492 replies to this topic

[sennafan24]

Newey was succesful in the 90s, while having often problems to deliever a fast and/or reliable car in the 00s. That are facts.

 

 

There were several variables for that though, McLaren were not as cowboy-esque in the 90's. Plus you had other variables like the tyre war, and a Ferrari team who were doing a outstanding job in all areas. Newey is just one area of the team, a very large area which he brings a advantage to. Its pretty much that RB harness Newey's talents in a way McLaren do not. I strongly believe the success Macca had in 2007/2008 was due to the blueprint Newey laid down for them.

 

The change in regulations allowed RB too catch up with the pack, and they used Newey to full advantage to produce the best car for 4 years running. To his credit, Vettel has taken this opportunity with both hands, beat Webber on pure merit when Webber was in his prime, and enhanced his all round driving skills to a high degree.

 

But to say RB were pretty much the same now as they were in 2007/2008 time and Vettel is carrying the team,  is utter nonsense only spouted by the most delusional of fanboys.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 14:22.

[Lucass]

You missed the point, please read more carefully or you look like a moron.

 

In terms of performance Kimi in 2005 and Vettel in 2013 are very close, both are very consistent and very fast in Newey cars. The only difference is the team supporting the Newey based car and driver.

 

To say that Vettel is carrying Newey like the blinkered guy above said is complete "drivel" as much as it would be to say Vettel is not doing a good job. Its called balance, learn about please.

My stance is that people who insert Kimi 2005 into a Newey / Vettel 2013 thread look like a moron but heyho have balanced fun with it

[sennafan24]

My stance is that people who insert Kimi 2005 into a Newey / Vettel 2013 thread look like a moron but heyho have balanced fun with it

It was a example I was giving, that was no slight on Vettel in the slightest. I am simply comparing Kimi's performances in 2005 which he won driver of the year in some polls, to Vettel in 2013, both were in Newey designed cars and both performed to a elite level. The only difference was the team they were in, one was more organised than the other and harnessed the talents of Newey better than the other.

 

You are either missing the point, or you cannot produce a counter argument. Its really quite simple to grasp.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 14:27.

[Raven8]

I doubt Vettel will be motivated to move to a non-Newey team just to prove himself or a point to a few doubting noobs on the Internets.

The man just wants to win, win and win some more, while adding even more records to his already considerable collection.

 

At the moment he's in the best team and his standing as almost quadruple WDC will allow him to pick a spot in the best team in future if that's not Red Bull.

I doubt if it will come to that though. Red Bull, Newey and Sebastian Vettel have all profited from eachothers perfection and if next season they continue to be in the run for championships I think Seb will stay with the team.

He will never be respected as real great as long as he is at RBR with Newey

[krea]

But to say RB were pretty much the same now as they were in 2007/2008 time and Vettel is carrying the team,  is utter nonsense only spouted by the most delusional of fanboys.

 

Good that no one said this.

[midgrid]

He will never be respected as real great as long as he is at RBR with Newey

Just like Jim Clark isn't regarded as a true great for spending his entire career with Lotus and Chapman?

[Raven8]

Just like Jim Clark isn't regarded as a true great for spending his entire career with Lotus and Chapman?

Jim cLark did not have Newey

[sennafan24]

Good that no one said this.

You said this

 

"Kind of like Newey cars were often pretty far away from the top cars in the 10 years before Vettel"

 

This indicated that Vettel is the sole variable that is making the team win, and the other drivers who piloted Newey cars in years previous (I.E Kimi in 2005) could not get the job done in Newey cars, whilst Vettel could.

 

Its a faulty opinion that overlooks many variables. Like I said you have to account for rule changes, the tyre war and most importantly the competence of the team Newey was in. Red Bull did a much better job than McLaren did with Newey's talents, the second they had a chance come the 2009 regulations they gave him all the rope he needed and enhanced his work by having a competent team around him, and like I have stated several times Vettel did his job very well and made the most of the lottery ticket he in many ways earned.

 

My simple point is this, and I will have to use Kimi again I am afraid, so the above guy can cry into his cornflakes some more.

 

-Vettel was given a Newey car with a efficient team and decent circumstances

 

-Kimi was given a Newey car with a inefficient team and not so good circumstances.

 

Its not just the driver that is the difference in Red Bulls success, if you put Vettel in any Newey car pre 2009, I doubt he would have won a WDC. Put Newey in a team that harnessed his talents more pre-2009, and he would have had a car ready to for a Kimi to win a WDC.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 14:58.

[krea]

You said this

 

"Kind of like Newey cars were often pretty far away from the top cars in the 10 years before Vettel"

 

This indicated that Vettel is the sole variable that is making the team win, and the other drivers who piloted Newey cars in years previous (I.E Kimi in 2005) could not get the job done in Newey cars, whilst Vettel could.

 

You shouldn't try to interepret my posts but just read what I wrote.

 

Red Bull or Newey's cars weren't a league on its own in the ten years before Vettel. I don't think we need to discuss about it. All the talk about Newey is a safebet etc. is just a way to relativize Red Bull's and espencially Vettel's success.

