considering he kept Alonso' Ferrari, Button's Mclaren & Vettel's RedBull at bay in his first year itself!

This 19th win had wider implications as well for his new team, Lotus F1 and their sponsors. An important drive by Kimi Raikkonen.

Edited by BackOnTop, 10 December 2012 - 07:17.

*pfft* to Vettel @ Monza, see post #80 as to why it absolutely wasnt an amazing win.

What about the arguments which followed your post? Your points are basically that Vettel gambled on setup (although there is evidence that they went for a dry setup just like others) and that Bourdais was faster (although he was significantly slower in qualy and the gap to Vettel went from 117 seconds to 160 seconds during the race after lap 1 - of course he had traffic, but that are still 43 seconds and Vettel didn't need to push at the end and had way more pressure).

For me, it is very hard to look past Monza 2008 as one of the most impressive wins. It was unbelievable watching that race. It was wet, but not chaotic - he just delivered the pace to win.

Edited by apoka, 10 December 2012 - 06:55.

I don't think it's Rosberg's or Maldonado's because the Pirelli tyre/setup lottery factor dampens it for me.. especially Maldonado's because that stage of the season was very lotteryish.. and in those circumstances.. it's like he IS driving a faster car.. even if it says Williams.. it's still the same thing.. much more grip, can brake later.. get on throttle earlier.. more forgivable mistakes etc. The pressure of winning the first race is still there.. but even later in this season for example.. that factor diminished as all teams understood tyres more. They were great drives.. but it's hard to compare them..

F1 in earlier years was more consistant and stable.. still a lottery factor some weekends.. especially in the rain.. but makes it more easier to grade driver performance.. and notice the cars performance etc.. especially with the Bridgestones or the grooved tyres.

I can't even think who it could be.. there's been so many that people have listed.. they were all good drives.. Alonso's though.. the field was held up by Webber.. and Webber's the field was held up by Heiki.. etc etc.. Vettel's was definately special, but so were a lot of the others.. and his car was very good that weekend. But that's nearly always the case.. in order to win.. fullstop.. you have to have a good car that weekend. The point is.. it just feels a little more fake or artificial when it's done the way Pirelli did this season.. ESPECIALLY.. when there is no inseason testing, and limited data that the teams have. It was still very nice to see Williams or Merc win one though.

It seems there is a long list of drivers in this field that had magical first victories.. and the earlier eras.. can't comment, didn't watch.. etc.

Edited by HoldenRT, 10 December 2012 - 07:02.

But then again, those four champ. condending cars, only two made it into top 10 in qual, and only one of them in top 5 in the race. Was those drivers really that slow that weekend, or did they just happen to be very slow in rain, at that weekend. Or did Toro Rosso have a good car that weekend? I do quote " Vettel acknowledged the support of his team, saying the set-up of the car perfectly suited the way the race developed".
For me it is a bit similar to Force India at Spa in 09. A very good job, but if Fisi had won (Kimi kept his car ON the track in T1), it wouldn't been one of the most amazing wins. The car was fast that weekend. If you do have a fast car, the other fast cars somewhat screws up. Then a win is a solid job.

But then again, you could say that the best cars somewhat screwing up is necessary for "miracles" to happen. By the way, Hamilton (probably 2nd best driver of that race) was right behind Vettel mid race (because he had pitted already), but gambled for wet tyres. The gap then remained relatively constant. From comparing to various drivers that weekend (including RB drivers and Ferrari drivers with similar cars/engines), you can just deduce that Vettel was damn quick.

Bourdais seemed on pace that weekend. He was slower than Vettel as always - and, as 99.5% of all the drivers most likely would be.

But that says it all, doesn't it?

It is debatable actually.
But not with you obviously.

Look up the defintion of rookie.

Look up the defintion of rookie.

Sure Sherlock.

Sure Sherlock.

Did you enjoy Lewis Hamilton's rookie world championship win in 2008?

Time for me to be more amazed by Vettel's win, and Bourdais' speed as well then! I will forever find it suspicious how fast the Torro Rossos was in Italy and Japan in the rain though. Which indicates, either two very good drivers - or a car that fits the rain!

Anyway, thanks for correcting me and my memory! I'm always happy to be proved wrong when I'm wrong!

I don't understand how many people forget this season and was amazed by Vettel's win. It was great no doubt, but not the best first victory.

1) TR had the best rain chassis made by Newey that season
2) TR had the more powerful Ferrari engine vs. the RB Renaults
3) Bourdais would have qualified third if he wasn't pipped by Webber at the end of qualifying
4) Wet setups don't mean that much these days

Vettel does what he does best, but it wasn't the most impressive first victory IMO. The TR was the best package that weekend followed by the McLarens. IMO Maldonaldo's was more impressive as he was racing vs. Alonso.

