224 replies to this topic

[active]

Historically all the great drivers shine in all formula including their pre F1 career, yet strangely Vettel did not. In fact he was quite ordinary in Formula 3 , when he was racing against qualify drivers in a spec series. Some numbers.

 

Starts - 40

Wins - 4

Poles - 1

 

2005 season finished 5th

2006 season finished 2nd (to his team mate)

 

 

In 2006 he was in the top team and beaten to the title by his team mate Di Resta, who also scored 5 poles. So in equal cars Paul was quicker and better. The puzzling thing is that is If Vettel is such an amazing talent, genius, so fast etc, then why was he so ordinary in the Formula 3 spec series where he showed no special ability and speed? 

Edited by active, 08 October 2013 - 02:49.

[Brother Fox]

Popcorn at the ready .......

[Lukenwolf]

The second half of his first season he shouldn't have run to begin with. He had an accident in Renault World Series, which almost severed his right hand index finger and it nearly had to be amputated and could have ended his career. (Cue origin of the finger gesture)

Everybody expected him to be out for the rest of the season, but he returned against medical advice just 6 weeks later for the F3 masters in Zandvoort and got 6th. He never was anywhere near normal fitness for half the season as a result of that.

In the second season he ran the Renault World Series along with F3 and also was a BMW test driver, so he never ran F3 anything more than half-arsed as the World Series was much more important and he performed much better there, too.

In 2007 when the call came to drive for BMW he abandoned the renault Worldseries as the championship leader.

 

Nice try, though...

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 02:59.

[teejay]

No Adrian

 

/italics

[active]

 

In the second season he ran the Renault World Series along with F3 and also was a BMW test driver, so he never ran F3 anything more than half-arsed as the World Series was much more important and he performed much better there, too.

In 2007 when the call came to drive for BMW he abandoned the renault Worldseries as the championship leader.

 

Nice try, though...

 

 

He only did 3 races in the 2006 Renault World series, against a bunch of no name drivers. He did 20 in F3. Even in the 2007 Renault series he only scored 1 pole out of 7 races.

 

In contrast Lewis Hamiltons 2005 season

 

Wins 15

Poles 13

Finished first, almost doubled the points of his second place team mate.

 

That is the kind of domination you would expect to see from a special natural talent. If their performances were comparable, you could understand, but it's night and day, totally opposite, so the question is why?

Edited by active, 08 October 2013 - 03:13.

[Lukenwolf]

He only did 3 races in the 2006 Renault World series, against a bunch of no name drivers. He did 20 in F3. Even in the 2007 Renault series he only scored 1 pole out of 7 races.

 

I love that. Always nice to set a hater straight

Yes, he only ran 3 races in the World Series. He became second in his debut race, won the second and had the shunt in the third. For the rest of the year he ran with a handicap and still got podiums in F3.

In the 2007 World Series he ran only 7 races and nobody gives a dime about how many poles he scored. He scored 4 podiums including one win and was never worse than 6th - that's why he was the leader when the promotion to F1 came.

 

BTW, if you are so obsessed with his performance in junior spec formulae, how come you are conveniently forgetting to mention that he won 18 out of 20 races in Formula BMW before stepping up to F3 and that he was 'only' fifth in the championship, but also best rookie. All others (Hamilton, Sutil, Götz, Rossiter, diGrassi etc) had already a year of experience. And Vettel drove for Mücke, which wasn't a top team.

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 03:25.

[active]

I love that. Always nice to set a hater straight

Yes, he only ran 3 races in the World Series. He became second in his debut race, won the second and had the shunt in the third. For the rest of the year he ran with a handicap and still got podiums in F3.

In the 2007 World Series he ran only 7 races and nobody gives a dime about how many poles he scored. He scored 4 podiums including one win and was never worse than 6th - that's why he was the leader when the promotion to F1 came.

 

 

 

You did not set anyone straight. He ran the entire F3 series, and only 3 world series races.

 

 

 

BTW, if you are so obsessed with his performance in junior spec formulae, how come you are conveniently forgetting to mention that he won 18 out of 20 races in Formula BMW before stepping up to F3 and that he was 'only' fifth in the championship, but also best rookie. All others (Hamilton, Sutil, Götz, Rossiter, diGrassi etc) had already a year of experience. And Vettel drove for Mücke, which wasn't a top team.