[sennafan24]

You shouldn't try to interepret my posts but just read what I wrote.

 

Red Bull or Newey's cars weren't a league on its own in the ten years before Vettel. I don't think we need to discuss about it. All the talk about Newey is a safebet etc. is just a way to relativize Red Bull's and espencially Vettel's success.

Statements like the one you made, will always be challenged if they infer something that could be seen as incorrect. You missed out a lot of circumstances that prevented Newey cars from being in a league of their own, none of which prevent Newey's cars today.

 

Straight question though, do you think there is not a safe middle ground to this? I mean Newey is seen as a genius at what he does, and Red Bull personal are clearly really good as well. Vettel himself if you read my posts I give a lot of credit to as a elite driver.

 

Can it not be that all variables came together and worked well in tandem? and giving them credit on a individual basis is justified, and not a knock on the other part of the team? I think in this case that is the most reflective and balanced viewpoint.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 15:41.

[Lucass]

He will never be respected as real great as long as he is at RBR with Newey

But he already is respected by the people who do matter in the sport. I've seen champions like Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher utter nothing but their utmost respect for Sebastian Vettel even compare him to greats such as Clark and Senna.

 

So I doubt he'll care enough about the 'respect' of a few internet noobs to prove his worth in another team.

The kid just wants to win, every race, every quali and set every fastest lap.

He's now in the fortunate position to pick the team that will give him the best car to achieve even more success that will determine where he'll race in future not the 'respect' of a few insignificants.

[sennafan24]

But he already is respected by the people who do matter in the sport. I've seen champions like Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher utter nothing but their utmost respect for Sebastian Vettel even compare him to greats such as Clark and Senna.

 

So I doubt he'll care enough about the 'respect' of a few internet noobs to prove his worth in another team.

The kid just wants to win, every race, every quali and set every fastest lap.

He's now in the fortunate position to pick the team that will give him the best car to achieve even more success that will determine where he'll race in future not the 'respect' of a few insignificants.

Again, your point is one-sided. You cannot dismiss Vettel cynics as internet noobs, and be taken seriously. Who says you have the authority to determine who's opinion matters as well.

 

This is from someone who defends Vettel on a regular basis these days, try approaching things from a more neutral position. Vettel is going to leave RB eventually I am sure of it, and I see no reason why he will not perform well in any team he goes to.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 15:53.

[paulogman]

Imagine a 2016 season. Vettel is new Ferrari driver and wins the first WDC for Ferrari since 2007.

 

Do you really believe people like you wouldn't come up with other excueses like he was lucky he got into a reinvigorated Ferrai team. Kind of like Newey cars were often pretty far away from the top cars in the 10 years before Vettel.

that's never gonna happen.

folks who follow the sport know that the reason ferrari had such success is because they took the italian out of the team and allowed a bunch of foreigners to come in and run it.

french team manager, english tech director, and south african designer.

[discover23]

But he already is respected by the people who do matter in the sport. I've seen champions like Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher utter nothing but their utmost respect for Sebastian Vettel even compare him to greats such as Clark and Senna.

He is respected but I don't think these insiders nor the drivers themselves think that he is the best driver on the grid. This is why his WDCs would be more of Redbull car contributing factor than Vettel as a driver. Basically, these insiders would tell you that Alonso or Lewis will also be dominant if they drove for RedBull. These titles do not set him apart as a driver.

Edited by discover23, 29 September 2013 - 15:58.

[Raven8]

But he already is respected by the people who do matter in the sport. I've seen champions like Stewart, Lauda and Schumacher utter nothing but their utmost respect for Sebastian Vettel even compare him to greats such as Clark and Senna.

 

So I doubt he'll care enough about the 'respect' of a few internet noobs to prove his worth in another team.

The kid just wants to win, every race, every quali and set every fastest lap.

He's now in the fortunate position to pick the team that will give him the best car to achieve even more success that will determine where he'll race in future not the 'respect' of a few insignificants.

A few internet noobs?!! Go out at the races people are fed up & bored with Vettel & RBR

[krea]

Statements like the one you made, will always be challenged if they infer something that could be seen as incorrect. You missed out a lot of circumstances that prevented Newey cars from being in a league of their own, none of which prevent Newey's cars today.

 

Straight question though, do you think there is not a safe middle ground to this? I mean Newey is seen as a genius at what he does, and Red Bull personal are clearly really good as well. Vettel himself if you read my posts I give a lot of credit to as a elite driver.

 

Can it not be that all variables came together and worked well in tandem? and giving them credit on a individual basis is justified, and not a knock on the other part of the team? I think in this case that is the most reflective and balanced viewpoint.

 

I think I wrote in this thread already that F1 is the combination of engineering, the team  and driver.

 

People will never understand why a team is succesful if they are just trying to see things isolated.

