87 replies to this topic

[Disgrace]

Brawn GP's first year car was probably the last time prior to Redbull. That car was untouchable.

 

One of F1's greatest myths.

[Vesuvius]

What I don't understand is that RB started off the same as everyone else for at least 4-5 races. After that they are quicker and even with everyone else developing their cars, They are now 1 second a lap quicker than others. That just doesn't make sense. Are you saying Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes are sitting on their arses. They ain't but RB blows them away. That amount of difference in season is unprecedented. I can understand if they start the season 1 second quicker. But not when they are level with others and end up a second quicker.

Exhaust blow diffusers have ruined F1. The aero under the car and out of the diffuser should be from natural air flow not from exhaust gases. F1 would look totally different and better for it. The FIA made a huge mistake.

Tyres went back to 2012 specs....There is the biggest answer.

[krobinson]

What I don't understand is that RB started off the same as everyone else for at least 4-5 races. After that they are quicker and even with everyone else developing their cars, They are now 1 second a lap quicker than others. That just doesn't make sense. Are you saying Lotus, Ferrari, Mercedes are sitting on their arses. They ain't but RB blows them away. That amount of difference in season is unprecedented. I can understand if they start the season 1 second quicker. But not when they are level with others and end up a second quicker.   

 

Exhaust blow diffusers have ruined F1. The aero under the car and out of the diffuser should be from natural air flow not from exhaust gases. F1 would look totally different and better for it. The FIA made a huge mistake.

 

The changes Pirelli brought surely have helped Red Bull.

[muramasa]

yeah. Brawn's first half of 2009 was like Schumacher in 2002, 2004.

 

2009 and 2008 was tightest field F1 ever had. 15 cars within 1sec in Q2 was norm throughout those seasons.

[F1Champion]

In my opinion Brawn was only good for the first half of the season. After that RB was the best car. Remember RB resources and development pummeled Brawn on a tight budget. Brawn only luckily won that season because RB were pulling them in, in spades. The car wasn't good in certain conditions and they won because RB run out of races.

[Vesuvius]

In my opinion Brawn was only good for the first half of the season. After that RB was the best car. Remember RB resources and development pummeled Brawn on a tight budget. Brawn only luckily won that season because RB were pulling them in, in spades. The car wasn't good in certain conditions and they won because RB run out of races.

Brawn was good for the second half as well, just not the best...and also Button pretty much sucked on the second half.

[maverick69]

I dunno. But it has been a long time since I've sat there looking at the live timing and seeing a driver constantly pulling away at 2-2.5 secs per lap in "normal", like for like conditions.

 

Seb is  a great driver. Without doubt one of the very best......... But he's not 2 and a bit seconds a lap quicker than his top-level peers...... and his teammate for that matter.

 

Red Bull have defiantly made a massive gain with their farty-poppy mapping and EBD. Because there is not another performance differentiator on the car that will give you those kind of gains.

[sopa]

Webber was stuck in traffic all race long. After he undercut the Mercedes in the pits, he easily pulled away from them. So the 2.5s gap between Vettel and Webber isn't completely accurate, though Webber has always been a bit rubbish at Singapore.

 

And in Korea Webber will be again in traffic thanks to the penalty...

[George Costanza]

I dunno. But it has been a long time since I've sat there looking at the live timing and seeing a driver constantly pulling away at 2-2.5 secs per lap in "normal", like for like conditions.

 

Seb is  a great driver. Without doubt one of the very best......... But he's not 2 and a bit seconds a lap quicker than his top-level peers...... and his teammate for that matter.

 

Red Bull have defiantly made a massive gain with their farty-poppy mapping and EBD. Because there is not another performance differentiator on the car that will give you those kind of gains.

 

I agree with this.... The 2 seconds was like Williams in 1997 and McLaren in 1998 vs Ferrari. But no way Seb himself is that much faster, unless it's at Monaco and his name is Ayrton Senna.

[George Costanza]

In my opinion Brawn was only good for the first half of the season. After that RB was the best car. Remember RB resources and development pummeled Brawn on a tight budget. Brawn only luckily won that season because RB were pulling them in, in spades. The car wasn't good in certain conditions and they won because RB run out of races.

