Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 11 votes

Vettel as good as Senna, says Ascanelli


  • Please log in to reply
805 replies to this topic

#101 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 November 2010 - 19:10

I heard it for the first time now, but maybe in Italy it was reported more liberally. It still makes me wonder, and we will see in the coming years if Vettel really has this "perfection" by which Ascanelli "has been touched".


But I don t live in Italy... :wave:

Advertisement

#102 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,481 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 19 November 2010 - 19:28

Everytime I hear someone quoting Monza 2008 as some kind of evidence of Vettel's 'greatness', I just about throw up.

STR had the A-spec Ferrari engine from a race or two before Italy because Ferrari wanted their only competitive customer team to start taking points off McLaren as the title fight was getting close. The difference between the A-spec factory Ferrari engine and the B-spec customer engine was rumoured at the time to be as much as 30hp, hence suddenly the STR went from being the poor cousin of the Red Bull RB4 to some kind of uber-jet in a straight line - Bourdais qualified 4th for crying out loud! Does everybody forget that little snippet of pertinent information? :drunk:

Still, he was about 0.5s faster than Bourdais (fuel adjusted) and drove a great flawless race, which is far from usual at his age in this team. The STR was good, but probably not the best car at this weekend.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I think we need to wait a couple of years, before we can really compare Vettel to Schumacher and Senna.

Edited by apoka, 19 November 2010 - 19:31.


#103 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 19 November 2010 - 21:32

SEP,

Not wanting to derail the topic but I think that for both Monza 2008 and Barcelona 1996 one can say that the field was much closer because of the rain than it was at Donington
And both Vettel and Schuey had not such a car superiority as Senna had in 1993.

Had it been dry then I think that MS would have retired from the race yet again because of having overstressed the car/engine. Ferrari was so unreliable at that period of time.
But in the rain he could save it.
Mind you, one of the cylinders misfired so he crushed the opposition with a sick engine.

it was a great race by Senna, no doubt. he could have thrown it away too like MS at Francorchamps '98. But for me, Barcelona '98 outdoes Estoril '93 with ease because tje much more equal field in the tricky circumstances and MS having a sick car too.

But my all time favorite rain drive is probably Gilles Villeneuve at Canada 1981.
the worst chassis of them all with less downforce, powered by an insane strong engine but those first generation of turbocharged engines were so tricky even on the dry, let alone in the wet. And he still finishesd third after llosing the front wing and even more grip.
That remains my favorite...


And now I leave the thread and leave the stage back to the main topic again.


henri


Everytime there is a Donington 93 mention in a thread, this guy appears to state the Donington 93 is overhyped because of TC and blah blah blah.. forgetting to mention Senna just owned two of the best cars ever made in F1, one of them driven by a 4 time world champion


He also brings the fact that Barcelona 1996 was more impressive..

This guy must be obsessed with Senna...

#104 Fabs

Fabs
  • Member

  • 247 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 19 November 2010 - 21:34

Thanks for your contribution :up: . I hadn't realised Senna and only Senna had TC at Dony '93.


That's FALSE. Both Williams had traction control. A few other teams also had it.

And what difference would have being made if Jordan or Ligier had it? Do you think Ligier with TC would have outraced Senna in Monaco, who won by more than a minute?



#105 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 19 November 2010 - 21:48

Afaik the only person (from the frontrunners) at Donington 93 that didn't have TC was Schumacher, and that was due to a malfunction not lack of a TC system alltogether.

#106 JosTheBoss

JosTheBoss
  • Member

  • 571 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 02:19

Still, he was about 0.5s faster than Bourdais (fuel adjusted) and drove a great flawless race, which is far from usual at his age in this team. The STR was good, but probably not the best car at this weekend.


Wouldnt one expect Vettel to be a half second faster than Bourdais? I mean.... who's the new World Champion, and who hasnt got a decent drive in a recognisable single seat series these days?

I'm struggling to find a car on Italian GP grid that was better than the STR that weekend. It had the clone RB4 chassis (a Newey chassis) matted to arguably the most powerful engine in F1.

Edited by JosTheBoss, 20 November 2010 - 02:19.


#107 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,019 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 20 November 2010 - 02:35

Nobody was or is as good as Senna. Not even Senna.