[Silvercheese]

Jim cLark did not have Newey

 

And Sebastian Vettel didn't have Colin Chapman, Rory Bryne, Ken Tyrrell, Ross Brawn, Gordon Murray, Rudolf Uhlenhaut, Mauro Forghieri, Steve Nicholas etc...

[sennafan24]

I think I wrote in this thread already that F1 is the combination of engineering, the team  and driver.

 

People will never understand why a team is succesful if they are just trying to see things isolated.

Something we agree upon 

 

Apologies if I misunderstood your posts.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 16:14.

[Lucass]

Again, your point is one-sided. You cannot dismiss Vettel cynics as internet noobs, and be taken seriously. Who says you have the authority to determine who's opinion matters as well.

Sorry but being taken seriously by you is about as important as the 'respect' of a few Internet noobs is to Sebastian Vettel

Of course the opinion of a few F1 noobs is insignificant, the wins, championships and records are there and they are respected by the people who do matter.

 

A few internet noobs?!! Go out at the races people are fed up & bored with Vettel & RBR

I've been to 2 races this year and sure people are fed up with Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull beating their team and driver.

 

I would like to see another team win this year too however I can appreciate the Red Bull TEAM (as in designer, driver(s), management, engineers, mechanics, whoever...) execute their jobs to perfection.

The sportsman in me has nothing but respect for that, like Lauda, Brundle, Stewart, Schumacher and the rest of the F1 fraternaty have.

Excellence in our sport is to be respected and admired.

The few (internet) noobs that can't see past their own driver and team should just be ignored

[sennafan24]

Sorry but being taken seriously by you is about as important as the 'respect' of a few Internet noobs is to Sebastian Vettel

Of course the opinion of a few F1 noobs is insignificant, the wins, championships and records are there and they are respected by the people who do matter.

 

Again, who are you to determine who matters?, and again you offer a defensive and one-sided viewpoint to the debate. You seem to generalize every Vettel cynic as well, again more one-sided thinking.

 

Are just incapable of seeing the other side of the argument, or are just ignorant.

Edited by sennafan24, 29 September 2013 - 16:30.

[Lucass]

Again, who are you to determine who matters?, and again you offer a defensive and one-sided viewpoint to the debate. You seem to generalize every Vettel cynic as well, again more one-sided thinking.

 

Are just incapable of seeing the other side of the argument, or are just ignorant.

Should I answer now or wait until you've made the umpteenth edit to your post?

[sennafan24]

Should I answer now or wait until you've made the umpteenth edit to your post?

Go ahead

[bourbon]

Again, your point is one-sided. You cannot dismiss Vettel cynics as internet noobs, and be taken seriously. Who says you have the authority to determine who's opinion matters as well.

 

This is from someone who defends Vettel on a regular basis these days, try approaching things from a more neutral position. Vettel is going to leave RB eventually I am sure of it, and I see no reason why he will not perform well in any team he goes to.

 

Well all of Vettel's cynics are not noobs. But those making the following suggestions are speaking like noobs in my opinion:

 

1.  Vettel must change teams before he can be be proven a true great (without an explanation as to why his having already done so twice does not count)

2.  Vettel must race a WDC teammate before he can be proven a true great

3.  Vettel must win from behind row 3 in order to be proven a true great

4.  Vettel must win the championship in 'not the best car' before he can be proven a true great

5.  Vettel must win the championship with a designer who is not Newey before he can be proven a true great

 

All of the above is nonsense for the following reasons:

 

1.  No two drivers are alike; they forge their own way in the sport.  That means Vettel will do it his way, based on his opportunities that arise as he progresses through the sport.  One cannot set out goals for any driver that he may never realize or figure that all drivers will have the experiences of all others. 

 

2.  If a driver cannot prove themselves a great by winning the WDC (and greater with each subsequent WDC), then the criteria for the WD Championship needs to be changed to reflect what is "really" a champion in the sport.  Until that day arrives, fans have to accept that greats are made and rise through the present criteria.  Otherwise you would have to validate some knucklehead saying drivers that have never finished a race with gasoline in his eyes is not a true great.  At what point do you decide someone is being idiotic?  I make it simple.  The rules are already set out, the criteria chosen.  Any driver meeting it, time and again over time = a great at THIS sport.  If someone wants a different criteria, they need to gather investment and create a new series.

 

So yeah, I can dismiss someone's opinion if I feel it is senseless. And the above criteria is senseless - especially as only Vettel is held to such standards. 

[sennafan24]

Well all of Vettel's cynics are not noobs. 

I did not have to read the rest of your post (I did for the record), I understand there are a lot of Vettel haters out there who discredit him unfairly and are indeed as you said "knuckleheads" who are full of double standards and blinkered thinking, my problem is that they are generalized by the guy above into being "internet noobs"

 

My problem is when with the generalization, nothing more nothing less. 

[Lucass]

Go ahead

Is that your final answer?

 

Anyhoo I'm capable of seeing all sides to the argument but I'm not sure there's much of a debate here.

It's merely those wanting to discredit Vettel's accomplishments directly or by proxy via Kimi 2005 comparisons for example.

