Search Results

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

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.

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 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?

 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.

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 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?

Both drivers qualified in the top 4 for that race. Its funny how they try to call the torro rosso a Minardi when in reality It was a magnificent Newey chariot.

The 1992 Benetton WAS statistically a more superior car than the 2008 Toro Rosso.

Evidence and Facts??

1992 Benetton - Finished 3rd in WCC (Drivers 3rd and 6th)
2008 Toro Rosso - Finished 6th in WCC (Drivers 8th and 17th)

Questioning Vettel's driver skill in a 'Newey Chariot' of a 2008 Toro Rosso? It wasn't exactly winning or scoring left right and centre, was it? Schumacher alone got 7 other podiums on top of that maiden win.

And let's just agree for your benefit only that the 2008 Toro Rosso was superior (mega LOL)...

Let's compare the cars capability in the hands of the little punkaSS German rookie to non other than the established experienced racer and multi Champcar Champion teammate Bourdais...

Vettel - Best result was a win at Monza. A string of points finishes, 4ths and 5ths. No more podiums.
Bourdais - Best Result in two seasons of 'Newey Chariots' was 7th. Conveniently at the same Spa circuit.

...versus the 3rd Placed WCC 1992 Benetton.

2008 Toro Rosso, clearly a superior 'newey chariot' in comparison!

Fullhouse, you sir, are an idiot!

Yes, 2008 STR was better than that year’s RBR.
Not a bad car and of course the Monza drive was very good. But let him win the title without a Newey car, then we can talk about greatness.

How come the 2008 STR somehow became a better car that year when it never matched RBR even closely in any other season? I don't buy that. The only thing that was obviously (but marginally) better with that STR was the Ferrari engine. Most of those 2008 STR great results came in rain and as we all know driver skill often becomes the deciding factor in the rain.

Didnt you get the memo yet?
hamilton's been driving minardis for all of his career; Alonso almost won 2012 in a shitbox meanwhile Vettels 2008 Toro Rosso was actually a pretty good car.

Yes, 2008 STR was better than that year’s RBR.
Not a bad car and of course the Monza drive was very good. But let him win the title without a Newey car, then we can talk about greatness.

Yes, 2008 STR was better than that year’s RBR.
Not a bad car and of course the Monza drive was very good. But let him win the title without a Newey car, then we can talk about greatness.

 

Thats not the point tho.

The ppl. who would call Fernandos 2012 ferrari a "shitbox" are the same ones who would say the 2008 Toro Rosso was a "good car". when its clear as day that the toro rosso was nowhere near as competitive with its contemporaries as the 2012 ferrari was.

Vettel has plenty of flaws alright, but being slow or unable to extract the best out of his machinery in a race are not one of them.

Vettel was in front because of Webber's usually bad starts or strategy mistakes(Malaysia, Spain), otherwise in the first 6 races Webber was faster, apart from Bahrain of course.
I understend that it's frustrating for you to see so much people, including Hamilton and Alonso trying to diminish Vettel's achivements, but you have to blame only Vettel, for his quite poor show when the car was not dominant and so planted as it's today.
On the other hand, it's poor show for some Alonso fanboys with this constant trolling about Newey and car. No driver won a WDC, by himself. It's a team sport.

Otherwise, can't understand Vettel's fans saying Seb was poor today, because all drivers made mistakes in Q3. It seems this track is certainly not easy to drive.

It should be much more frustrating for other fans to see how a young driver is kicking the Lewis and Alonso asses since 2010. And even much more for Lewis and Alonso. That´s why I doesn´t care about what they say.

Learn this, mate:

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (J.Swift)
After 2008 win at Monza, Seb was a diamond, praised by all of the people in F1, the rookie of the year, the future... in the moment this "future" become "present"... Alonso and Lewis lost their "status" and records and inmediatly were frustrated. Its a common thing in sports and we have seen many times, there will be always one driver/sportman better than you. Always. And it will happen to Seb someday.

Wait 2 or 3 seasons without Vettel defeats and we will see a lot of people (including drivers) prasing him again.;)

Even the best designer can't expect to win all the championships every year, all years. F1 is so difficult and competitive that even if you're the best overall, there's always gonna be people who beat you.