#108 DarthRonzo

DarthRonzo
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 03:05

SEP:

Donington 1993 is a bit overhyped because of the fact that McLaren (Senna) was one of only few cars already fitted with traction control. The majority of the field didn't have it.

Before the TC era, Rain was often an equalizer which enabled drivers in lesser cars to make up on the better cars. Think about cases like
Jean Pierre Beltoise at Monaco 1972
Marc Surer in Brazil 1981 with the Ensign heap of scrap.
Gilles Villeneuve at Canada 1981
and, indeed, Senna with Toleman at Monaco 1984 and Estoril 1985

The ever so often heralded Donington '93 doesn't fall into this category because the McLaren was one of few cars which had a feature that made it potentially outstanding in the rain.
heralding Senna is only possible when you rate him against cars fitted with TC, praising him because slaughtering the rest of the field without TC is not fair to the rest of the field. They simply lacked a tool that only a few, including Senna had.
Senna himself realized it all too well since he always rated Estoril '85 over Donington '93 because the field was much more equal in 1985 because of the rain while in Donington the field was separated in two entirely different categories even more because of the rain> exactly the opposite.


Henri

(And I know what will happen soon ....)

Tusk, tusk, tusk :rolleyes:

AS Toleman @ Monaco had TC...
AS Lotus @ Estoril had TC...
AS McLaren @ Donnington had TC...
AS McLaren @ Interlagos had TC...
AS Go Kart @ Interlagos had TC...

I think you might know that TC and ABS brakes - at taht time - worked better on dry than on the wet.
Did Rally drivers used ABS then ? NO, bcs it's worse.

The only advantage Senna had was a deeper knoledge about the track, after doing several years of his racing career in Briton: Formula Ford 1600 and 2000 and F3.



#109 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 November 2010 - 03:21

Gotta feel the tag is way over the top for two reasons;

One WDC after two seasons driving quickest car

and

Robert Kubica is doing a superman job in the Renault and is at least as good as Seb, without even considering Hamilton (or Alonso).

Way way over the top at this point for my mind but lets look at it 2-3 years time.

#110 grunge

grunge
  • Member

  • 4,265 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 20 November 2010 - 06:28

He is not even the best driver on the grid right now.

+1.

#111 FigJam

FigJam
  • Member

  • 2,034 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 06:37

Robert Kubica is doing a superman job in the Renault and is at least as good as Seb, without even considering Hamilton (or Alonso).


Any driver would look superhuman with Petrov in the other car. Talk about ridiculous.

Just as this thread is.

#112 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 November 2010 - 06:49

Senna didn't make it to F1 until he was 24.

Vettel is younger then that and already has a WDC and 10 wins. Time will tell.


Moot point, Senna was winning and won lots more in the meantime before he went to F1.

They both deserve to have their WDC but Senna certainly achieved it via a longer and harder road and was a more complete driver when his WDC arrived.


#113 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 November 2010 - 06:55

Did Rally drivers used ABS then ? NO, because it's worse.


Don't post technical stuff you don't understand, dirt roads and wet roads are entirely different and ABS kills normal brake distance on wet roads, even up to half the distance whereas on dirt ABS is terrible.


#114 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,470 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 20 November 2010 - 12:51

Right now he is certainly behind Hamilton and Alonso among the current crop of drivers.


Good that there is a championship which proves such subjective comments utterly meaningless.

#115 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,614 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 November 2010 - 12:56

Currently we don't have a driver that could be called 'best' in F1. This season showed that clearly.

#116 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 November 2010 - 13:00

The funniest thing with this thread is that forum yahoos argue against an opinion held by a guy that has been in F1 for 25 years.

I mean, what does Giorgio really know about F1? Apparently very little. :lol:


:lol:

Said that, I do think that he might have been a little melodramatic.

H2H

#117 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,470 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 20 November 2010 - 13:00

Currently we don't have a driver that could be called 'best' in F1. This season showed that clearly.


A far more balanced view than the BS above. :up:

#118 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,470 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 20 November 2010 - 13:02

Said that, I do think that he might have been a little melodramatic.


Aren't they all when they talk about a driver who was outscored or nearly outscored by his team-mates in 4 out of 10 seasons?


#119 f1rabanete

f1rabanete
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 13:08

Aren't they all when they talk about a driver who was outscored or nearly outscored by his team-mates in 4 out of 10 seasons?