 

My opinion is that there's no choice between Vettel and Newey, it's the Red Bull team that has achieved this enormous success and it's impossible to single out the driver, the designer, the manager, the engineers or the mechanics nor is it possible to insert other drivers, management etceterera and say they would have done equally well.

I see it as a unique combination.

 

As to whose opinion matters, surely everyone agrees that the opinion and praise of F1 greats about Seb like Lauda, Stewart, Schumacher and Moss matters a lot more than the silly criticism of a few butt-hurt fanboys on an internet forum.

 

Someone stated earlier in yet another bash Vettel thread that if there was such a thing as a generator that would run on sour grapes, half of Europe could be illuminated by some of the threads here.

[sennafan24]

 

My opinion is that there's no choice between Vettel and Newey, it's the Red Bull team that has achieved this enormous success and it's impossible to single out the driver, the designer, the manager, the engineers or the mechanics nor is it possible to insert other drivers, management etceterera and say they would have done equally well.

I see it as a unique combination.

 

I was not discrediting Vettel with the Kimi comparison, far from it. Just showing that the other aspects other than the driver and Newey play a part in the overall success, that comparison was to show the importance of other roles other than the driver and Newey .

 

The bit I have quoted I agree upon, and is a very balanced viewpoint in my opinion. And its about bloody time 

 

I get why Vettel fans are so defensive and get annoyed, there are a lot of unjustified haters of him out there no doubt fueled by sour grapes. And yes the likes of Schumi and Lauda giving him credit should not be sniffed at. But I do not think any critic or question about Vettel should be dismissed as sour grapes.

[Lucass]

I was not discrediting Vettel with the Kimi comparison, far from it. Just showing that the other aspects other than the driver and Newey play a part in the overall success, that comparison was to show the importance of other roles other than the driver and Newey .

 

The bit I have quoted I agree upon, and is a very balanced viewpoint in my opinion. And its about bloody time 

 

I get why Vettel fans are so defensive and get annoyed, there are a lot of unjustified haters of him out there no doubt fueled by sour grapes. And yes the likes of Schumi and Lauda giving him credit should not be sniffed at. But I do not think any critic or question about Vettel should be dismissed as sour grapes.

Damn so we kind of agree on the Vettel vs Newey thingy

Guess you were the most eloquent target in what I see as another annoying Vettel bash thread.

 

As to the value of the opinion of the internet noobs we'll have to agree to disagree or have that discussion another day another thread

 

To get things clear though I'm NOT a Vettel and/or Red Bull fan and I do think your avatar is fugly 

[Ellios]

Given how exciting I found watching the America's Cup, coupled with Sir Ben Ainslie call for a British challenger - I'd be more than happy for for Adrian Newey to back to designing yachts instead of Formula One racing cars

[sennafan24]

and I do think your avatar is fugly 

And I was starting to like you 

[DarthWillie]

A few internet noobs?!! Go out at the races people are fed up & bored with Vettel & RBR

Yes, those are noobs compared to knowledgeable people, and their being bored has absolutely zero meaning in a discussion about Vettel's abilities

[Higli]

He will never be respected [by Raven8] as real great as long as he is at RBR with Newey

Let me adjust the statement for you.

[David1976]

You said this

 

"Kind of like Newey cars were often pretty far away from the top cars in the 10 years before Vettel"

 

This indicated that Vettel is the sole variable that is making the team win, and the other drivers who piloted Newey cars in years previous (I.E Kimi in 2005) could not get the job done in Newey cars, whilst Vettel could.

 

Its a faulty opinion that overlooks many variables. Like I said you have to account for rule changes, the tyre war and most importantly the competence of the team Newey was in. Red Bull did a much better job than McLaren did with Newey's talents, the second they had a chance come the 2009 regulations they gave him all the rope he needed and enhanced his work by having a competent team around him, and like I have stated several times Vettel did his job very well and made the most of the lottery ticket he in many ways earned.

 

My simple point is this, and I will have to use Kimi again I am afraid, so the above guy can cry into his cornflakes some more.

 

-Vettel was given a Newey car with a efficient team and decent circumstances

 

-Kimi was given a Newey car with a inefficient team and not so good circumstances.

 

Its not just the driver that is the difference in Red Bulls success, if you put Vettel in any Newey car pre 2009, I doubt he would have won a WDC. Put Newey in a team that harnessed his talents more pre-2009, and he would have had a car ready to for a Kimi to win a WDC.

 

 

Agree completely, as do most F1 fans I talk to.

[HeadFirst]

Ask yourself which team do the top drivers all seek to drive for, and you will see which car is dominant.

[apoka]

Ask yourself which team do the top drivers all seek to drive for, and you will see which car is dominant.

 

Ferrari?

[Winter98]

Ask yourself which team do the top drivers all seek to drive for, and you will see which car is dominant.

Then see, out of all the top drivers, which one was chosen...

Edited by Winter98, 30 September 2013 - 13:52.

[slopps]

why dont people cite any facts in any of these debates, or at least make some assumptions clear.