Eaxctly !
If we follow the original point , the discussion was about how people throw Newey second hand chassis in the discussion about Monza 2008.

His chassis doesnt mean that it will always be fighting at the top - there are lot of other factors like the regs (like no EBD), the team and their decisions and finally and quite importantly the driver !
Do we beleive NK would be winning in Newey chassis? And people are desperate enough to compare NK to SV

Oh come on, stop it.
HRT is not even a backmarker in the same sense like Minardi was (more like a GP2 running in F1) and TR was far away from still being Minardi in terms of competitiveness.

OK - but people throw Newey name around as if he injects downforce in a chassis , by waving his hands.
No , the car was efficient because of the EBD (and only in Qualy where they could afford it ) , it was Seb , the team and other factors who eked out 11 wins in the races out of it.

Conclusion - In 2008 , borrowed Newey chassis for the Torro Rosso with no updates , no EBD and poorer pitwall and pitstop teams and combined with less skilled drivers (coz of less exp) , 2008 Monza could be considered as a backmarker winning ...

But we know the forum wisdom - whenever Vettel wins , its the car and the magic chassis - So its all good !

OK - but people throw Newey name around as if he injects downforce in a chassis , by waving his hands.
No , the car was efficient because of the EBD (and only in Qualy where they could afford it ) , it was Seb , the team and other factors who eked out 11 wins in the races out of it.

Conclusion - In 2008 , borrowed Newey chassis for the Torro Rosso with no updates , no EBD and poorer pitwall and pitstop teams and combined with less skilled drivers (coz of less exp) , 2008 Monza could be considered as a backmarker winning ...

But we know the forum wisdom - whenever Vettel wins , its the car and the magic chassis - So its all good !

But the Toro Rosso of 2008 is more comparable with the Sauber of today which got a podium the other day a bit of luck goes a long way.

Vettels drive was obviously amazing in 2008 but Vettel fan boys make out he was driving a tractor.

But last time he was in similar conditions in a not far from an HRT like car - He won !!

You're comparing the 2008 Torro Rosso to the HRT?

The same Newey chassis whose butt is being kicked by Lotus / Merc who have noname designers?

Anyway what is more tickle worthy is the subconcious comparison someone made between NK and SV .. Really? Seb will finish 10 positions up on average than NK in the saem crappy car

I know , the point is that Newey chassis is no guarantee that it wont be a dog.

His rep has been hyped by the recent successes which had a lot to do with the drivers , the strategic team , the fuel efficient engine and even the pit stop guys !

Without Adrian Newey where would Vettel be?

OK - but people throw Newey name around as if he injects downforce in a chassis , by waving his hands.
No , the car was efficient because of the EBD (and only in Qualy where they could afford it ) , it was Seb , the team and other factors who eked out 11 wins in the races out of it.

Conclusion - In 2008 , borrowed Newey chassis for the Torro Rosso with no updates , no EBD and poorer pitwall and pitstop teams and combined with less skilled drivers (coz of less exp) , 2008 Monza could be considered as a backmarker winning ...

But we know the forum wisdom - whenever Vettel wins , its the car and the magic chassis - So its all good !

The 2008 Torro Rosso was not a backmarker car it regularly qualified into Q3

The Sauber looks pretty strong.
6 + 8 in Melbourne. They are after Mclaren, Red Bull and Ferrari the best team atm.

In 2008 we had Mclaren, Ferrari, BMW, Renault, Toyata and Red Bull with better cars than the Toro Rosso.

Lets have a look at qualifying using Q2 times in 2008 when the cars were light fuelled unlike Q3, starting when Vettel got the Newey designed car:-

2008
Silverstone

1. McLaren 1-19.597
2. Red Bull 1-19.710
3. BMW 1-19.802
4. Ferrari 1-19.971
5. Renault 1-19.992
6. Torro Rosso 1-20.109 +0.512s (made it to Q3)

Germany

1. McLaren 1-14.603
2. Ferrari 1-14.747
3. Renault 1-14.943
4. BMW 1-15.109
5. Toyota 1-15.122
6. Red Bull 1-15.338
7. Torro Rosso 1-15.420 +0.817s (made it to Q3)