 

Because Formula BMW is below F3, and full of no names, so naturally you focus on the higher spec series with the best drivers. You can use his rookie status in 2005 as an excuse but no excuse for 2006, as he was in the top team, and Di resta was too good for him.

[Raelene]

does it really matter - he's pretty good now.l  Some people do actually improve over the years you know....

[bourbon]

Historically all the great drivers shine in all formula including their pre F1 career, yet strangely Vettel did not. In fact he was quite ordinary in Formula 3 , when he was racing against qualify drivers in a spec series. Some numbers.

 

 

As pointed out, Vettel had his shining moments.  But more to the point, there are many who shined in the lower formula who have failed to shine in formula 1.  And as someone will point out so may as well be me, HHF was thought to be the up and coming star based on lower formula results, but it turned out to be MSC.  So your premise is a bit faulty.

[Lukenwolf]

You did not set anyone straight. He ran the entire F3 series, and only 3 world series races.

 

 

Because Formula BMW is below F3, and full of no names, so naturally you focus on the higher spec series with the best drivers. You can use his rookie status in 2005 as an excuse but no excuse for 2006, as he was in the top team, and Di resta was too good for him.

 

Just funny what you can do by twisting the facts isn't it?

First of all, yes he switched to to ASL, who had in 2005 won 17 of 20 races. But for 2006 several teams switched from Opel to Mercedes engines, which made the field much more competetive. ASL only won 10 of 20 races and a lot more teams managed to win races than in 2005.  And in the latter part Vettel had to run with the handicap from the Spa accident, which I wrongly attributed to 2005 in an earlier post. On top of that Vettel ran the Friday practice for BMW from Turkey on as well as running the three races in the World Series, so while Vettel ran three programs simultaneously, di Resta concentrated solely on F3 and still only managed to beat Vettel by 11 points.

Try as you might, you won't discuss away that he isn't an also-ran, deal with it.

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 03:46.

[CoolBreeze]

He had no Newey

 

But on the serious side, there are some drivers who impress in the lower formula, only to be a big disappointment in F1. Perhaps, vettel is just the other way round..

[Kelateboy]

Vettel was poor in formula 3 to the extent that he was living from hand to mouth then....

 

Things have changed now!

[active]

As pointed out, Vettel had his shining moments.  But more to the point, there are many who shined in the lower formula who have failed to shine in formula 1.  And as someone will point out so may as well be me, HHF was thought to be the up and coming star based on lower formula results, but it turned out to be MSC.  So your premise is a bit faulty.

 

 

Shining in lower formula and then failing to adapt to the higher challenges of F1 is totally different to not shining in lower formula, unless you suggest F3 was too difficult for Vettel, yet F1 is not which of course makes no sense at all. As I pointed out, all the great F1 drivers prove exceptional prior to F1, so this is like a rule, its not like some casual thing. Senna and Hamilton were pole machines in lower Formula, yet Vettel scored 1 out of 40 in F3. This really calls into question his 'amazing natural speed' because it clearly did not exist prior to F1.

Edited by active, 08 October 2013 - 04:08.

[Shiroo]

Jesus. This obsession of some people.

 

Do not worry mate, Hamilton is better. He lucked into 1x WDC, ofc it is better than 4x WDC in a row, cause he is trashing Pic-level teammate, which always ends around 3 positions behind Vettel. But it is due to his teammate being horrible than Vettel being simply good.

 

Hamilton means Love.

[Gorma]

Historically all the great drivers shine in all formula including their pre F1 career, yet strangely Vettel did not. In fact he was quite ordinary in Formula 3 , when he was racing against qualify drivers in a spec series. Some numbers.

Starts - 40
Wins - 4
Poles - 1

2005 season finished 5th
2006 season finished 2nd (to his team mate)


In 2006 he was in the top team and beaten to the title by his team mate Di Resta, who also scored 5 poles. So in equal cars Paul was quicker and better. The puzzling thing is that is If Vettel is such an amazing talent, genius, so fast etc, then why was he so ordinary in the Formula 3 spec series where he showed no special ability and speed?

Welcome to the forums Paul Di Resta!

 

edit. I would also like to add that I too think that when it comes to F1 comptence, F3-results from years back are a way better indicator than let's say 3-4 WDCs...

Edited by Gorma, 08 October 2013 - 04:21.