 

Look at Neweys history at Mclaren - hes not infallible. Look at the 2003 Mclaren for example. 

Okay, you could say 'well it wasn't Newey, it was the unreliable Mercedes engine'. Who knows? Maybe he's got better with age? Maybe Newey wasn't as big a factor back in the 2000's as the tyre war. 

 

Look at 2012 - wasn't Alonso leading the championship by a large margin, going into the final 6 races? Vettel came From behind, and won it. 

Vettel has on average, beaten Webber, in the same car. Okay, so maybe Webber isn't as fast as Hamilton/Alonso/Raikonnen (the so called, Elite drivers) - who knows? Webber has never been paired with any of them them. 

 

Is it all Newey? Who knows? WE don't know how big exactly each teams budgets are, and money is a huge factor. We don't know about each teams working practises, how they have split the resources. 

Can we say, in tenths, how much of an impact Newey has? Of course not. 

Can we really say that the RedBull has been a totally dominant car, like an 88 Mclaren or a 92 Williams? No, looking at the qualifying results. In 2010 there were 3 main drivers in contention, it was Vettel who stole it, at the last race. In 2012, again, he comes back from behind to win it. 

 

COnclusion: you cannot possibly say that Vettel had a Dominant car, in 2 of his 3 championships. The best car? Possibly. Equal best? Definitely. That's all you can conclude. 

If the car was truely dominant, you'd end up with a situation where Webber would be coming in 2nd every time, in all seasons, behind Vettel - has that happened? No!

Compare that to 2002 and 2004, when Barichello would consistently take 2nd, suggesting that the car could indeed be labelled as 'dominant'. 

 

This question of 'is it the car or driver' is so arbitrary - there are so many variables to consider, and so many assumptions to make. The only data you can really go on.........are the results. All on Wiki. ANd those results will tell you that in the last 15 odd years of F1, we have only had a few years of truely dominant cars: 2001, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2011, and now, 2013. 

 

All other years were contested to the end, suggesting that those cars weren't dominant. 

All you can conclude is that to win a championship, you obviously need either the best or equal best car to win. That has been the case in F1 for......all of time. 

 

Regarding teammates, all you can say so far is that none of the 'Elite 4' have ever had a second 'elite' teammate...... and for the first time next year we'll have that with Alonso and Kimi (apart from that time Alonso ran away from Mclaren, of course) Now if we can get back to refuelling and flat out sprint stints with more difficult to drive nervous grooved tyre cars, and remove DRS and KERS - I'll be happy again.  

Edited by slopps, 02 October 2013 - 21:46.

[sennafan24]

why dont people cite any facts in any of these debates, or at least make some assumptions clear.

 

Because in most critical analysis of F1 it is almost impossible to state "facts" all we can do as fans is present our own subjective opinion. Even statistics and results are not really any basis for facts, they can only act as a very strong indicator or trend. Your post reads like a rapid fire of opinions and "who know" which is fair enough, but there is no real factual basis. There is not always something wrong with a individual coming to a conclusion based on their own observations and experiences.

 

I agree when you say "many variables too consider" but if I was to take "results" as the only data and the definitive answer than ****ing hell, Senna was not the best driver in 1993 and the Williams was not the best car. And in 1996 Schumi was not as good as Hill.

 

You also trip yourself up, by stating variables too consider then saying about dominant cars based on teammate comparisons, who is too say that Rubens is not a much better driver than Webber. I would say in his 2000-2004 peak, Rubens was a notch above Webber 2011-2013. Whatever the case, there is no factual answer there either.

 

You also say that Red Bull was equally the best car in 2012 as a fact, and that is all "that one could conclude" based in results. That to me is a incorrect statement, as again results only tell half the story, as you said yourself when contrasting something else "there are too many variables to consider" I think the RB has been the best from 2009-2013, and I am sticking by that analysis, and I am not putting it all down to Newey, the RB team is very well oiled and they have a fantastic driver in Vettel to add to the package. If someone where to disagree, that is fair enough my observations are not intended to be "fact" either, as much as I would like to think they are at times (that is a joke btw)

 

I was doing some research earlier for a article I am about too write, and out of 35 polls I found only 7 mainly very small polls concluded that results really matter in F1 in terms of who is the greatest driver in F1 history. 25 of the polls I studied stated another driver was the greatest, who's results tally was less than half the record holder. There is a lesson to be learnt, results and stats do not paint the full picture, if we are slaves to them we lost any theoretical or perception which is a very dangerous thing in general, not just in the relatively unimportant matter of accessing F1.

Edited by sennafan24, 02 October 2013 - 22:31.

[slopps]

Because in most critical analysis of F1 it is almost impossible to state "facts" all we can do as fans is present our own subjective opinion. Even statistics and results are not really any basis for facts, they can only act as a very strong indicator or trend. Your post reads like a rapid fire of opinions and "who know" which is fair enough, but there is no real factual basis. There is not always something wrong with a individual coming to a conclusion based on their own observations and experiences.