Who are you talking about here?

Edit: I see you're a Prost fan. Nothing more needs to be said... :lol:

Edited by f1rabanete, 20 November 2010 - 13:10.


Advertisement

#120 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,672 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 20 November 2010 - 13:33

Everytime I hear someone quoting Monza 2008 as some kind of evidence of Vettel's 'greatness', I just about throw up.

STR had the A-spec Ferrari engine from a race or two before Italy because Ferrari wanted their only competitive customer team to start taking points off McLaren as the title fight was getting close. The difference between the A-spec factory Ferrari engine and the B-spec customer engine was rumoured at the time to be as much as 30hp, hence suddenly the STR went from being the poor cousin of the Red Bull RB4 to some kind of uber-jet in a straight line - Bourdais qualified 4th for crying out loud! Does everybody forget that little snippet of pertinent information? :drunk:

Sure, Vettel did a great job to bring the car home in mixed conditions as a young guy, BUT

* Kovalainen held everyone back behind him
* Vettel had no spray in his face!

By the time he pitted, the track was dry enough for slicks, he had a huge lead, and he just carried on to the victory.

It was a good win based on an excellent low-fuel strategy from Ascanelli to take advantage of the car's speed, but making it out like it was some kind of Senna-like drive is just shite. :rolleyes: Like pretty much every one of Vettel's wins, he didnt need to overtake anybody except for when they had to jump out of the way for him.

Winning these kind of races often shows the difference between great and normal drivers. Monza was a race TR could easier lose than win. Sure the TR was not a bad car but still the almost identical RBR did not win a race that year. Just like Alonso winning Hungary 2003, sure he had a tire advantage but stil he had to do it.

#121 DarthRonzo

DarthRonzo
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 14:15

Don't post technical stuff you don't understand, dirt roads and wet roads are entirely different and ABS kills normal brake distance on wet roads, even up to half the distance whereas on dirt ABS is terrible.

Thanks for confirming my point.  ;)

#122 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 20 November 2010 - 14:23



Vettel and Bourdais qualified so well because when they were doing their lap, there was little rain.. few minutes after that, McLaren and Ferrari decided to set a lap but it was impossible.. The rain was just too much..


p.s: some of you keep talking about Hulkenberg, the difference with Vettel in Monza 2008 is that, the day after(sunday) Monza was still wet.. when Interlagos was dry

Edited by revlec, 20 November 2010 - 15:44.


#123 SEP

SEP
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 15:45

Vettel and Bourdais qualified so well because when they were doing their lap, there was little rain.. few minutes after that, McLaren and Ferrari decided to set a lap but it was impossible.. The rain was just too much..


p.s: some of you keep talking about Hulkenberg, the difference with Vettel in Monza 2008 is that, the day after(sunday) Monza was still wet.. when Interlagos was dry




I beleive Hulkenberg´s pole was way more impressive than Vettel´s first one. Not fair to compare both races due to the reason you mentioned, but what amazes me is that is driver is now WDC and the other one has nowhere to race in 2011.
Lucky plays a big whole in F1.


#124 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 15:53

I beleive Hulkenberg´s pole was way more impressive than Vettel´s first one. Not fair to compare both races due to the reason you mentioned, but what amazes me is that is driver is now WDC and the other one has nowhere to race in 2011.
Lucky plays a big whole in F1.


Absolutely!!!
Hulkenberg was in the track at the same time during qualifying with Hamilton, Alonso, Kubica,Vettel, Webber.. that just didn't happen in Monza 2008.. so as you said, Hulkenberg's Pole was more impressive..Hulk, i hope i will find a car for next year, but to be honest, he performed very poorly if you compare his results with Barrichello.

He cut a lot of chicane this year to defend himself(ask Webber) and was clumpsy during races.. Anyway, Rosberg's first season was even worse(often he was in the wall) so may be Hulk needs more time to show his talent.. i hope it will work for him.. :)

Edited by revlec, 21 November 2010 - 16:03.


#125 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:01

Absolutely!!!
Hulkenberg was in the track at the same time during qualifying with Hamilton, Alonso, Kubica,Vettel, Webber.. that just didn't happen in Monza 2008.. so as you said, Hulkenberg's Pole was more impressive..


