Search Results

Originally posted by undersquare
There's speculation that STR might switch to Honda engines, with Sato, and RB take back the Ferrari engine supply (which they signed for originally before Newey arrived and wanted Renault).

I would!

F1Live

Originally posted by AFCA


I think that's very unlikely. All the teams have already made considerable progress on next year's car. Deciding to change engine supplier I think is the equivalent of walking straight to the grave. And not just because of the engine: also in terms of gearbox and KERS design, something the teams are working on together very closely. It's just too late and all the work that has been done on the points I mentioned would turn out to be useless...

Berger denies Sato would be brining along Honda engines: ''Whether or not Sato will join us is solely dependent on his performance.''

''First of all we have a valid contract. And with 'we' I mean Toro Rosso (as opposed to Red Bull I guess - AFCA). Secondly we're very happy with Ferrari. And thirdly we're obviously willing to further improve next year. With a new engine we would have to start from scratch again in many areas. And that's not our aim.''

Would the team get Honda engines more easily/cheaply with Sato on board though ? ''Possibly, but that's not what it's about.''

-------

As for Bourdais not testing next week (Buemi day 1, Sato day 2, Vettel day 3), Berger: ''The fact Bourdais isn't going to test doesn't mean anything.'' Tost: ''Vettel will be in the car on the third day because we want to test some parts with him that so far haven't suited him very well and we want to hear his opinion about them.''

Meanwhile, after the German had already denied it himself, Marko came out saying that Vettel taking over Coulthard's seat from Monza onwards is bollocks: ''I don't know who's been spreading this around but it's nonsense.''

Actually it's not quite unique.  As a very perceptive commenter pointed out in 2011...

 

 

Take a look at Ascari's grid positions and wins.  It's of course not directly comparable, given the ease of overtaking, the more bunched-up grids (in some races, 7th would see you on the second row - and a second row considerably closer to pole than today), and the consequent lack of many bothering to get pole for the sake of a statistic (I think Reims was a valuable pole because of the 100 bottles of bubbly that came with it).

 

But Ascari had 9 wins from pole, 3 from 2nd, and 1 from 3rd. 

And the first race he lost in his big run of 9 consecutive was Reims - where he was in a slipstreaming battle.  And was beaten by team-mate Hawthorn in it.  Then in a similar event at Monza he got involved in a crash with the lapped Marimon while the canny Fangio finagled his way through.

 

I agree that it's not really comparable due to various reasons. But aside from that, the issue with Vettel here is that, as PlayboyRacer duly pointed it out, he is supposed to be up there with the absolute legends of this sport, a tier above the likes of Hakkinen, Ascari or Fittipaldi (and this is coming from a lifelong fan of Mika). 

 

It's not that unique actually.

Hakkinen won 20% of his races leading from start to finish and a handful where Coulthard led only for a couple of laps.

You can also see that almost all of his wins came in the same fashion as Vettel's. Same applies for Villeneuve's wins.

 

Obviously when you qualify upfront consistently, you will consistently find yourself in the best spot to have a clean race. If anything it's a quality, I don't understand why this should be highlighted as a weakness necessarily.

Perhaps Fernando, while a better driver overall, has never been the quickest in qualifying and then had to compensate this weakness by battling it through the field, for instance.

 

I think there were magical moments in Vettel's career. 

Starting with his first win in Monza. Yes he led, but it was a very special debut win. Winning 9 races is a big highlight. And once again demonstrates how consistent he could be. Yes it was a dominant car, but nobody else has ever come close to that record. Hamilton was arguably driving even more dominant cars in 2014,2015,2016, 2019 and never came close to that. Neither did Schumacher in 2002/2004.

 

 

Just looking at stats does not always tell the whole story.

Kimi and Rubens won from the back of the grid. They were great victories, really flashy. Vettel does not have wins like this.