 

I agree when you say "many variables too consider" but if I was to take "results" as the only data and the definitive answer than ****ing hell, Senna was not the best driver in 1993 and the Williams was not the best car. And in 1996 Schumi was not as good as Hill.

 

You also trip yourself up, by stating variables too consider then saying about dominant cars based on teammate comparisons, who is too say that Rubens is not a much better driver than Webber. I would say in his 2000-2004 peak, Rubens was a notch above Webber 2011-2013. Whatever the case, there is no factual answer there either.

 

You also say that Red Bull was equally the best car in 2012 as a fact, and that is all "that one could conclude" based in results. That to me is a incorrect statement, as again results only tell half the story, as you said yourself when contrasting something else "there are too many variables to consider" I think the RB has been the best from 2009-2013, and I am sticking by that analysis, and I am not putting it all down to Newey, the RB team is very well oiled and they have a fantastic driver in Vettel to add to the package. If someone where to disagree, that is fair enough my observations are not intended to be "fact" either, as much as I would like to think they are at times (that is a joke btw)

 

I was doing some research earlier for a article I am about too write, and out of 35 polls I found only 7 mainly very small polls concluded that results really matter in F1 in terms of who is the greatest driver in F1 history. 25 of the polls I studied stated another driver was the greatest, who's results tally was less than half the record holder. There is a lesson to be learnt, results and stats do not paint the full picture, if we are slaves to them we lost any theoretical or perception which is a very dangerous thing in general, not just in the relatively unimportant matter of accessing F1.

 

'Your post reads like a rapid fire of opinions............'

 

Please feel free to point out exactly where I have come to a conclusion based on opinion alone?

 

'if i was to take the results as the only data.....then Senna was not the best driver, Schumi in 96 was not as good as Hill' 

 

Did I say 'take the results as the only data' to say who the best driver was? No! The topic was about whether it was Newey or Vettel which was making the difference in his championship wins. I cited specific examples of why you cannot say definitively whether its one thing or the other. I did not say 'X was the best because he won the championship'. 

You've made up an argument that I supposedly made and used that to argue against.....

 

My post has got nothing to do with how good Vettel is as a driver, compared to other drivers. Its about trying to ascertain whether its car, or driver, or a bit of both, thats having an influence on his success, and comparing that to other drivers who have won championships, and seeing how they won those championships. 

 

'You also trip yourself up, by stating variables too consider then saying about dominant cars based on teammate comparisons, who is too say that Rubens is not a much better driver than Webber'

 

again you completely misunderstand the point.... if a car was truely dominant, then you'd expect an 'average' or 'above average' (if you could call Rubens or Webber that) to finish behind the leading driver and secure 2nd in the championship. I cited specific years when that has happened. Your opinion about 'Rubens peak' is pure opinion, you're trying to compare Rubens in 2000-2004 to Webber in 2011-2013 - absurd. It's an opinion based on absolutely nothing, no evidence, no fact - and you've acknowledged that at least, by saying 'there is no factual answer there either.'

 

'You also say that Red Bull was equally the best car in 2012 as a fact, and that is all "that one could conclude" based in results. That to me is a incorrect statement, as again results only tell half the story, as you said yourself when contrasting something else "there are too many variables to consider" I think the RB has been the best from 2009-2013, and I am sticking by that analysis, and I am not putting it all down to Newey, the RB team is very well oiled and they have a fantastic driver in Vettel to add to the package. If someone where to disagree, that is fair enough my observations are not intended to be "fact" either, as much as I would like to think they are at times'

 

Why is my conclusion incorrect? You haven't specifically said why, you've just said 'RB is a well oiled team'.

You don't seem to get it - the results are the results - they are the outcomes of all the variables, from driver performance, to team performance, to engine performance, to mistakes that have been made on track, in the pits - They are the results, and they are undeniable. That does not mean to say that Senna wasn't the best driver in the field in 1993, or that Schumacher wasn't the best driver in 1996 - its not a mutually exclusive statement. Infact that is actually one of the points of my post.........i even say very clearly 'to win the championship, you either need the best car or equal best car to win'. Therefore I'm already saying that you don't necessarily have to be the best driver to win. Understand?

 

It is a totally logical conclusion, that if a car is dominant, then both drivers in that car will achieve 1+2 by the end of the year. Thats the hypothesis - then look at the results, and you'll see that the evidence backs this up. I used the results to determine how dominant a Car actually was, to then work out whether its the car or the driver, and also using the 'not so good' teammate of that car as a benchmark. 

 

All your poll proves is that people don't use facts or results to base their opinions on - but use conjecture, affiliations and emotions to assess who they prefer. 

You say my post was full of opinion.....but haven't cited any part of my post that actually was opinion that wasn't based on some kind of evidence. 

 

'There is a lesson to be learnt, results and stats do not paint the full picture, if we are slaves to them we lost any theoretical or perception which is a very dangerous thing in general

 

No, the complete Opposite is true - without using results and stats, there would have been no scientific method, and No human progress. If we relied on just opinion and perception, we'd be no where. We were in the dark ages before people started using data, results, and objective evidence, to base their opinions and beliefs on. 