Yes, his Pole was impressive, but in the race he was doing nothing more just a famous "Trulli train"... His times were only one tenth quicker then Kobayashi s and only two tenths quicker then Alguersuari s so, nothing special or extraordinary... Almost everytime he is dropping down the order on Sunday compared to Saturday... He is definitely a better qualifyier then a racer... And in terms of overtaking he is also very poor (ranked 18, so last from drivers of established teams overtaking just 6 cars from top 18)...

#126 pinkypants

pinkypants
  • Member

  • 1,405 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:04

There will only ever be one Senna, I hate all this comparison crap. Every driver these days seems to be the next "Senna."

#127 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:07

I beleive Hulkenberg´s pole was way more impressive than Vettel´s first one. Not fair to compare both races due to the reason you mentioned, but what amazes me is that is driver is now WDC and the other one has nowhere to race in 2011.
Lucky plays a big whole in F1.


Any pole with more than one sec differential, even more so when brought in from a rookie, is something unique these days.

What differentiates the two, though, is that Hulk didn´t show his class so consistently, while Vettel was consistently excellent in 2008 (and already in 2007 - who would think of finding a Torro Rosso so far up the field).

While Hulk was fading, Seb was shining come rain or dry. Also, with regards to the Monza pole lap, yes, it is true, also Bourdais qualified fourth, but look at Sebastien´s race performance and look at Vettel´s race performance.

With Vettel in 2008 you got already the complete picture, as with Senna in the Tolemann in 1984. So the comparison Senna/Vettel holds a certain validity, whereas Hülkenberg has still a lot to prove before we can compare him even with Vettel.

#128 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:08

Yes, his Pole was impressive, but in the race he was doing nothing more just a famous "Trulli train"... His times were only one tenth quicker then Kobayashi s and only two tenths quicker then Alguersuari s so, nothing special or extraordinary... Almost everytime he is dropping down the order on Sunday compared to Saturday... He is definitely a better qualifyier then a racer... And in terms of overtaking he is also very poor (ranked 18, so last from drivers of established teams overtaking just 6 cars from top 18)...


you should remember that the race Vettel won(Monza 2008) had(almost) the same conditions of the qualifying(wet) , but this year Interlagos race was Dry and Qualifying Wet.. so nobody was expecting Hulkenberg to lead the race.. but i'm sure if the race was wet, Hulk could have done may be a podium or better..

#129 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:11

Any pole with more than one sec differential, even more so when brought in from a rookie, is something unique these days.

What differentiates the two, though, is that Hulk didn´t show his class so consistently, while Vettel was consistently excellent in 2008 (and already in 2007 - who would think of finding a Torro Rosso so far up the field).

While Hulk was fading, Seb was shining come rain or dry. Also, with regards to the Monza pole lap, yes, it is true, also Bourdais qualified fourth, but look at Sebastien´s race performance and look at Vettel´s race performance.

With Vettel in 2008 you got already the complete picture, as with Senna in the Tolemann in 1984. So the comparison Senna/Vettel holds a certain validity, whereas Hülkenberg has still a lot to prove before we can compare him even with Vettel.


Yes, and look at Sebastien s technical problems on Monza race day... Forgot? :wave:


#130 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:11

Any pole with more than one sec differential, even more so when brought in from a rookie, is something unique these days.

What differentiates the two, though, is that Hulk didn´t show his class so consistently, while Vettel was consistently excellent in 2008 (and already in 2007 - who would think of finding a Torro Rosso so far up the field).

While Hulk was fading, Seb was shining come rain or dry. Also, with regards to the Monza pole lap, yes, it is true, also Bourdais qualified fourth, but look at Sebastien´s race performance and look at Vettel´s race performance.

With Vettel in 2008 you got already the complete picture, as with Senna in the Tolemann in 1984. So the comparison Senna/Vettel holds a certain validity, whereas Hülkenberg has still a lot to prove before we can compare him even with Vettel.


Bourdais had a problem after the warm up lap( i think he turned off his engine on the grid) so he started from the Pits... and was last after the first lap..

Edited by revlec, 21 November 2010 - 16:13.