But those were unique circumstances and everything has to come together for it to happen. While an absolutely epic win in Suzuka 2005, it really should have been a walk in the park in normal circumstances, as there was no competition in terms of speed to that Mclaren/Kimi, apart from Alonso.

 

 

Races like Spa 1995, etc. are special  precisely because they are unique. Surely extortionary drivers like Schumacher had them. But even for them it was not a regular thing. You can't expect every driver to have races like that. And that is the reason why those are remembered.

 

Regarding Monza 2008 it was an absolutely brilliant race and win by Sebastian. It's up there with the best performances of any given driver during the modern F1 era.

 

He outqualified his teammate by almost a second and in the race completely outperformed him and everybody else from start to finish.

 

It's an arhetypical Vettel's victory: great qualifying, great start and total race control.

 

Yes, conditions suited the car, the rain helped to somewhat equalize the field. But he delivered in style and not having to rely on luck, technical problems of his competitors, etc. Ferrari with the same engine was nowhere to be seen that race, I don't think anybody would argue that Ferrari that year was arguably the best all around package. And Mclaren was was very good too, also in wet.

 

Besides, what is the car to beat concept? Mercedes has been the car to beat in 99% of the races since 2014. Ferrari was the car to beat in 2001-2004. Does it devalues all those victories? I don't think so. 

 

And it was not a fluke or very lucky win, like let's say Monza 2020 (even though I think Gasly drove very well still) or Canada 2008. And if it's not a fluke win then obviously the car has to be competitive on a certain circuit. It's like saying that Renault was the car to beat in Hungary 2003 or Arrows in 1997. Yes, in a way they were. But they were all brilliant drives.

 

It's very likely one of the most impressive maiden victories, does not matter how you try to spin it. If it's overhyped winning in Toro Rosso in merit, what does it make of let's say Leclerc's maiden victory at Spa, running an engine on steroids.

 

Who won a race as maiden win in a worse car? As you mentioned Leclerc won in an overpowered Ferrari, Lewis in a McLaren. The framing overpowered Newey car is just a way too downplay a great achievement. It was still a Torro Rosso and a midfield car that year that was very competitive in that particular  race. It wasn't a fluke win either helped by a safety car, it was won on pure pace. Newey did not create a world beater every year. I don't see want kind of argument that is - at all.

 

This is a gross oversimplification. Falling from winning 9 races in a row to not win a single one with a car that was firmly placed 2nd in the WCC and which his team rookie teammate won numerous races with is not simply natural change/decline. Getting beaten over one lap at 29 by a 37-year-old not known for his qualifying heroics is not simply natural change/decline. There is much more to this story.

 

Also, about that win in the Toro Rosso - probably one of the most overhyped wins in the history of F1. We have discussed this already here in the topic. That car was basically a Red Bull on steroids. It was a Newey designed chassis with a powerful Ferrari engine strapped to its back. Even Christian Horner confirmed that that car was better than the RB4 at that point. Just look at Bourdais - despite being practically nowhere during the entire season, he qualified 4th for that race. That weekend, the Toro Rosso was the car to beat. Yes, it was a very good first win from a young Vettel who kept it together until the flag. But it always amazes me how posterity treats that win like it was achieved with the equivalent of a 2021 Haas.

 

I really think it's just what others have mentioned - narrow operating window, when everything suited him, he was a beast, when things didn't suit him, he was more erratic (and his other weaknesses that I agree he has always had, became more pronounced)

 

I think the explanation that he "never had it", or "just isn't that good" is just as big of an oversimplification, when Vettel's performances against same teammates vary so much, from one year to another (eg. against Kimi 2015-2017). I'm fairly convinced that if you stick Ricciardo in the 2013 Red Bull instead of Webber, he wouldn't have beaten Vettel, but if you put Webber in the 2014 Red Bull, he probably would get much closer than he was in 2013.