It's whats needed in any debate, doesn't matter if its F1 or particle physics. 

Edited by slopps, 02 October 2013 - 23:00.

[sennafan24]

Firstly saying "to win the championship, you either need the best car or equal best car to win" is an opinion, one I disagree with. I will cite 2008 and 1995 as firm examples to contradict that opinion or "fact" if you like.

 

I think you are wrong in presuming people in the polls I stated do not use facts, but use opinions and emotions. There is more to judging greatness than results, things like circumstance, relative performance and yes a whole deal of subjective opinions. You will say a higher quantity of results matters, but is say pulling 7 larger ladies really as impressive as pulling 3 Miley Cyrus's (that is a joke to lighten the mood by the way)

 

Also, the Ferrari was seriously off pace in the latter stages of 2012, how many times did we hear the phrase "damage limitation" attributed to Ferrari's weekend. The Red Bull enjoyed a clear advantage, and some weekends when  there were not problems so did the McLaren team. Vettel did not perform consistently for the first half or so of 2012, the RB was about equal to the Ferrari in the first half of the season, but if you look at the season as whole, RB had the advantage.

 

Also, you said this

 

"It is a totally logical conclusion, that if a car is dominant, then both drivers in that car will achieve 1+2 by the end of the year. Thats the hypothesis - then look at the results, and you'll see that the evidence backs this up"

 

Its a opinion and absolute statement to say that a dominant car will achieve 1 and 2 by the end of the year, teams often give better resources, attention and machinery to one teammate over another, you speak of variables and that is one you need to consider. A dominant car can be in a team, but his teammates car is not always the same. Also, like stated the quality of teammate is another factor.

 

You say my point about Rubens and Webber is not fact and pure opinion, yes that is true. But you can barely prove anything as fact in F1, like I said results, stats or whatever are just indicators, they do not account for the full picture.

 

Edit: I am not going to dismiss scientific methods 100%, they have their decent uses, but there is a serious lack of theory in some aspects of the world (I.E accessing criminal stats) that are prevented progress, but that is a debate for another day.

Edited by sennafan24, 02 October 2013 - 23:16.

[slopps]

Firstly saying "to win the championship, you either need the best car or equal best car to win" is an opinion, one I disagree with. I will cite 2008 and 1995 as firm examples to contradict that opinion or "fact" if you like.

 

I based my opinion of 'you either need the best car or equal best car to win' based on the history of F1, where the chances are if you have one of the biggest budgets, the probability of a team producing a better car than the other team with less money, is likely, because they can afford more resources. 

Therefore it is a reasonable assumption to make that if you win a race or a championship, you are in a team which has comparatively more resources than other teams. I don't have access to any of the teams accounts to prove this - all I can say is that its well known within F1 circles and within experienced commentors within F1, that Ferrari has......a bigger budget than say....Force India, and is therefore highly likely to build a better car. Of all the championship winners, they came from teams which had large resources, and therefore, it is highly likely that they were in the best, or 1 of the best cars. 

Why have you cited 2008 and 1995? It makes no sense - you haven't explained why - how can you call them firm examples? All you've done is gone 'oh i disagree, look at 2008 and 1995' and not explained why - lol. So, I'm assuming you think that Hamilton's car wasn't clearly as good as Massa's Ferrari? Why do you think that? What are you basing that on? 1995, again, how do you know for definite that the Benetton wasn't as good as the Williams? You don't, no one does. I have read, and unfortunately i cannot cite sources, that the 1995 Benetton was a very good car, very nimble. (and I believe Schumacher was the best, so this proves how unbiased im trying to be)

 

I think you are wrong in presuming people in the polls I stated do not use facts, but use opinions and emotions. There is more to judging greatness than results, things like circumstance, relative performance and yes a whole deal of subjective opinions. You will say a higher quantity of results matters, but is say pulling 7 larger ladies really as impressive as pulling 3 Miley Cyrus's (that is a joke to lighten the mood by the way)

 

You don't know the reasons for the results of your polls. You haven't asked them for reasons why they have voted, or if you have, you haven't described them here. So, all i can do as dismiss your argument surrounding polls - it means nothing.

 

Also, the Ferrari was seriously off pace in the latter stages of 2012, how many times did we hear the phrase "damage limitation" attributed to Ferrari's weekend. The Red Bull enjoyed a clear advantage, and some weekends when  there were not problems so did the McLaren team. Vettel did not perform consistently for the first half or so of 2012, the RB was about equal to the Ferrari in the first half of the season, but if you look at the season as whole, RB had the advantage.

 

How do you know Vettel didn't perform consistently? How do you know it wasn't the car? You haven't cited any examples. I dont understand how you can conclude that the Red bull, in 2012, was equal to the Ferrari in the first half of the season. Okay - lets say that it was - that Overall the Redbull was the better car - I could flip that round and go, 'okay, its because Ferrari underperformed and made mistakes with their car in the 2nd half of the seasons, and didn't develop as well. Because of that, Alonso didn't perform consistently. '. Do you see now why that opinion is invalid, and cannot be used in an argument properly?