#131 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:12

you should remember that the race Vettel won(Monza 2008) had(almost) the same conditions of the qualifying(wet) , but this year Interlagos race was Dry and Qualifying Wet.. so nobody was expecting Hulkenberg to lead the race.. but i'm sure if the race was wet, Hulk could have done may be a podium or better..


Like in China, Korea or Spa? He had mixed races in wet this year...

Edited by marcoferrari, 21 November 2010 - 16:24.


#132 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:27

Like in China, Korea or Spa?



When it's wet, there is a difference if you start from pole, or from 12 th position... :cat:
Don't get me wrong, i rate Vettel higher than Hulkenberg but Monza 2008 was handle to him by Top Teams(strategy error during qualifying)..

Edited by revlec, 21 November 2010 - 16:30.


#133 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2010 - 16:42

When it's wet, there is a difference if you start from pole, or from 12 th position... :cat:
Don't get me wrong, i rate Vettel higher than Hulkenberg but Monza 2008 was handle to him by Top Teams(strategy error during qualifying)..


Ok, you are right with the difference, when you start from Pole, but we can t be 100% sure, that Hulkenberg with a P.P. would do another "Vettel", if the track was on Sunday wet... Nico was very inconsistent in terms of performances this year... But maybe it is just my opinion... :)

#134 gio66

gio66
  • Member

  • 1,431 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 November 2010 - 17:00

:lol:

Said that, I do think that he might have been a little melodramatic.

H2H


He's not that kind of person

#135 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 November 2010 - 17:25

Bourdais had a problem after the warm up lap( i think he turned off his engine on the grid) so he started from the Pits... and was last after the first lap..


Yes, I remember, and that unfairly put the last nail into Bourdais´coffin....he would have needed a good result badly.
However, if you look at his lap times - he posted second fastest lap that day behind a certain Kimi Raikkonen (albeit more than a second behind).
Also, in quali Bourdais was nearly a second behind Vettel.

So cheers to Sebastian, and I think Sebastien would have deserved another chance in 2009.

Edited by aditya-now, 21 November 2010 - 17:28.


#136 SEP

SEP
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 00:57

Yes, I remember, and that unfairly put the last nail into Bourdais´coffin....he would have needed a good result badly.
However, if you look at his lap times - he posted second fastest lap that day behind a certain Kimi Raikkonen (albeit more than a second behind).
Also, in quali Bourdais was nearly a second behind Vettel.

So cheers to Sebastian, and I think Sebastien would have deserved another chance in 2009.



Sebastian was one second faster than a rookie in qualifying. The Hulk was 1 second faster than everyone, including his teamate who is a very good and experienced wet driver. Again, not taking anything from Seb´s pole, but Hulk´s one was way more impressive.

#137 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:11

Here we go again, two weeks after Berger claiming that Alonso belongs to the class of Senna and Schumacher, Ascanelli claims that Vettel is a good as Senna:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/88396

"I am a very lucky man, because at the start of my career and now at the end I have been touched by perfection," Giorgio Ascanelli claims. While it sounds very Italian and a bit melodramatic, I understand what Giorgio is saying. I hold him in high esteem after having seen how he worked with Senna, and these words are surely well chosen. Ascanelli is surely not a man over the top with his statements, so this one bears even more weight.

Is it the 2010 season with all its bravado and reportedly the best season of all times (as some want to have us believe), that we have people suddenly claiming that with Alonso and with Vettel two drivers in the same class as Senna?

Having seen the race long duel between Vettel and Alonso in Singapore I must say though, that that was as close to perfection as you can get (minus the little slip Alonso had at the restart after the safety car period).

So what does everyone here on the BB think? Vettel as a good as Senna?

I think without doubt Vettel is very good but having the fastest car can also elevate your standing, a lot of people thought Massa was top tier until Alonso joined Ferrari

#138 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:27

Not a convincing argument. Hamilton had his fair share of collisions. In Silverstone he tried a move on Webber in the first corner and took out Seb in the process although I don't blame him, but that was the net result. Vettel's recovery was well done. He passed a lot of cars with great committment including Schumacher and both Force Indias which were pretty hard to take at Silverstone.

In Monza Hamilton tried a pass on Massa and took himself out. In Singapore he tangled with Webber who was similarly aggressive and DNFed. I do not see much beween Hamilton and Vettel in terms of botched up passes. Hamilton had more opportunity to pass and is probably the more experienced passer in an F1 car but that is natural considering he has his seat longer.