 

As for the Toro Rosso in 2008. The car was obviously good, but it really only became a Q3 contender in the second half of the season, and it was then when Vettel started to really outperform Bourdais. So again - big difference in Vettel's performance once the car got updated (although you could also argue that it was Bourdais who underperformed, he was fast at certain tracks, but couldn't get a result in... Also due to some bad luck).

 

In dry conditions it was still far off Mclaren, Ferrari, BMW, maybe on par with Renault and Toyota. It was among the fastest in the wet in Monza, but he also outqualified Bourdais by about a second, and dominated the race. "Overhyped" I mean ok, maybe, but it's understandable, no? It was a first win for Toro Rosso and Vettel, it was entirely on merit, he was praised in the same manner Lewis was praised for 2007 Fuji or 2008 Silverstone ("maturity", while more experienced rivals were dropping the ball). And you know, it was sort of "arriving on the scene" moment.

 

The Mclaren was also a fast car during that quali session, so why didn't Lewis, the rainmaster and future GOAT do better? Well, he eliminated himself by trying to go on inters at the start of Q2, and then missed the best of conditions (while Massa, who made the same mistake managed to squeeze in).

I reckon Perez is the next best big thing. Similarly, it was easy to see that Vettel was. Not only because of Monza 2008, but because of how he drove throughout the entire year in the STRF. Forget about Monza - there are not enough excuses for all of the other stellar races he put in that landed the STRF above the RB car at season's finish - and ALL of the points except 4 were earned by Seb.

The bottom line is that Vettel is very talented. He has a great car. So in this case, driver + car is a brilliant combo at times.

Whether Alonso and Hamilton are jealous is largely immaterial, imo. There are occassions for all drivers, including Vettel, to be jealous of this or that - as in any profession. Right now, the important thing is for all of them to focus on what they are doing.

I can agree with the bolded part and I don't think Alonso is having a dig at Vettel. All he is saying is that now that Newey has weaved his magic both drivers are suddenly right up there when previously it wasn't the case.

I don't share your opinion of Perez and I will leave it at that.

What's all this about Monza 2008? As if it is going to convince people that Vettel can win in relatively poor material. I have news for you... Even the sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.

I can pick out quite a few drivers who have won wet races or put in magnificent performances when they really shouldn't have been close but the point I think Alonso, especially, is making is that prior to Newey's package revamp when things between the cars were close is that he was beating Vettel regularly and now that is distant memory.

Because Ferrari hasn't been upgraded all season...
Double standards again T_T

What's all this about Monza 2008? As if it is going to convince people that Vettel can win in relatively poor material. I have news for you... Even the sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.

I can pick out quite a few drivers who have won wet races or put in magnificent performances when they really shouldn't have been close but the point I think Alonso, especially, is making is that prior to Newey's package revamp when things between the cars were close is that he was beating Vettel regularly and now that is distant memory.

What's all this about Monza 2008? As if it is going to convince people that Vettel can win in relatively poor material. I have news for you... Even the sun shines on a dogs ass every now and then.

I can pick out quite a few drivers who have won wet races or put in magnificent performances when they really shouldn't have been close but the point I think Alonso, especially, is making is that prior to Newey's package revamp when things between the cars were close is that he was beating Vettel regularly and now that is distant memory.

Of course it does, what some have to realise though is that it doesn't emanate from the bottoms of either Fernando, or Lewis.

Well, obviously it suggests that the driver is a less important element in case of Vettel. I don't have an issue with the statement as such, but the mutual Hamilton/Alonso praise is a bit annoying (and of course they can hardly be objective on that matter). What's worse from a forum perspective, however, is the quality of some threads since Vettel is winning.

I don't think he's saying the driver is less important in Vettel's case. That's crazy, and of all people Alonso should know better. I think Alonso is saying that once again Newey has given Vettel a dominant car in the last few races because previously he was challenging them and beating them. To me it seems the problem is that Alonso and Hamilton rate each highly in which case this becomes a fan insecurity problem and not so much what the drivers have said.