[Lukenwolf]

Shining in lower formula and then failing to adapt to the higher challenges of F1 is totally different to not shining in lower formula, unless you suggest F3 was too difficult for Vettel, yet F1 is not which of course makes no sense at all. As I pointed out, all the great F1 drivers prove exceptional prior to F1, so this is like a rule, its not like some casual thing. Senna and Hamilton were pole machines in lower Formula, yet Vettel scored 1 out of 40 in F3. This really calls into question his 'amazing natural speed' because it clearly did not exist prior to F1.

 

Senna was a pole machine in F1, too, but he 'only' got 41 wins out of it though. Alain Prost had only 33 pole, yet got 51 wins out of it. Vettel has 42 poles in F1, got 33 wins out of it. How many poles you get is the most meaningless stat ever, but probably the only one that fit your agenda. The points are given for the wins, not the pole positions. How about this for a realistic comparison: Lets have a look at Vettels comparison to his team mates at Toro Rosso, which wasn't a wonder car by any stretch of the imagination :

 

2007: Vettel 5 points in 7 races

          Liuzzi 3 points in 17 races

2008  Vettel 35 points

          Bourdais 4 points

 

How does that square up with your image of an untalented driver. He came into F1 at a very young age and has improved every single year. Stats from 8 years ago, who were not as ordinary as you try to make us believe, do not mean a single thing.

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 04:22.

[active]

Senna was a pole machine in F1, too, but he 'only' got 41 wins out of it though. Alain Prost had only 33 pole, yet got 51 wins out of it. Vettel has 42 poles in F1, got 33 wins out of it. How many poles you get is the most meaningless stat ever, but probably the only one that fit your agenda. The points are given for the wins, not the pole positions. How about this for a realistic comparison: Lets have a look at Vettels comparison to his team mates at Toro Rosso, which wasn't a wonder car by any stretch of the imagination :

 

2007: Vettel 5 points in 7 races

          Liuzzi 3 points in 17 races

2008  Vettel 35 points

          Bourdais 4 points

 

How does that square up with your image of an untalented driver. He came into F1 at a very young age and has improved every single year. Stats from 8 years ago, who were not as ordinary as you try to make us believe, do not mean a single thing.

 

 

Bourdais and Luzizzi were not good enough for F1, so beating them is nothing to boast about. You really think that his performance record in a spec series does not mean a single thing?? That's a very single point of view for a motorsports fan.

[Lukenwolf]

Bourdais and Luzizzi were not good enough for F1, so beating them is nothing to boast about. You really think that his performance record in a spec series does not mean a single thing?? That's a very single point of view for a motorsports fan.

 

He only ran in two Spec series - in one he utterly demolished the competition (Formula-BMW) in the other he was the championship leader when he got called up to F1.

 

F3 Euroseries wasn't a spec series. There were four different engines in 2005 and three different engines in 2006 and even same-make engines were from different tuners. F3 wasn't a spec series in any sense of the definition. Your whole argument has been invalid since the moment you thought up that gimmick. Try something else

[LuckyStrike1]

Historically all the great drivers shine in all formula including their pre F1 career, yet strangely Vettel did not. In fact he was quite ordinary in Formula 3 , when he was racing against qualify drivers in a spec series. Some numbers.

 

Starts - 40

Wins - 4

Poles - 1

 

2005 season finished 5th

2006 season finished 2nd (to his team mate)

 

 

In 2006 he was in the top team and beaten to the title by his team mate Di Resta, who also scored 5 poles. So in equal cars Paul was quicker and better. The puzzling thing is that is If Vettel is such an amazing talent, genius, so fast etc, then why was he so ordinary in the Formula 3 spec series where he showed no special ability and speed? 

 

4 WDC

[active]

He only ran in two Spec series - in one he utterly demolished the competition (Formula-BMW) in the other he was the championship leader when he got called up to F1.

 

F3 Euroseries wasn't a spec series. There were four different engines in 2005 and three different engines in 2006 and even same-make engines were from different tuners. F3 wasn't a spec series in any sense of the definition. Your whole argument has been invalid since the moment you thought up that gimmick. Try something else

 

 

Vettel had the best engine in the series for both of his seasons, the mercedes. I assume Di Restas engine was tuned the same as his??

[bourbon]

Shining in lower formula and then failing to adapt to the higher challenges of F1 is totally different to not shining in lower formula, unless you suggest F3 was too difficult for Vettel, yet F1 is not which of course makes no sense at all.

 

What do you mean F3 was too difficult for Vettel and F1 is not?  All of the series provide their own difficulties, so I don't know what that means.