 

 

That's pretty much what I gathered, but the first half was very much a dominant performance.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Not to be dismissive about Vettel's performance, but I think comparing his superior speed to Webber now is unfair. It's pretty clear that Webber is finished after his announcement to retire. He's driving without motivation now.

Edited by DutchQuicksilver, 22 September 2013 - 20:02.

[Junky]

Schumacher back in Hungary 2004. At 3/4 of race he was about to lap the entire field bar Barrichello, just to get the revenge of 2003.

That said, only Ross Brawn via radio calm Schumi's outbursts and convinced him to bring the car to home.

[RealRacing]

Apparently this race was a combination of factors; everything just came together for SV and RBR, a freak performance. It happens in other sports too. Unfortunately this has triggered the expected over-reaction in both polarized Vettel camps: it's the car, it's the driver. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but given the only reliable yardstick, one would have to think this guy is, at least, a top 4 in this sport...

[lbennie]

You are joking right? Webber is one of the worst drivers on the grid at the moment. Red Bull was easily over a second per lap faster than any other car today, often at least 2 seconds faster. Webber is unmotivated, old and a joke, whose place is not in F1 anymore. A complete mug. 

Vettel is doing nothing special, anyone can win in that car. Put someone more talented like Hamilton, Kimi or Alonso in that car and vettel will be shown the way. 

He is nothing more than a newey-passenger, just like Hill was.

 

Incorrect, Mark is still a top driver, and would give hamilton & alonso trouble in the same car.

 

Vettel is just exceptional and is fast becoming one of the all time greats. which upsets you obviously.

[Kingshark]

Incorrect, Mark is still a top driver, and would give hamilton & alonso trouble in the same car.

 

Current Webber would give Alonso about as much trouble as Massa is doing.

[lbennie]

Current Webber would give Alonso about as much trouble as Massa is doing.

 

Incorrect, you say this, so that you can devalue Vettel's accomplishments. But it is not the case.

[Kingshark]

Incorrect, you say this, so that you can devalue Vettel's accomplishments. But it is not the case.

 

How do you know this?

 

When Alonso was 1.5 seconds/lap quicker than Massa at Malaysia 2012, it was because Felipe was crap (even though his career achievements outweigh Webber's).

When Vettel is 1.5 seconds/lap quicker than Webber at Singapore 2013, it's because Vettel is god.

 

Hypocrisy.

 

Today, Red Bull had one of the biggest performance advantages in recent history (2000's). 1.5-2 seconds per lap quicker than the nearest competition in a dry race is ridiculous.

Edited by Kingshark, 23 September 2013 - 04:57.

[Tron]

Well it doesn't happen every race. BTW I was rather impressed that these days any driver could create such a huge gap against the rest of the field so he could comfortably make another pitstop.

 

I know, it's like back in the days of Mansel with Williams and Schumacher at Ferrari. Don't think it will happen again this season.

[lbennie]

Today, Red Bull had one of the biggest performance advantages in recent history (2000's). 1.5-2 seconds per lap quicker than the nearest competition in a dry race is ridiculous.

 

Incorrect, Vettel had the performance advantage, not Red Bull.

 

It was the quickest car, no doubt, not 2 secs quicker than the rest though.

[stanga]

The only hope we have for a real competition is the change in rules next year. RBR have sealed all other variables.

[Oho]

Ferrari from circa 2001 till 2004.....

[fisssssi]

I will never forget Monza 2004.

 

The race was wet at the start both Ferraris had incidents on the first lap putting them at the back of the field. I was super-excited because we had seen a year of Schumacher domination and it actually looked like someone else would win a race. Then the track started drying and the Ferraris started speeding up. I think at one point they were 2 seconds-per-lap faster than the field and literally reeled in and passed Button, finishing 1-2.

That was a depressing day.

[Muppetmad]

Incorrect, Vettel had the performance advantage, not Red Bull.

 

It was the quickest car, no doubt, not 2 secs quicker than the rest though.