Edited by v@sh, 10 December 2012 - 08:44.

I don't understand how many people forget this season and was amazed by Vettel's win. It was great no doubt, but not the best first victory.

1) TR had the best rain chassis made by Newey that season
2) TR had the more powerful Ferrari engine vs. the RB Renaults
3) Bourdais would have qualified third if he wasn't pipped by Webber at the end of qualifying
4) Wet setups don't mean that much these days

Vettel does what he does best, but it wasn't the most impressive first victory IMO. The TR was the best package that weekend followed by the McLarens. IMO Maldonaldo's was more impressive as he was racing vs. Alonso.

There you go again...
The 'if vettel won, it had to be in the best car' theory.

You obviously didnt watch the way the Mclaren behaved in the hands of Hamilton, did you?

It's pretty amazing how many people try to belittle Vettel's maiden win. It's almost like they started to watch F1 long after 2008.
When a driver with as little experience as Vettel had at the time wins a race in those conditions it's an amazing performance on default. And when he does that in a car that should not be anywhere near the podium positions under normal conditions, it's pretty damn fantastic.
Sure, the Toro Rosso seemed to be quite handy in the wet. So kudos to the team also on making the right call with the setup . But that is no reason to say that Vettel's win was not special, because it sure as hell was, no matter how you try to twist it.

What about the arguments which followed your post? Your points are basically that Vettel gambled on setup (although there is evidence that they went for a dry setup just like others) and that Bourdais was faster (although he was significantly slower in qualy and the gap to Vettel went from 117 seconds to 160 seconds during the race after lap 1 - of course he had traffic, but that are still 43 seconds and Vettel didn't need to push at the end and had way more pressure).

For me, it is very hard to look past Monza 2008 as one of the most impressive wins. It was unbelievable watching that race. It was wet, but not chaotic - he just delivered the pace to win.

Obviously he has difficulty in reading comprehension because he kept on harping about Sebastian lucked into the right set-up in Monza, ignorant of the fact that Sebastian was on a dry setup for the race.

I don't understand how many people forget this season and was amazed by Vettel's win. It was great no doubt, but not the best first victory.

1) TR had the best rain chassis made by Newey that season
2) TR had the more powerful Ferrari engine vs. the RB Renaults
3) Bourdais would have qualified third if he wasn't pipped by Webber at the end of qualifying
4) Wet setups don't mean that much these days

Vettel does what he does best, but it wasn't the most impressive first victory IMO. The TR was the best package that weekend followed by the McLarens. IMO Maldonaldo's was more impressive as he was racing vs. Alonso.

I'll have to be boring and choose Vettel's too. The team had been in F1 for over 20 years and had never been close to winning a race, this kid comes in and dominates a weekend on the wet with it, whilst breaking the youngest ever driver to win a race record in the process. Yeah the STR was good that weeekend no doubt, he was very much helped by the spray, but find me any race win at all that wasn't aided by a good car on the day, neither circumstances playing into the winner's hands. That's right, there's never been any. It was a fantastic achievement.

From reading the thread and from the top of my mind I will also back the choices of Senna's, Barrichello's, Panis' and Baghetti's.

Top marks to the guy who brought in Herbert's and Kovalainen's as the worst, I was coming in to post the same in a cheeky way. That's got to have been a little embarrassing to experience, comprehensively outdriven by your team-mate, then bad luck happens to him, bad luck happens to everyone and you inherit it despite having just been humiliated on the track. Happy first win!

I'll have to be boring and choose Vettel's too. The team had been in F1 for over 20 years and had never been close to winning a race, this kid comes in and dominates a weekend on the wet with it, whilst breaking the youngest ever driver to win a race record in the process. Yeah the STR was good that weeekend no doubt, he was very much helped by the spray, but find me any race win at all that wasn't aided by a good car on the day, neither circumstances playing into the winner's hands. That's right, there's never been any. It was a fantastic achievement.

From reading the thread and from the top of my mind I will also back the choices of Senna's, Barrichello's, Panis' and Baghetti's.

Top marks to the guy who brought in Herbert's and Kovalainen's as the worst, I was coming in to post the same in a cheeky way. That's got to have been a little embarrassing to experience, comprehensively outdriven by your team-mate, then bad luck happens to him, bad luck happens to everyone and you inherit it despite having just been humiliated on the track. Happy first win!

Like Massa in Spa 2008 (even tho it wasnt his first).

Vettel s win was quite impressive and if it was just last year ( people unaware of the future super duper success awaiting this guy) , people would be rating it much higher.

Like Massa in Spa 2008 (even tho it wasnt his first).

Yeah it's happened to loads of drivers over the years, but it's more awkward when it's your first win. A bit like getting married with the love of your life, but your uncle gets too drunk and arranges a fight in the wedding. Best day of your life?