 

Vettel has won championships before arriving in F1 on the lower levels and he came 2nd in F3 in 2006, which was a year he was competitive enough to win.  That was a good achievement.  DiResta came 1st, that too was a great achievement.
 

 

As I pointed out, all the great F1 drivers prove exceptional prior to F1, so this is like a rule, its not like some casual thing.

 

But Vettel is a great F1 driver.  So if you do not think his lower formula driving is exceptional (i.e., 1st in BMW or 2nd in Renault) then your rule is flawed. 

 

 

Senna and Hamilton were pole machines in lower Formula, yet Vettel scored 1 out of 40 in F3. This really calls into question his 'amazing natural speed' because it clearly did not exist prior to F1.

 

He was very fast as a kid.  He continued to show that speed when he first arrived in F1 at BMW as a Friday driver. 

 

However, I am not sure what "amazing natural speed" is or where it came from.  Is that another of your rules?

[active]

What do you mean F3 was too difficult for Vettel and F1 is not?  All of the series provide their own difficulties, so I don't know what that means.

 

Vettel has won championships before arriving in F1 on the lower levels and he came 2nd in F3 in 2006, which was a year he was competitive enough to win.  That was a good achievement.  DiResta came 1st, that too was a great achievement.

 

 

 

 

Its understandable if a driver goes well in lower series but struggles in F1 because F1 is more challenging but to struggle in lower series relative to F1 is illogical.

 

 

But Vettel is a great F1 driver.  So if you do not think his lower formula driving is exceptional (i.e., 1st in BMW or 2nd in Renault) then your rule is flawed. 

 

 

 

But How can a great F1 driver be so ordinary in F3 though? See that is the dilemma we have here. Is he really a great F1 driver?

 

 

He was very fast as a kid.  He continued to show that speed when he first arrived in F1 at BMW as a Friday driver. 

 

However, I am not sure what "amazing natural speed" is or where it came from.  Is that another of your rules?

 

Very fast as a kid? Well 1 pole out of 40 seems to indicate he was not fast enough. Most people rate him as the fastest in F1 and compare his qualifying to Senna, so that's where it came from. 

Edited by active, 08 October 2013 - 05:09.

[Lukenwolf]

Vettel had the best engine in the series for both of his seasons, the mercedes. I assume Di Restas engine was tuned the same as his??

 

Wrong again. He only had it for the second season. In the first season he had a Merc, but that was not as good as the one used by ASL. ASL was so dominant in 2005 they won all but three races. That number nearly halved in the next year, while the number of teams winning doubled, so ASL wasn't nearly as superior as the year before. So if anything, Lewis and Sutil had the 'Newey Cars' in 2005, while in 2006 the playing field was much more level.

 

And you still ignore that main difference between Di Resta and Vettel in 2006. Di Resta did only run F3 and that's what he put all his attention to. Vettel ran three different cars that year - an F3, the Renault World Series (a true spec series, where hi immediately score a 2nd place on his debut and won the next race) and he ran the Friday practices for BMW (topping the timing sheets in both his first GP's). In addition, he also tested for BMW. F3 was the least important endeavors of them all and he still managed to take the decision to the last weekend. Your argument simply doesn't wash. You think he isn't better than Di Resta? 4 WDC and 33 wins disagree with you.

 

The hate is strong in this one...

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 05:11.

[active]

Wrong again. He only had it for the second season. In the first season he had a Merc, but that was not as good as the one used by ASL. ASL was so dominant in 2005 they won all but three races. That number nearly halved in the next year, while the number of teams winning doubled, so ASL wasn't nearly as superior as the year before. So if anything, Lewis and Sutil had the 'Newey Cars' in 2005, while in 2006 the playing field was much more level.

 

 

So your saying Vettel was only able to score 1 pole out of 20 races in a level playing field? 

 

 

 

And you still ignore that main difference between Di Resta and Vettel in 2006. Di Resta did only run F3 and that's what he put all his attention to. Vettel ran three different cars that year - an F3, the Renault World Series (a true spec series, where hi immediately score a 2nd place on his debut and won the next race) and he ran the Friday practices for BMW (topping the timing sheets in both his first GP's). In addition, he also tested for BMW. F3 was the least important endeavors of them all and he still managed to take the decision to the last weekend. Your argument simply doesn't wash. You think he isn't better than Di Resta? 4 WDC and 33 wins disagree with you.

