Search Results

Eh, I think Ricciardo could make something of it. He seems to be on the edge of a great result every so often, only to be struck by a strategy failure.

Vettel benefited in the final year that they could share designs between constructors, his win in 2008 was very much aided by the Newey inspired elements that came down from the parent team to the 2008 car. Remember that Bourdais also good showings in that car, and qualified 4th in Monza.

Once that design link was gone Toro Rosso hasn't really been in a position to do much more than be lower midfield, which is a hard place to impress from. Attrition is well down on years passed, so podiums are nigh on impossible for a team of that caliber. Dan has already matched the best Jamie A. could do, a 7th.

As for the other drivers:

- Liuzzi was like a Zonta or Piquet Jr., he won at the GP2 level but was too crash prone and mentally weak to last long in F1. His poor showing against Sutil wasted that good opportunity in what was a half decent car.

- Speed never had much hope at all. Also had an attitude issue.

- Bourdais was beaten heavily by Vettel. On his own, I rate him higher than Luizzi, but Buemi was obviously a better choice and had more points before Bourdais was dumped.

- Buemi has moved into a testing role so he must have some value. I think he would make a fine #2 driver.

- Jamie A. was the only real failure of the system. I think he had the edge over Buemi in 2011, yet he was dumped unceremoniously. Sadly we saw the much more capable Kobayashi and Glock leave the series a year later due to budget constraints, so maybe he was just an indicator of what was to come. Jamie was obviously more capable than say Gutierrez.

I think that overall, the RBR young driver program kind of gave too much time to inadequate drivers like Liuzzi in the early years and then developed unreasonable expectations by the time it came around to Jamie A. If anything, I think they would have had the best Webber replacement in Alguersuari had they kept him on for 2012.

RBR does not need a clash of the titans between Vettel and Raikkonen, McLaren in 2007 showed what a problem that can cause.

Aww come on. Just because his cars didn't have a shot at WDC those years doesn't mean they were slow. In 2002 McLaren was new to Michelin. In 2004 they had some problems with the famous MP4/19. They still won at least one race those years. In 2006 they weren't very good, but hadn't Räikkönen crashed it in Hungary it could have been a winning car too. In 2007 and 2008 nobody seriously expected a winning car considering the competition. Still in Fuji 07 it was very close to victory only to be ruined by Vettel. And in 08 the car won in Monza...

By the way, the MP4/21 is considered a Newey-design, but he wasn't with the team anymore when the season was on.

I believe most other designers would be happy about such a record in their CVs.

Now we are talking semantics. No F1 car is slow, as they all could run rings around any supercar you can find on the street. Regardless, compared to the top contenders of those years, overall the cars of the aforementioned years were slow by F1 standards.

MP4-19 didn't win any races, that was the MP4-19B which was a totally revised new version. MP4-19 was slow.

Aww come on. Just because his cars didn't have a shot at WDC those years doesn't mean they were slow. In 2002 McLaren was new to Michelin. In 2004 they had some problems with the famous MP4/19. They still won at least one race those years. In 2006 they weren't very good, but hadn't Räikkönen crashed it in Hungary it could have been a winning car too. In 2007 and 2008 nobody seriously expected a winning car considering the competition. Still in Fuji 07 it was very close to victory only to be ruined by Vettel. And in 08 the car won in Monza...

By the way, the MP4/21 is considered a Newey-design, but he wasn't with the team anymore when the season was on.

I believe most other designers would be happy about such a record in their CVs.

The Torro Rosso is also made by the hands of Newey?

Ehh... 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008?

Aww come on. Just because his cars didn't have a shot at WDC those years doesn't mean they were slow. In 2002 McLaren was new to Michelin. In 2004 they had some problems with the famous MP4/19. They still won at least one race those years. In 2006 they weren't very good, but hadn't Räikkönen crashed it in Hungary it could have been a winning car too. In 2007 and 2008 nobody seriously expected a winning car considering the competition. Still in Fuji 07 it was very close to victory only to be ruined by Vettel. And in 08 the car won in Monza...