The Turkey collision was most likely a result of a miscommunication. I can't prove it but the hand gesture by Vettel made it quite clear that he did not expect the result of that pass and thought something was crazy. These things happen when both drivers have different informations what is going to happen. Spa was a genuine accident where Vettel lost control but it was compounded by a wet track, bumps and a front wing that had an extreme and unexplored aerodynamic behavior. Sure it was Vettel's mistake but such mistakes can happen under special circumstances and a lot of pressure. Other champions did similar mistakes as I said already.

Lets just forget that Lewis made 40+ completed passes :rolleyes:

#139 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:42

I used to think about the same with Vettel's win in Monza 2008... where by Vettel qualified on pole by fluke and won.
But after seeing how quickly Hulkenburg started flowing backwards after a fluke pole in Brazil, SV deserves more credit to his drive for Monza .

Also I dont beleive that the STR car was any better than the Ferrari & Maccas suddenly. Others may have done mistakes wrt to set ups but then again , thats the name of the game. They were not confident in their driving that they will be able to carry on with an aggressive set up !

And if you ask me Vettel's win in a mid field car is way more impressive than all the wins the so called greats have in best or 2nd best cars.

Would he had won if Lewis had not started in 17th place?

Advertisement

#140 JustinCider

JustinCider
  • Member

  • 836 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 01:50

Not a convincing argument. Hamilton had his fair share of collisions. In Silverstone he tried a move on Webber in the first corner and took out Seb in the process although I don't blame him, but that was the net result. Vettel's recovery was well done. He passed a lot of cars with great committment including Schumacher and both Force Indias which were pretty hard to take at Silverstone.

In Monza Hamilton tried a pass on Massa and took himself out. In Singapore he tangled with Webber who was similarly aggressive and DNFed. I do not see much beween Hamilton and Vettel in terms of botched up passes. Hamilton had more opportunity to pass and is probably the more experienced passer in an F1 car but that is natural considering he has his seat longer.

The Turkey collision was most likely a result of a miscommunication. I can't prove it but the hand gesture by Vettel made it quite clear that he did not expect the result of that pass and thought something was crazy. These things happen when both drivers have different informations what is going to happen. Spa was a genuine accident where Vettel lost control but it was compounded by a wet track, bumps and a front wing that had an extreme and unexplored aerodynamic behavior. Sure it was Vettel's mistake but such mistakes can happen under special circumstances and a lot of pressure. Other champions did similar mistakes as I said already.


So what you're basically saying is that when Hamilton tries a pass and it doesn't work out it's always his fault, when Vettel does the same it's just a "miscommunication" or there are mitigating circumstances which excuse his frankly piss poor overtaking abilities.

Not a convincing argument.

Neither is the comparison with Senna, as he could overtake properly when he wanted. If Vettel was in place of Senna, Donnington 1993, the top half of the field would have lay in shreds of carbon fibre within one racing lap.


#141 Yorkie

Yorkie
  • Member

  • 2,192 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 02:04

Yes, I remember, and that unfairly put the last nail into Bourdais´coffin....he would have needed a good result badly.
However, if you look at his lap times - he posted second fastest lap that day behind a certain Kimi Raikkonen (albeit more than a second behind).
Also, in quali Bourdais was nearly a second behind Vettel.

So cheers to Sebastian, and I think Sebastien would have deserved another chance in 2009.

He did get another chance in 2009, it was the rookie Buemi that put the final nail in his coffin by convincingly beating him

#142 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 22 November 2010 - 10:01

He's not that kind of person


Did you have personal contact with him? I don't have, and will readily accept the opinion of somebody who has better facts and more insight on his side...

H2H

#143 DarthWillie

DarthWillie
  • Member

  • 1,672 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 November 2010 - 10:28

Lets just forget that Lewis made 40+ completed passes :rolleyes:

So Hamilton is a poor qualifieer and because of that has to overtake a lot of people :p

#144 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 November 2010 - 10:41

That's FALSE. Both Williams had traction control. A few other teams also had it.

And what difference would have being made if Jordan or Ligier had it? Do you think Ligier with TC would have outraced Senna in Monaco, who won by more than a minute?