 

What do you mean by 'least important'? Vettel drove the entire series, are you suggesting he did not try his hardest to win the series? That goes against his reputation of being such a fierce and dedicated competitor. I just see a bunch of excuses from you, when results are what counts. If he is better than Di Resta why was he defeated by him in equal cars??? Lets assume for a moment we accept your excuses that Vettel was distracted during that season, but surely a great special talent should still be able to cake walk over the likes of paul di resta even with some distractions?

[Zava]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728

[apoka]

That's a bash thread if I ever saw one - no intention of being objective by the OP.

 

First of all, what you mention is not "poor". It's not on the level of Hamilton or Hulkenberg in junior series, but still got him the "rookie of the year" award and a second place. You do not seriously suggest that he was promoted that fast by being poor? Apart from that, Vettel is a driver who was improved each year even in F1. It's not sensible to believe that he was anywhere close to his peak in 2005 or 2006. 

 

Did you also consider the age of a driver? There is a reason why Vettel has all those "youngest ever" records. Being a year younger or older is a lot in junior series.

 

People also mentioned that Vettel had many duties, whereas Di Resta could focus on F3. Here is a quote from Theissen:

 

Theissen, who has been a big supporter of Vettel for several years, goes as far as suggesting that the young German's failure to win the F3 title was directly related to his F1 responsibilities.

"Yes, I think so," he said. "He would never admit that, and certainly when he is in the car he doesn't feel that. But there is a certain amount of work that you can do and if you go beyond that then quality will suffer."

 

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728

 

Keep in mind that test drivers back then usually had more work than today and you'll realise that is a full schedule for an 18 year old driver.

 

His accident was mentioned already - another reason why he wasn't always at a 100%.

 

Overloading with duties, young age, an accident,  - more than enough reasons to miss the championship by a small margin.

 

Add to this that he dominated Formula BMW and led Formula Renault - and suddenly you have a very exciting junior career which can by no means be described as poor.

 

[Lukenwolf]

So your saying Vettel was only able to score 1 pole out of 20 races in a level playing field? 

 

 

What do you mean by 'least important'? Vettel drove the entire series, are you suggesting he did not try his hardest to win the series? That goes against his reputation of being such a fierce and dedicated competitor. I just see a bunch of excuses from you, when results are what counts. If he is better than Di Resta why was he defeated by him in equal cars??? Lets assume for a moment we accept your excuses that Vettel was distracted during that season, but surely a great special talent should still be able to cake walk over the likes of paul di resta even with some distractions?

 

Dude, are you so daft or do you only pretend to be? What do pole positions have to do with it? They don't get you points for pete's sake. He was top rookie in his first year, and championship runner-up in his second. Your thread title says he was poor in F3. How can a 2nd in the championship be poor? According to your logic Alonso was poor in F1 for the last 4 seasons and Lewis was downright appalling, because he didn't even manage that. Di Resta drove nothing else but F3 cars all season, while Vettel switched back and forth between 3 different categories and he performed good in all three of them. This might come as a surprise to you, but you don't just switch between different cars and are equally comfortable in all of them right from the bat. Of course he did his best in F3, but he had other, more important tasks that year, so he most likely concentrated more on the others than on F3 and that gave Di Resta an advantage, who didn't drive a completely different type of car every week.

 

What the heck are you trying to tell us?

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 05:28.

[Lukenwolf]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728

 

You can't confuse him with facts, now that's unfair

Edited by Lukenwolf, 08 October 2013 - 05:28.

[active]

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728

 

 

Interesting article, which brings up another big question. If Vettel was so special why did BMW discard him? After Schumacher did one F1 race, the paddock went nuts about him and fought tooth and nail over his services, while BMW just let Vettel go and kept Heidfeld over him.

[LuckyStrike1]

Interesting article, which brings up another big question. If Vettel was so special why did BMW discard him? After Schumacher did one F1 race, the paddock went nuts about him and fought tooth and nail over his services, while BMW just let Vettel go and kept Heidfeld over him.

 

Option 1: He is serious crap, no good, overrated, underperforming racing driver lucked into the best F1-car in history any monkey (except Webber but not really because they stop him) could win with.

 

Option 2: He was already under a Red Bull management contract.

 

4 WDC

[bourbon]

Its understandable if a driver goes well in lower series but struggles in F1 because F1 is more challenging but to struggle in lower series relative to F1 is illogical.