By the way, the MP4/21 is considered a Newey-design, but he wasn't with the team anymore when the season was on.

I believe most other designers would be happy about such a record in their CVs.

This. Also, Vettel would never have won that race if the weekend had stayed dry. I also doubt he would have won if Hamilton had qualified himself well into Q3.

 

Absolutely, as to Hamilton. It's become a bit lost to memory that he had a couple of duff weekends in the last third of the 2008 season, and Monza was one of them.

 

F1 is and should be a cutthroat business and if a driver have 2 seasons and fail to deliver his employer, then I do not see any reason to find the driver being treated unfairly. I would actually want a lot more drivers dropped, since as someone posted above there are hundreds of drivers equally talented as the bottom half of the current grid.

 

Di Resta - We know what he can, what he can not and what he brings. Give someone else his seat. 

Sutil       - We know what he can, what he can not and what he brings. Give someone else his seat.

Massa    - We know how good he used to be, he is not anymore and there is no reason for a team to take a chance on him.

Chiton     - We know what he can, what he can not and what he brings. Give someone else his seat.   

Van der Garde - We know what he can, what he can not and what he brings. Give someone else his seat.

 

Agreed, especially the cut-throat approach. Apparently that was Newey's argument for getting rid of Buemi and Alguersuari. I wouldn't retain any of the drivers you named but would differ with you only in arguing that Massa was always overrated. My recent watch-through of the season 2008 suggests he was as error-prone then as he is now and only got into a position to win a WDC through Hamilton's mistakes (including Hamilton's ruining of Raikkonen's race at Canada).

 

Also enjoyed the (intentional?) misspelling of Chilton. The amended version is an accurate summary of his skills.

Try reading the articles on the Red Bull program in the last issue of Autosport, they're very illuminating. Takeaway from them for me were: 1). It was Newey's idea, not Marko's, to sack both STR drivers after 2011, as it was clear by then that neither would ever be promoted to RBR; 2). They look for flaws in a driver's approach, try to pound them out, and cut bait if they can't; 3). They demand total commitment from the drivers in the program; and 4). They're not looking for guys who can win at STR, they're looking for guys who can win at RBR.

 

Seems clear that Alguersuari likely fell short in the commitment department, and didn't impress much on the track either. At the time I too thought they gave up on him way early but Jamie post-sacking does seem more interested in the DJ biz than in resurrecting his F1 career. 

 

As to point 4 and the myth that the STR guys needed to win at STR to be considered for promotion, remember that Vettel's promotion to RBR was announced in 2008 during the run-up to Hockenheim, long before the race at Monza. His win at Monza was a very nice bonus but didn't change his career trajectory.

What is it exactly about his cars that enable them to go so fast in wet conditions? We've seen this since 2007, where Vettel and Webber and even Liuzzi were able to put the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos to good use in the rain. In 2008, it was again obvious, particularly at Monza where there were 3 Newey-designed cars on the first 2 rows after qualifying. And now AGAIN, with all new cars, the Red Bulls look to be even more stellar than before, and the Toro Rossos were going good as well.

I had been assuming that the diffuser-three would be the stars of the wet weather conditions as they'd naturally have a downforce advantage, especially at the rear where getting the power down is crucial in the wet. But Toyota wasn't all that special, Williams weren't either, and most surprisingly, the kings of 2009, BrawnGP weren't even able to keep up.

Button mentioned trouble keeping heat in the tires, and this is what I'm thinking is their problem. Its seems as if BrawnGP's biggest advantage is their race pace, and maybe they aren't so hot in cooler conditions and in heating up their tires, kinda like how Ferrari were last year? Is it that simple? Would this also mean that the Newey cars, while good in qualifying or the wet, will be less stellar in normal race conditions over longer stints?