Vettel had a few stunning drives each year, so it's not exactly an anomaly.To compare Vettel and Perez at that state, you have to ignore what Vettel did in the past 4 years.

This is correct but subsequent to 2008 Vettel has been in championship contending/winning cars. If he didn't have stunning drives in each year then it would be worrying. Anyway, what I was implying is that Vettel's drive in Monza 2008 can be likened to Perez' drive in Malaysia 2012 in that it was an anomaly. I don't think either performance proves anything and bringing it up is pointless.

It is not about downplaying his achievements... Alonso said that he is fighting Vettel and Newey. How exactly is that disrespectful of his achievements?

Also, is Perez the next best thing because he had a stunning drive in Malaysia? As I've said, these anomalies happen. Excuse me for not kicking up a fuss about it...

I reckon Perez is the next best big thing. Similarly, it was easy to see that Vettel was. Not only because of Monza 2008, but because of how he drove throughout the entire year in the STRF. Forget about Monza - there are not enough excuses for all of the other stellar races he put in that landed the STRF above the RB car at season's finish - and ALL of the points except 4 were earned by Seb.

The bottom line is that Vettel is very talented. He has a great car. So in this case, driver + car is a brilliant combo at times.

Whether Alonso and Hamilton are jealous is largely immaterial, imo. There are occassions for all drivers, including Vettel, to be jealous of this or that - as in any profession. Right now, the important thing is for all of them to focus on what they are doing.

Then another plus point for the Wunderkid since he won in the year (2008) before Newey was supposed to show his magic (2009 and beyond).... 

 

So much pro-Vettel spin...

 

Monza 2008 was unusual circumstances (rain affected qualy) and the STR3 wasn't a bad car i.e Newey, powerful Ferrari engine. But Vettel didn't even score another podium in 2008 so it really was a one-off circumstance.

 

But still a good win from a then likeable kid. But as I said, I can't stand the constant spin about anything-Vettel. "Wunderkid?"

So much pro-Vettel spin...

 

Monza 2008 was unusual circumstances (rain affected qualy) and the STR3 wasn't a bad car i.e Newey, powerful Ferrari engine. But Vettel didn't even score another podium in 2008 so it really was a one-off circumstance.

 

But still a good win from a then likeable kid. But as I said, I can't stand the constant spin about anything-Vettel. "Wunderkid?"

 

 

Monza 2008 was a special circumstance? Of course it was special because the WunderKid won the race with a dry-weather set-up in a monsoon condition. FYI, I prefer the term "WunderKid" to "Finger Boy" - just a personal preference, I guess.

 

STR3 was a special car? Then STR4 with such huge regulation changes in 2009 should have been a much better car than STR3, is it not? It was still designed by Newey, the year was 2009 where Newey was supposed to wave his magic wand, equipped with the more powerful Ferrari engine, and yet they had 0 podium and 8 measly points to show for STR4. 

 

The kid is special, but he is not the best thing since sliced bread - not yet.

Red Bull and Adrian Newey dominance does harm the sport.

 

People forget that EVERY single one of Vettel's wins including his Monza 2008 win driving for Toro Rosso was in a car designed by Adrian Newey. I am not denying that he is a good driver but not  Alonso, Hamilton and raikkonen good.

 

 

What other drivers think of Vettel's so called 'raw' talent... 

 

Alonso  

 

...but now we are fighting against Newey and, at the moment we cannot match him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamilton 

 

 

For me, in my eyes, he(Alonso) really is a three or four times world champion. Seeing Sebastian dominate the last few races doesn't come as a surprise because the Red Bull has been dominant for the past few years. They seem to have a great capacity to improve the car. Adrian is just a genius. I can't even imagine what he's doing. He is a one-off. I've seen their speed - there was no way I could compete with that. Even if I drive at 200 per cent and crash, I can't match it.