 

But he did not struggle.  Those who could never win, they struggled, sure.  But Vettel did win and even the 2006 series you are talking about you call it a struggle, but 2nd is challenging, not struggling.  First, Second and Third are recognized as a great achievement - even in F1 those three places are given recognition at the awards Gala.  So I think you characterization of Vettel's lower formula results is incorrect.

 

But How can a great F1 driver be so ordinary in F3 though? See that is the dilemma we have here. Is he really a great F1 driver?

 

But I do not think he was ordinary, so I cannot answer you. 

 

Very fast as a kid? Well 1 pole out of 40 seems to indicate he was not fast enough. Most people rate him as the fastest in F1 and compare his qualifying to Senna, so that's where it came from.

 

Well if we are talking about his poles in F3, then yes, there was only 1.  So if that snapshot from a two year period in his whole career is what we are going to focus on, he is one of the slowest, if not the slowest driver on today's F1 grid.  But if we focus on his 2003-2004 Formula Beemer years, then checking the stats, I see 19 and he is now one of the faster, if not the fastest driver on the grid.  I think it depends on which argument I want to support.  I can use either of those periods to find him blindingly fast or incredibly slow based on poles. 

 

But to be honest, F3 has little to do with F1 because the cars were spec.  F1 cars are specialized and the driver must gel with the car he is given and produce as fast a time as possible in combination with it.  From that point of view, we see that some drivers do that fantastically - and Vettel is one of them. 

[Lukenwolf]

Interesting article, which brings up another big question. If Vettel was so special why did BMW discard him? After Schumacher did one F1 race, the paddock went nuts about him and fought tooth and nail over his services, while BMW just let Vettel go and kept Heidfeld over him.

 

They didn't discard him. After he scored a point on his debut, standing in for Kubica at BMW in Indianapolis, STR booted off Scott Speed and snatched him up for the last 7 races. Man, you must live in a delusional world.

[seahawk]

Well, I heard Vettel was badly beaten in the Bobbycar races in Kindergarten.

[plumtree]

Another factor why you can't directly compare Hamilton's 2005 season record with anyone's from 2006.
F3 series introduced reverse grid system in 2006.

"The effects of the new reverse-grid system – which put the 8th-placed finisher from race 1 on pole for race 2 – can be seen clearly in this chart. 50% of the race 2 pole sitters went on to win, while there was only one double winner (Vettel in round 6) and no other race 1 winner even reached the podium in race 2."
http://en.wikipedia....o_Series_season

Edited by plumtree, 08 October 2013 - 05:39.

[Lukenwolf]

Option 1: He is serious crap, no good, overrated, underperforming racing driver lucked into the best F1-car in history any monkey (except Webber but not really because they stop him) could win with.

 

Option 2: He was already under a Red Bull management contract.

 

4 WDC

 

Option 2 is the right one. Vettel was signed up for the Red Bull young drivers program at the age of 11! If anything, RB got him into BMW to let him gain experience and when they got fed up with Scot speed they called him back to the mothership.

[klyster]

In equal machinery he was pretty good if not a little average.

With the best team and car, total support from within the ranks, a crippled team mate, he is looking like a driving god.

 

Not much to think about really, unless you're into stretching  ahem.......

[bourbon]

Another factor why you can't directly compare Hamilton's 2005 season record with anyone's from 2006.
F3 series introduced reverse grid system in 2006.

"The effects of the new reverse-grid system – which put the 8th-placed finisher from race 1 on pole for race 2 – can be seen clearly in this chart. 50% of the race 2 pole sitters went on to win, while there was only one double winner (Vettel in round 6) and no other race 1 winner even reached the podium in race 2."
http://en.wikipedia....o_Series_season

 

I didn't like reverse grid, still don't.  It has been a while, but as I recall, you did get the pole if you qualify first for race one. 

 

 

In equal machinery he was pretty good if not a little average.

With the best team and car, total support from within the ranks, a crippled team mate, he is looking like a driving god.

 

Not much to think about really, unless you're into stretching  ahem.......

 

Equal machinery is for novice drivers. It is where one perfects his craft.  Vettel was exceptional in ADAC and very good in F3 in terms of results, but that is of little importance to F1.

 

In unequal machinery, where a driver must adapt to and meld with the car he is given - he has been Brilliant. 

 

The car is great?  How do you know?  Because Vettel has shown you.  Vettel is great?  How do you know?  Because the car has shown you.  Man + Machine have been fascinating, but mechanics and engineers can do only so much in providing a great car and adapting the car to a driver's strengths.  The driver must take it from there, using his strengths to the fullest, getting the most out of the car and delivering on its potential.