OK well Prost and Hill were not much competition as drivers were they? 3rd F1 race for Hill and 3rd race back after a sabbatical, in the rain, for Prost.

I wasn't talking about Monaco. I was saying you can't use Dony 93 as evidence that Vettel is way below Senna's class - that lap is way overhyped.

And Senna hadn't even started in F1 at Vettel's age.

#145 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 22 November 2010 - 10:59

For those who thinks that Vettel is as good as Senna.

IMHO Senna was much more convinced about his driving ability, and being the chief motivation for a team to win title. He chose, one may say, where to drive and became champion there, pretty much in this line of implementing his authority.

He refused to drive for Williams, Ferrari...

#146 flyer121

flyer121
  • Member

  • 4,570 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:14

So Hamilton is a poor qualifieer and because of that has to overtake a lot of people :p


I wouldn't be as harsh but I agree with the moral here.
I would say his car is poor in Quali and better in overhauling others in the race.

Edited by flyer121, 22 November 2010 - 11:30.


#147 gio66

gio66
  • Member

  • 1,431 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 22 November 2010 - 11:52

Did you have personal contact with him? I don't have, and will readily accept the opinion of somebody who has better facts and more insight on his side...

H2H


I don't know him directly but I know a bit of people in STR. He is represented as a bear.
I asked him to write the preface for a book and he replied that it is not remotely interested.

#148 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 November 2010 - 12:29

I fail to see where the hype is.

Senna did wonders driving an inferior Toleman against a much stronger field in 1984. The next year Senna did an even more impressive race, in my opinion, in Estoril driving a Lotus against a far superior Mclaren amongst others. In Donnington 1993 it should be clear for everyone that once Senna had a good car in a wet track he most likelly would destroy the whole field, no matter who were his competition.


What about Spain 91 ? Spain 92 ? He didn't destroy the whole field there. In fact, he was soundly beaten by Berger in the same car in Spain 91 and by Schumacher in Spain 92. Oh, you forgot ? (no, im' not talking about Spa 92 where Schumacher has again beaten Senna in the wet, I'm talking about Spain 92, where Senna spun (already) trying to match Schumacher). In fact, for Senna's lovers, it is better to forget wet races when neither Senna or Schumacher had electronics aids, simply because it hurts.

What Senna proved at Donington 93 is that electronics aids were more important than drivers skills even in the rain. That is why Schumacher is passed by Andretti (!) in the first lap (Senna's teamate), that is why for the only time in 15 years, he can't follow Barrichello in the rain, Barrichello who had also electronics gismos. By chance, in 93, it rained quite a lot before Monaco (when Benetton received the same kind of electronic assists than McLaren) and no more after Monaco. Good thing, because it could have looked like Monaco, other Senna's kingdom, where Schumacher was lapping a second a lap faster, lap after lap.





#149 bsoares

bsoares
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 13:04

Not to be picky but i think you meant Barcelona 96 and Estoril 85, right?

If so, as i said in Barcelona 1996 Michael had full wet set up, wich means a huge, enormous, car advantadge and had as his oponents a rookie JV, the very same HH Frentzen Senna destroyed, Alesi, Damon Hill - who spun in lap one, and few others. If i remeber correctly, even Pedro Paulo Diniz (!) driving a Ligier (!) finished 6th... Also Ferrari, altough was an unreliable car, was a very very fast car. A very fast car with a huge set up advantadge in wet track.

On the other hand, Senna in 1993 was not the only driver with TC and had one of the greatest drivers ever, Alain Prost, driving what was called the most technologically sophisticated Formula One car of all time, incorporating anti-lock brakes, traction control and active suspension.


All this considered (car advantadge and competition) , if Donington 1993 is a bit overhyped , wich we agree, Spain 1996 should not be written in the same sentence of Estoril 1985 or Monaco 1984 or Canada 81 (but i think it had more to do with bravery than anything).

Spain 96, that was a super ultra overhyped win!


Anyway back to Vettel´s the new Senna performance, i must confess that despite beeing an Alonso fan, Lewis Hamilton is the one i think we should praise when talking about great drives.

Vettel / Webber batlle was too close in every aspect (race pace, number of mistakes under pressure, even qualifying times, etc) and i have a strong beleif Webber is not in the same league as Alain.