 

Also, you said this

 

"It is a totally logical conclusion, that if a car is dominant, then both drivers in that car will achieve 1+2 by the end of the year. Thats the hypothesis - then look at the results, and you'll see that the evidence backs this up"

 

Its a opinion and absolute statement to say that a dominant car will achieve 1 and 2 by the end of the year, teams often give better resources, attention and machinery to one teammate over another, you speak of variables and that is one you need to consider. A dominant car can be in a team, but his teammates car is not always the same. Also, like stated the quality of teammate is another factor.

 

All conjecture. Please give me some proof that some teammates had better resources or more attention than others. I've never understood this argument, it makes absolutely Zero sense for any team to do this, because they risk losing constructor points, and if something happens to their lead driver in a race, for whatever reason, the teammate with the 'ill equipped sister car' can't pick up the pieces. 

Logically, it makes no sense - factually, you have no evidence (or haven't mentioned anything) that Webber, Rubens, or any of these teammates that were 'living in the shadow' had a worse sister car or worse resources. 

 

You say my point about Rubens and Webber is not fact and pure opinion, yes that is true. But you can barely prove anything as fact in F1, like I said results, stats or whatever are just indicators, they do not account for the full picture.

 

So, you are sort of contradicting yourself. You agree that you can barely prove anything as fact in F1, so then how are you forming your 'full picture'? If its not based on fact, it remains an opinion that is unqualified - its about as much value as me saying 'the earth is flat'

 

Edit: I am not going to dismiss scientific methods 100%, they have their decent uses, but there is a serious lack of theory in some aspects of the world (I.E accessing criminal stats) that are prevented progress, but that is a debate for another day.

 

i agree, its a debate not for an F1 forum - but the scientific method uses theory as a foundation and start point........so i think you have misunderstood what is meant by 'theory' in this context. The scientific method is applicable to anything, and should be applied to everything. It would really help....

Edited by slopps, 02 October 2013 - 23:53.

[sennafan24]

Firstly, I just noticed you just joined the forum, so I am sorry I have jumped on you, I will also drop the scientific debate and the polls as they have little relevance to the main debate we are having. I could have counter argued for the record   I should just add I was not knocking scientific methods, I have use them a lot in my work., but I understand their shortcomings.

 

I can simply counter the resources argument, by asking can you prove they are not? I am not knocking that it would be common sense for one team to in some occasions favor resources to one guy over another. A example of evidence I can give, which I hate because it means i have to knock Vettel is Silverstone in 2010, where Vettel was given additional parts. Also, Johnny Herbert and others have stated that Schumi was favored, yes I know it could be sour grapes and Irvine has said this was not the case at Ferrari. However, has Flav ever refuted these claims at Benetton. You stated your budget point on "considerations" from the F1 paddock, the same applies for the teammate structure at Benetton. And actually think they were smart to have that set-up, as Schumi was the one with the tight resources he had the best chance of winning the titles.

 

2008 and 1995 outside my opinions, I can redirect you to - http://grandprixrati...blogspot.co.uk/ This guy uses statistical methods based on results to determine which cars are better than not, in 1995 and 2008 he concluded the best car did not win the Championship. He can put it a lot better than I could if you want statistical analysis.

 

The budget point you make is also faulty, look at Jaguar and Toyota, massive budgets and resources yet sub-par performance (evidence look at F1 racing Magazine overview a few months back). Also, it is wildly considered that Renualt in 2005-2006 were operating at a smaller budget than the big teams. Big budget does not always equal best car, it usually does I admit but not always.

 

I will concede my RB and Ferrari comparison is pure opinion, and in no way can I really prove as fact the Ferrari was inferior. However, Vettel was out-performed by Webber in half the races of the first third of the 2012 season, this would show he was at the least quite inconsistent in getting the most out of his car. I guess I will have to show my evidence by qualifying results between Massa and Webber, and the differential in points between them. Remember though, if you claim that Webber is a better driver than Massa, you know that would be an opinion, like mine was about Rubens being better than Webber.

 

Welcome to the forum by the way, and no hard feelings 

Edited by sennafan24, 03 October 2013 - 00:13.

[Boxerevo]

Newey was succesful in the 90s, while having often problems to deliever a fast and/or reliable car in the 00s. That are facts.

I still doubt the reliabilty,but this era came like a bless for Newey...cars aren't drive at the limit like before in 00 years.

 

You can see how they control Vettel to not get too much excited doing fast laps and i believe isn't because of fuel or tyre alone.

[Raven8]

I still doubt the reliabilty,but this era came like a bless for Newey...cars aren't drive at the limit like before in 00 years.

 

You can see how they control Vettel to not get too much excited doing fast laps and i believe isn't because of fuel or tyre alone.

true cars are not run on the limit in the races nowadays