 

Vettel isn't the only one to do this, but he has done it brilliantly. 

Edited by bourbon, 08 October 2013 - 06:07.

[Lukenwolf]

In equal machinery he was pretty good if not a little average.

With the best team and car, total support from within the ranks, a crippled team mate, he is looking like a driving god.

 

Not much to think about really, unless you're into stretching  ahem.......

 

Why is Mark crippled? He seemed pretty healthy the last time I saw him on TV.

[active]

Option 2 is the right one. Vettel was signed up for the Red Bull young drivers program at the age of 11! If anything, RB got him into BMW to let him gain experience and when they got fed up with Scot speed they called him back to the mothership.

 

I'm pretty sure bmw had first option on his services in F1.

[active]

But he did not struggle.  Those who could never win, they struggled, sure.  But Vettel did win and even the 2006 series you are talking about you call it a struggle, but 2nd is challenging, not struggling.  First, Second and Third are recognized as a great achievement - even in F1 those three places are given recognition at the awards Gala.  So I think you characterization of Vettel's lower formula results is incorrect.

 

 

But I do not think he was ordinary, so I cannot answer you. 

 

 

Well if we are talking about his poles in F3, then yes, there was only 1.  So if that snapshot from a two year period in his whole career is what we are going to focus on, he is one of the slowest, if not the slowest driver on today's F1 grid.  But if we focus on his 2003-2004 Formula Beemer years, then checking the stats, I see 19 and he is now one of the faster, if not the fastest driver on the grid.  I think it depends on which argument I want to support.  I can use either of those periods to find him blindingly fast or incredibly slow based on poles. 

 

But to be honest, F3 has little to do with F1 because the cars were spec.  F1 cars are specialized and the driver must gel with the car he is given and produce as fast a time as possible in combination with it.  From that point of view, we see that some drivers do that fantastically - and Vettel is one of them. 

 

4 wins and 1 pole out of 40 starts is very ordinary regardless of your personal opinion. Its not about deciding what period and argument you want to choose, the whole point is analysing the period of his career where he raced with equal cars to his opponents. If you just choose to look at his F1 career in the best car then that totally invalidates the debate.

[Lukenwolf]

I'm pretty sure bmw had first option on his services in F1.

 

They already had a young hotshot in the team with Kubica and an experienced, proven driver with Heidfeld. You need to research your facts better. BMW sort of 'bought' his services from Red Bull, when they needed a replacement test driver for Kubica in 2006, since Kubica got a race seat due to the sacking of Villeneuve. Since Vettel had been under contract with RB since forever, BMW would have had to buy him out of his RB contract and due to his performances as a Friday driver, the asking price had become a tad expensive. Also, no matter how highly they rated both Kubica and Vettel, running a team with two inexperienced drivers is risky business.

[Lukenwolf]

4 wins and 1 pole out of 40 starts is very ordinary regardless of your personal opinion. Its not about deciding what period and argument you want to choose, the whole point is analysing the period of his career where he raced with equal cars to his opponents. If you just choose to look at his F1 career in the best car then that totally invalidates the debate.

 

How many poles and wins from how many starts did Di Resta have? Vettel finished 5 positions ahead of Di Resta in 2005 and only one behind him in 2006. Keke Rosberg won only one pole and only one win in 1982, yet he ended up world champion. Was he poor, too?

[motorhead]

Bourdais and Luzizzi were not good enough for F1, so beating them is nothing to boast about. You really think that his performance record in a spec series does not mean a single thing?? That's a very single point of view for a motorsports fan.

 

Oh yeah? But statistically their career prior to F1 looked better that Seb´s. Isn´t this thread all about early statistics or another "bashing fest" for the bitter?

 

Liuzzi F3000 champion

Bourdais F3000champion and 4 time champ car champion

[active]

They already had a young hotshot in the team with Kubica and an experienced, proven driver with Heidfeld. You need to research your facts better. BMW sort of 'bought' his services from Red Bull, when they needed a replacement test driver for Kubica in 2006, since Kubica got a race seat due to the sacking of Villeneuve. Since Vettel had been under contract with RB since forever, BMW would have had to buy him out of his RB contract and due to his performances as a Friday driver, the asking price had become a tad expensive. Also, no matter how highly they rated both Kubica and Vettel, running a team with two inexperienced drivers is risky business.