  

 

 

yes you could say why isn't webber dominating too? Why assume both cars are created equal....... http://joesaward.wor...-as-he-sees-it/     like mark said "he(vettel) is the chosen one"

Vettel was the only driver in a Newey car who scored consistently in the second driver. Bourdois, Webber and Coulthard were all significantly slower than Vettel.

Toro Rosso in the second half of 2009 was on the same level as Force India now. And I don't think anyone wouldn't be impressive if Di Resta or Sutil would win race. Or from another point of view neither Hamilton nor Alonso won a race in a similar car.

 

Perez Malaysia 2012

 

Circumstances were very similar to Monza 2008 (and Perez started 10th)

 

(pin, grenade, throw)

 

 

Main problem is Newey used to have competition (back in the '90s and '00s) & Vettel is an absolute gun in the peak of his powers - but he's not Jesus (yet).

Perez Malaysia 2012

 

Circumstances were very similar to Monza 2008 (and Perez started 10th)

 

Not really. Malaysia 2012 was a chaotic race in changing conditions (= results more affected by luck), while Monza 2008 had fairly constant full wet (but not to the extent that the race had to be interrupted) weather. And, of course, Perez did not win.

 Another issue with vettels red bull dominance is that supporters always bring up his amazing Toro Rosso rain affected monza win as proof of him winning in inferior cars but thats not true.  vettel's first win in 2008 - the redbull B team Toro Rosso STR3 was not the inferior car vettel fans make out to be. The car was identical to the Red bull RB4 designed by Adrian Newey the only difference was the customer ferrari engine, it was an impressive win but vettel wasn't driving an inferior car either.

 

At this point. Vettel can't do anything to prove it's not just the car if people seriously claim that the Toro Rosso was not a mid/low tier car in 2008.

I think it's a combo of both, but mainly the car. It'll be interesting to see what Vettel can do in an inferior car. Monza 2008 comes to mind, but that was just one off. 

 

MS many times took terrible Ferraris to podiums and wins. Alonso is doing that too, last season, and this season as well. 

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

 

3 out of the first 4 places on the grid for that race being Newey designs suggests it again wasn't completely down to Vettel. Of course he had to do the rest, but to suggest that the Toro Rosso was not a front-running package for that Grand Prix is missing the entire point.

DId you miss the start of the 2009 season ?

This is one of main pet peeves against Hamilton's fanbase. The claim that he proved himself in a bad car by getting a few points finishes followed by 5 consecutive races out of the points is a bit weak, isn't it? Because then how is what Vettel did at Toro Rosso, even back in his rookie year 2007 not enough?

 

The main problem with Vettel in his early F1 days was that he often found himself involved in incidents, but when he stayed out of trouble he was delivering constantly, even before Monza 2008, many ppl already saw him as possible future champion, nowadays many guys make it sound like Vettel's dominance came out of nowhere, it really didn't. He had obvious talent from day one.

I think it's a combo of both, but mainly the car. It'll be interesting to see what Vettel can do in an inferior car. Monza 2008 comes to mind, but that was just one off. 

 

MS many times took terrible Ferraris to podiums and wins. Alonso is doing that too, last season, and this season as well. 

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

3 out of the first 4 places on the grid for that race being Newey designs suggests it again wasn't completely down to Vettel. Of course he had to do the rest, but to suggest that the Toro Rosso was not a front-running package for that Grand Prix is missing the entire point.

Except: newey cars weren't exactly setting the pace that year. Monza would be their only win.

Having a Newey car in 2008 meant having a midfield car

Monza was exceptional because the wheater leveling the playing field, Lewis and co screwing up and Vettel seizing the smallest of opportunities, this had little to do with the car designer

I think it's a combo of both, but mainly the car. It'll be interesting to see what Vettel can do in an inferior car. Monza 2008 comes to mind, but that was just one off. 

 

MS many times took terrible Ferraris to podiums and wins. Alonso is doing that too, last season, and this season as well. 