You keep saying "Incorrect" as if there is some objective measure that proves you correct and everybody else wrong. Kingshark already asked this and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: how do you know this? What irrefutable evidence do you have that allows you to conclude with all certainty that all the things you have said after all your "Incorrects" are themselves correct?

[DarthWillie]

You keep saying "Incorrect" as if there is some objective measure that proves you correct and everybody else wrong. Kingshark already asked this and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: how do you know this? What irrefutable evidence do you have that allows you to conclude with all certainty that all the things you have said after all your "Incorrects" are themselves correct?

then again how do you prove it was the car and not Vettel?

[boldhakka]

You keep saying "Incorrect" as if there is some objective measure that proves you correct and everybody else wrong. Kingshark already asked this and you ignored it, so I'll ask you again: how do you know this? What irrefutable evidence do you have that allows you to conclude with all certainty that all the things you have said after all your "Incorrects" are themselves correct?

He is quite correct to use that term. Kingshark's claim should have been about the RB9/Vettel combo; not just "Red Bull". It is factually incorrect to claim that "Red Bull" were 2 seconds clear of their nearest competitor when the other car/driver combo was not only slower but also failed to finish the race.

Look at the Monza 2004 example given by someone else. It had BOTH the Ferrari cars doing well and finishing 1-2. This has been true of all so called dominant cars in F1 since the 90's, except when Vettel and Webber are driving an RBR race car, when it needs only one driver to do well for it to be called dominant.

[Tenmantaylor]

1	1	Sebastian Vettel	Red Bull Racing-Renault	46	21:35:33	167.940	1:48.574
2	15	Adrian Sutil	Force India-Mercedes	43	21:30:39	166.283	1:49.656
3	2	Mark Webber	Red Bull Racing-Renault	51	21:45:16	166.091	1:49.783

8 tenths gap in Q2, 1.2s gap in the race and it's the team that is dominant? Have a word.

[Muppetmad]

then again how do you prove it was the car and not Vettel?

You can't - but I'm not trying to prove that it was the car and not Vettel, nor have I seen anybody suggesting that who has thrown around unambiguous terms like "incorrect" frequently. That's my point: you can't prove conclusively either way, to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

He is quite correct to use that term. Kingshark's claim should have been about the RB9/Vettel combo; not just "Red Bull". It is factually incorrect to claim that "Red Bull" were 2 seconds clear of their nearest competitor when the other car/driver combo was not only slower but also failed to finish the race.

 

Yes, but that's not the only way the term "Incorrect" is used - for example, "Incorrect, Mark is still a top driver, and would give hamilton & alonso trouble in the same car". Do you now see my issue? One can present the opinion that Webber is a "top driver", but using decisive terms like "Incorrect" where no decisive evidence can be provided is misleading.

[seahawk]

I would say a bad as 2004, 2004 was worse though as the drivers of the Ferraris were better than the drivers of the RBR are.

[savidb]

Seriously Redbull must be cheating or really exploiting the rules because its hard to understand how 1 team can be so consistently dominant 5 years into the same regulations. All the aero is very visible and can be copied, there are no special trick secrets there, it must be the engine. We will see next year. All this ebd stuff should have been stopped years ago.

[seahawk]

You can not see the interaction between the parts. I fear that the wind tunnel and dynamic simulations at RBR are so good, that it will be hard to catch up.

[V8 Fireworks]

I'm glad that Webber is retiring as I never thought he was much good...

 

Webber also won the Monaco GP 2010 by 1 minute safety car corrected mind you.  Same as Vettel did here in Singapore.  In case you forgot.

 

Of course Webber is worse than Vettel, most of the time.

 

It is a simple matter that the rest NEED TO IMPROVE.  Ferrari - not good enough.  Mercedes - not good enough.  Then they too can win a race by over a minute (adjusted for safety cars).     Get cracking...

[George Costanza]

I will never forget Monza 2004.

 

The race was wet at the start both Ferraris had incidents on the first lap putting them at the back of the field. I was super-excited because we had seen a year of Schumacher domination and it actually looked like someone else would win a race. Then the track started drying and the Ferraris started speeding up. I think at one point they were 2 seconds-per-lap faster than the field and literally reeled in and passed Button, finishing 1-2.