 

 

So despite being their test driver, having raced for them, and having extensive data of his driving and performance levels, BMW did not think he was special enough to purchase, and dislodge Nick Heidfeld. Do you really think they would have behaved that way if they thought they had the next Senna or Schumacher on their hands, and the value these drivers hold?? I think its pretty clear BMW did not rate Vettel very highly.

[Lukenwolf]

So despite being their test driver, having raced for them, and having extensive data of his driving and performance levels, BMW did not think he was special enough to purchase, and dislodge Nick Heidfeld. Do you really think they would have behaved that way if they thought they had the next Senna or Schumacher on their hands, and the value these drivers hold?? I think its pretty clear BMW did not rate Vettel very highly.

 

You're right, they didn't rate him highly at all, which is why they made him their 3rd driver at the age of 19. When they needed a replacement for Kubica, they looked at the Formula 3 standings and said: "Ja, zis one is sufficiently ordinary. We'll take ze Vettel."

 

Want some advice? Take what little is left of your credibility and stop your inane reasoning, you've made yourself look silly enough as it is.

[EthanM]

Welcome to the forums Paul Di Resta!

 

edit. I would also like to add that I too think that when it comes to F1 comptence, F3-results from years back are a way better indicator than let's say 3-4 WDCs...

 

Oh he's not Di Resta, just a slightly obsessive Hamilton fan ... he makes a new forum nickname every 3-4 weeks, tells us how awful Vettel really is, disappears then reappears with a brand new nickname and does it all again. 

[Thomas99]

Apparently before 2010 many in Red Bull considered Daniel Ricciardo to be the real deal of their junior program and not Vettel. 

 

it is true he wasn't magnificent in the junior categories, but you look at his Formula BMW 2.0 he won 18 of 20 races in his second season. So there is obviously a lot of natural talent there.

 

Vettel was also younger than most when he was going through Formula 3, still, 2nd in his second year while not standout is far from 'poor' and 2 wins out of 10 races in the Formula Renault 3.5 is comparable to any other young talent. Ricciardo got for instance 4 wins in his rookie season in FR3.5. So over a year Vettel i'm sure would be comparable with that.

 

Still, i'm one of the few that are skeptical how Vettel would go against a strong team mate. He has beaten Sebastian Bordais, which is no contest really and has looked better than Webber. That would surely have to put him on roughly equal to how Kimi/Hamilton/Alonso would perform. Slaughter an average driver, beat a high level driver comfortably. 

 

I'm under no pressure Vettel is super human, he's just had the best car for the longest period of time since Schumacher. Even Michael imo never had such an outright advantage as McLaren were competitive in 2000 and 2001. 

[Thomas99]

You're right, they didn't rate him highly at all, which is why they made him their 3rd driver at the age of 19. When they needed a replacement for Kubica, they looked at the Formula 3 standings and said: "Ja, zis one is sufficiently ordinary. We'll take ze Vettel."

 

Want some advice? Take what little is left of your credibility and stop your inane reasoning, you've made yourself look silly enough as it is.

 

Vettel dominated Formula BMW, so there was obviously some talent.

 

I think this thread points out that he wasn't super human win everything and didn't compare to say, Hamilton. But thats ok, I don't think Vettel is currently super human and the clear favourite or anything, he's one of a few top drivers who can deliver consistent performances.

[bourbon]

4 wins and 1 pole out of 40 starts is very ordinary regardless of your personal opinion. Its not about deciding what period and argument you want to choose, the whole point is analysing the period of his career where he raced with equal cars to his opponents.  If you just choose to look at his F1 career in the best car then that totally invalidates the debate.

 

Well if that is the whole point, why are you choosing to look only at his F3 years?  Why are you ignoring his Formula BMW years?  It was a spec series, he was even younger then and in equal cars to his opponents.  It was a formula car.  Or is this another of your special rules?

[LuckyStrike1]

So despite being their test driver, having raced for them, and having extensive data of his driving and performance levels, BMW did not think he was special enough to purchase, and dislodge Nick Heidfeld. Do you really think they would have behaved that way if they thought they had the next Senna or Schumacher on their hands, and the value these drivers hold?? I think its pretty clear BMW did not rate Vettel very highly.

 

 

Option 1: They wanted to take another no good, mediocre German driver and put him in a superior car and make him a multiple World champion and their man for that mission was Heidfeld.

 

Option 2: Vettel was under a Red Bull management contract and loaned out/hired to BMW and BMW never had a first option on Vettels services. 

 

4 WDC