Just my 2 c



It is not the first time that I see someone using that same excuse to play down Michael's drive that day.

The weather, for both Friday free practice and Saturday qualifying sessions, was fine, with clear skies and warm temperatures.
In the afternoon after qualifying it started to rain. Sunday the rain had set in with a constant downpour all morning. The warm up session was wet - very wet. It was clear for anyone to see that the race would be wet. There were even talks that the race could start behind the safety car.

I simply cannot believe that, seeing those conditions, when there were no signs of the rain stopping anytime soon, anyone would go for a setup that wasn't full wet.

“It was not a race. It was a demonstration of brilliance,”[/b] - Sir Sterling Moss on Schumacher’s mesmeric drive in a rain-soaked Spanish Grand Prix.

There were races in which he clearly benefited from better "conditions" - be it tyres or a better setup for the conditions in hand.
And in those situations the difference to the other drivers was even bigger like in Spa 1997:


"As his brother Michael arrived on the grid he splashed though a huge puddle in the Bus Stop chicane. There were hurried consultations on the grid and then the Ferrari mechanics were ripping off the rear wing and putting on a little more downforce. But Michael decided that the rain was going to stop and that the right choice would be to run with intermediate tires. This was a gamble."

(...)

When the Safety Car pulled off there was still enough water lying about to allow Jacques Villeneuve to stay ahead for the first lap but then the intermediates began to look like the right choice. Schumacher passed Jean Alesi at La Source at the start of lap 2 and then tiptoed past Villeneuve in Rivage.

"With Jean it was fairly tight," Schumacher admitted later. "I decided I was going to take the line and he saw the situation and just moved over. Jacques knew that he didn't have a chance to keep me back with the kind of tires he was using and he was quite fair and stayed on his line."

"As soon as he was ahead Michael lit the afterburners on his Ferrari and disappeared into the distance. The gap went from 5.8secs on the first lap ahead to 16.9s on the second, 22s on the third and 28s on the fourth. By the time he had completed nine racing laps he was a minute ahead and could have stopped to let a busload of nuns across the road and still have been ahead by the time he reached the pits."

http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr609.html


#150 SEP

SEP
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 November 2010 - 13:39

What about Spain 91 ? Spain 92 ? He didn't destroy the whole field there. and by Schumacher in Spain 92. Oh, you forgot ? (no, im' not talking about Spa 92 where Schumacher has again beaten Senna in the wet, I'm talking about Spain 92, where Senna spun (already) trying to match Schumacher). In fact, for Senna's lovers, it is better to forget wet races when neither Senna or Schumacher had electronics aids, simply because it hurts.

What Senna proved at Donington 93 is that electronics aids were more important than drivers skills even in the rain. That is why Schumacher is passed by Andretti (!) in the first lap (Senna's teamate), that is why for the only time in 15 years, he can't follow Barrichello in the rain, Barrichello who had also electronics gismos. By chance, in 93, it rained quite a lot before Monaco (when Benetton received the same kind of electronic assists than McLaren) and no more after Monaco. Good thing, because it could have looked like Monaco, other Senna's kingdom, where Schumacher was lapping a second a lap faster, lap after lap.


You are confused as your post is.

1 - "In fact, he was soundly beaten by Berger in the same car in Spain 91"

Berger had mecanical problems and retired, Senna finished 5th.

2 - " I'm talking about Spain 92, where Senna spun (already) trying to match Schumacher"

Michael spun, trying to be as fast as teamate, Brundle. Due this spun, Michael was lucky and changed tyres, but still he spun becuase Brundle was faster

3 - "ectronics aids were more important than drivers skills even in the rain"

Really rich, comming from ( i assume) a Michael´s fan. 1994 rings a bell?


Besides, these races weren´t all disputed in wet track and Senna didn´t have a good car, otherwise he would destroy the field, as usual under these circunstances.

Anyway, isn´t this post about Vettel and Senna comparison? We suposed to talk about Vettel beeing compared to the MAN, the reference, the best ever according to drivers, former drivers, F1 champions, people involved in F1 and Bernie E. What does Michael has to do with it? I see, he. Michael, also think Ayrton was the best ever but if we take this in account, we will go way OT as the majority of drivers will be in this discussion.

So, no Michael here, only the fantastic ones.