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

Why are you sure that Vettel haven't had inferior car when he has had podiums and wins with Red Bull? Might not have been inferior car yesterday, but still. My point is that you can't compare drivers driving in different teams. Some times you can't even compare team mates when they don't have same machinery or same resources working for them. I mean even if two drivers have exactly same car it doesn't necessarily mean that they have equal chance for success. That is if car is made to suit one driver.

I think you have a point, but I maintain that the 2008 season is more than enough evidence that Vettel can perform in a car that isn't the best, an accusation consistently lobbed his way. Let's look at the results of the Toro Rosso pairing in the second half of the 2008 season - that is, when the car appeared to take a step forward post-Silverstone.

 

Hockenheim - Vettel 8th, Bourdais 12th

Budapest - Vettel Ret, Bourdais 18th

Valencia - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Spa - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 7th

Monza - Vettel 1st, Bourdais 18th

Singapore - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 12th

Fuji - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Shangai - Vettel 9th, Bourdais 13th

Interlagos - Vettel 4th, Bourdais 14th

 

From this, I think, we can deduce that the Toro Rosso was rarely more than a midfield car in 2008, and yet Vettel ran consistently in the points, snapping at the heels of the big boys, and, on the one occasion when he was given a front-running car, won the race. What more can be asked of him? Even taking Monza out of the equation, his 2008 for me proves that he can compete in a difficult car.

 

Not that I believe we should take Monza out of the equation. Let us not forget that he simply motored away from Kovalainen's Mclaren, which started alongside him on the grid and yet finished some twelve seconds in arrears. I do not believe that the Toro Rosso was a better car than the Mclaren, at this or any other race in 2008. Furthermore, after his bad luck at the start Bourdais, himself no mug - he was a serial winner in America, after all - was able to recover only to 18th place. Had that car been the best in the field I would expect Bourdais to at least be in the top 10 in spite of starting from the back.

 

The following season, Vettel hopped into a Red Bull and secured the team's first victory at his third attempt, leading home experienced and highly-rated teammate Mark Webber.

 

So, in my opinion, Vettel has more than proved he can perform even without the best car, and as a result must take some credit for delivering four straight titles, even in the best car. Like all great teams, it is the combination of car and driver that is so hard to beat - I don't believe any of Jim Clark's teammates even looking like winning a race during his dominant 1963 season. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have the best car, of course, but it equally proves that it isn't all down to the car - Webber has never been WDC runner-up, as you would expect if the car was as good as the 2004 Ferrari or 1988 Mclaren.

Is it coincidence or not that Vettel was at Toro Rosso when they had their best ever spell and at RB when they've had their best ever spell... maybe he finds a way to fine tune his car so that he always drives the best car... clearly Newey's recent efforts have all been quick but could Vettels technical ability or hard work flatter Newey's car a little?

3 out of the first 4 places on the grid for that race being Newey designs suggests it again wasn't completely down to Vettel. Of course he had to do the rest, but to suggest that the Toro Rosso was not a front-running package for that Grand Prix is missing the entire point.

I think you have a point, but I maintain that the 2008 season is more than enough evidence that Vettel can perform in a car that isn't the best, an accusation consistently lobbed his way. Let's look at the results of the Toro Rosso pairing in the second half of the 2008 season - that is, when the car appeared to take a step forward post-Silverstone.

 

Hockenheim - Vettel 8th, Bourdais 12th

Budapest - Vettel Ret, Bourdais 18th

Valencia - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Spa - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 7th

Monza - Vettel 1st, Bourdais 18th

Singapore - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 12th

Fuji - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Shangai - Vettel 9th, Bourdais 13th

Interlagos - Vettel 4th, Bourdais 14th

 

From this, I think, we can deduce that the Toro Rosso was rarely more than a midfield car in 2008, and yet Vettel ran consistently in the points, snapping at the heels of the big boys, and, on the one occasion when he was given a front-running car, won the race. What more can be asked of him? Even taking Monza out of the equation, his 2008 for me proves that he can compete in a difficult car.