That was a depressing day.

 

 

yeah, Schumacher was in 15th when he spun and I believe Rubens had an issue, but.... once it dried, Schumacher and Barrichelllo was no match for anyone else.... Too quick.

[sennafan24]

2013 is a close contested battle compared to 2004, they may as well have had two separate Championships that year.

 

The Ferrari Championship and the Best Of The Rest Championship, the gulf was insane. I would say worse than 1988.

[George Costanza]

2013 is a close contested battle compared to 2004, they may as well have had two separate Championships that year.

 

The Ferrari Championship and the Best Of The Rest Championship, the gulf was insane. I would say worse than 1988.

 

 

I would argue 2002 was a little bit more dominant than 2004. 2002 was a little bit more stronger of the two.

Edited by George Costanza, 25 September 2013 - 00:25.

[sennafan24]

I would argue 2002 was a little bit more dominant than 2004. 2002 was a little bit more stronger of the two.

Possibly, but Rubens did a lot better in 2004 than 2002.

 

We are comparing two very dominant seasons though, as great as Schumi was (and he is one of the best) it was unlike Senna/Prost in 1988, because as much as the McLaren was better than the field in 88, it also had the two best drivers in a class of their own on driver merit.

 

Schumi may have still been the best in 04, but Kimi was as far off as the also ran's were in 88. Rubens in 2004 was not as good as the likes of Kimi, JPM and Alonso. 2004 was for me the absolute worse for a car advantage.

[HP]

I know what you mean .... but even MW is not that bad ,,, as someone said about, not only would he have to be rubbish but he would have to be having a JB 2012 style slump to explain how SV could lap at least a second a lap faster than the rest at will but he was struggling back in the pack.... this does not compute.

Mark Hughes in his latest column provides some insight why Vettel was that fast. Seemed reasonable to me. Plus this seems to be one of MW's worse tracks, given his stats at Singapore.

 

Let's look at MW and Vettel's stats

2008 retired: Gearbox. Vettel 5th with TR

2009 retired: Brakes. Vettel 4th with RBR

2010 3rd finished down 29+ seconds to 2nd Vettel

2011 3rd finished down 29+ seconds to 1st Vettel

2012 11th finished down 67+ seconds to 1st Vettel (MW given a 20 second's penalty for overtaking Koba off track)

2013 15th (did not reach the end) to 1st Vettel (After the last pitstop of Vettel, and before MW was asked to short shift, was about 30 seconds behind SV)

 

Half the time MW has car troubles, and all other races he is at least half a minute down on Vettel. So may I suggest aside from the cars reliability, MW isn't good at this track. Vettel at the other hand is good at his track, and the track layout/car/driver seem to work together well.

 

The other drivers are harder to compare as they are not teammates of Vettel. If anything this year other teams (mainly cars) are as bad as MW at his usual at Singapore.

Edited by HP, 25 September 2013 - 00:51.

[Alfisti]

I swear some of you are dead set losing it. RBR has not been dominant for five years, they were dominant in 2011 and the past few races. 2010 they were uber fast but the thing shat itself quite often so the reliability wasn't there. This year as a whole is not even close to 2011 where Seb went on an ABSOLUTE tear for about 12 races or so. 

 

So to answer the question, two years ago!

[HP]

Alonso in a Red Bull? Scary..... That's scary.

That's not what I meant. Alonso still at Ferrari, but Vettel not in F1, Alonso would have won at least one, if not 2 of the championships Vettel won, and would most like win this years WDC too, all in a Ferrari. No Vettel, and FA would possibly be a 5 time WDC at the end of this season. I know that's a lot of ifs.. Still without Vettel, F1 would still be loopsided in terms of winners. Since 2000 that seems to be a topic in F1. MS, FA and SV the standouts. And I can imagine that would be worse for more people than it is now, because of the Ferrari factor.

 

So without Vettel, Formula Alonso would be a far, far bigger turnoff, than what he have now than with Formula Vettel (unless you are a Ferrari fan).

 

The question in any case is how to prevent a team from becoming so dominant.