 

Not that I believe we should take Monza out of the equation. Let us not forget that he simply motored away from Kovalainen's Mclaren, which started alongside him on the grid and yet finished some twelve seconds in arrears. I do not believe that the Toro Rosso was a better car than the Mclaren, at this or any other race in 2008. Furthermore, after his bad luck at the start Bourdais, himself no mug - he was a serial winner in America, after all - was able to recover only to 18th place. Had that car been the best in the field I would expect Bourdais to at least be in the top 10 in spite of starting from the back.

 

The following season, Vettel hopped into a Red Bull and secured the team's first victory at his third attempt, leading home experienced and highly-rated teammate Mark Webber.

 

So, in my opinion, Vettel has more than proved he can perform even without the best car, and as a result must take some credit for delivering four straight titles, even in the best car. Like all great teams, it is the combination of car and driver that is so hard to beat - I don't believe any of Jim Clark's teammates even looking like winning a race during his dominant 1963 season. It doesn't mean that he doesn't have the best car, of course, but it equally proves that it isn't all down to the car - Webber has never been WDC runner-up, as you would expect if the car was as good as the 2004 Ferrari or 1988 Mclaren.

Agreed, that is one thing Lewis has not have since Heikii, a clear number 2 driver.

 

Alonso has it with Massa, and Vettel may not get cooperation with Webber, but Webber is so shopworn he is hardly any threat. He is the Patrese to Vettel's Schumi, all the resources and time probably go firstly to Vettel, and it works well.

 

I guarantee Lewis Hamilton would be at least a 2 time WDC if  mclaren had clear number 1 driver status 2010-2012 but the departure of his mentor Ron Dennis CBE  and inter team politics with Martin Whitmarsh destroyed any hopes of multiple championships with the team. I am relieved that he left the toxic climate at Mclaren who are currently reliving their winless mid 90's form!

 

 

 

 

Newey is not a one man team, at McLaren he could not make up for the the cowboys that ran things there, which is why they had 0 titles under Newey from 2000-2005 despite having a prime Kimi to apply his trade. Since then it took Lewis Hamilton beating the better car in Ferrari in 2008 to give McLaren their sole title, even with Newey and the right drivers,

 

 

McLarens 2007  MP4-22? LOL I think Nigel Stepney  and Mike Coughlans expert photocopying skills done more for mclaren than Adrian ever could.!

 

Adrian Newey's lack of success at mclaren 2000-2005 also  was because that was the era of many variables which he had no control over such as tyre war favoritism (bridgestone-Ferreri michelin-Renault)  and mercedes trying to out power ferreri building powerful  950bhp+ V10 grenade engines which constantly blew up mid race.

 

 red bull, Adrian and the 'chosen one' benefit from the  2009 regulation change because the regs forced engine reliability and teams put the emphasis on other aspects such as aero and other rule bending gimmicks where Adrian excels.

 

 

Another example of how a team can benefit and dominate from huge regulation change was the rebadged 2009 Honda..Brawn BGP 001

 

 

Around may/june 2008 Honda aborted ALL development of the 2008 RA108 so they could put all resources behind the radical 2009 car which was ultimately rebadged brawn with customer merc engine after Japanese execs decided pulled out of F1.

 little known fact is that Honda B team Super Aguri pioneered the radical double diffuser. After Super Aguri ceased operations may 2008 most key staff moved to Honda F1 HQ in brackley to further develop the game changing technology that destroyed the field in the first half of 09 season and handed Brawn the WCC and WDC.

 

Red Bull have mastered the 2009 regulation change and dominated but  i see history repeating itself. (Honda>Brawn>Mercedes) Mercedes lack of pace towards the end of this season suggests that they will dominate early after the radical reg 2014 change but thats a debate for another thread