Hungary

1. Ferrari 1-19.068
2. Toyota 1-19.246
3. McLaren 1-19.376
4. BMW 1-19.776
5. Renault 1-19.816
6. Red Bull 1-20.046
7. Torro Rosso 1-20.144 +0.984s (qualified 11th)

2012

Australia

1. McLaren 1-24.922
2. Lotus 1-25.302
3. Mercedes 1-25.336
4. Red Bull 1-25.651
5. Williams 1-25.908
6. Sauber 1-26.182 +1.26s (would have made it into Q3 with this time)

Malaysia

1. McLaren 1-36.219
2. Mercedes 1-36.391
3. Red Bull 1-36.461
4. Lotus 1-36.461
5. Ferrari 1-37.379
6. Sauber 1-37.477 +1.285s (made it into Q3)

I see little difference in the merits of the two cars and on top of that Perez beat Vettel in a presumably inferior car

2 races - in which Seb split the Mclaren's in one and was in contention for the podium in the other untill he got taken out while his team mate hasnt even threatened to get on the podium in either of the races - and you have so much to say. Ever wondered why your boy hasnt been able to repeat his (MA) amazing consistancy of 2007 ever since then? Perhaps the term 'TC' might give you the answer to it.

I dont recall Lewis winning the 2008 WDC with TC

I do find it amusing that again, the media have jumped on Sebs back and are calling iut a nightmare season and that actually, he is just like every other driver
So that explains why there's only 3 men out of 24 with 2+ titles, only 2 men with more wins, only 1 man with more poles (and at a lower strike rate) and all this in 80-odd starts at 24 years.

Sebs 'nightmare season' is
A great recovery drive after a difficult qualy to beat a faster car diven by a very talented driver to 2nd place
A reasonable recovery drive to sit 4th and with a shout of 3rd in a very difficult race before a silly tangle with a backmarker
1 mistake on a hot lap in qualy 1 good lap on the less grippy tyres and being 2-0 down to a very capable qualifier.

Its like if a top footy side won the first game then lost a tricky away game 2nd game, then would we write off their title chances? No

Remember they did the same after Nurburgring and Hungary last year, and were duly made to eat Humble Pie.

In Australia lets just forget Lewis's bad first pitstop, the SC and the fuel saving after lap 8 because McLaren got the fuel calculations wrong

Vettel qualified on the harder tyres because he was no good on the softer tyres

OK - but people throw Newey name around as if he injects downforce in a chassis , by waving his hands.
No , the car was efficient because of the EBD (and only in Qualy where they could afford it ) , it was Seb , the team and other factors who eked out 11 wins in the races out of it.

Conclusion - In 2008 , borrowed Newey chassis for the Torro Rosso with no updates , no EBD and poorer pitwall and pitstop teams and combined with less skilled drivers (coz of less exp) , 2008 Monza could be considered as a backmarker winning ...

But we know the forum wisdom - whenever Vettel wins , its the car and the magic chassis - So its all good !

Wasn't that the same race where Bourdais qualified forth, and had comparable pace with Vettel during the race?

Undoubtedly Vettel is a great driver, but the races you mention, together with his maiden win in 2008 were all achieved in a car which was very capable in wet weather conditions. Add to the fact that Vettel is without question RedBull's favourite son, and you can see why his results stack up so well. Then there's the modern day equilvalent of the FW14b and FW15c made available to him (Newey designs), and you may appreciate why some people believe he's not the best thing since Fangio.

The point isn't how he compares to some past driver from a different era. The point is that I feel you are poorly delimiting his achievement in the 2008 season based on the idea that all he managed to achieve was to fulfill the potential of the car. But that is a very special achievement in F1. The 2008 STRF was often good enough to get top 10 finishes and sometimes top 5 finishes and even win (at Monza). We know that. Why do we know that? Because Vettel did it. The point is that the 20 year old Vettel generally got the potential out of the car and that is the most that a driver can ever do.

You might suggest ANY driver would do the same given that 2008 STRF. But that is just simply false. Let's look at some examples: Fisi's car had the potential to win at Suzuka 2005 and Vettel's car had the potential to win at Canada 2011 for two desparate examples. And neither won. In the first case, Kimi came along and whomped Fisi and his renault outta the way on the final lap and Button did the same to Vettel in Canada. Lewis' Macca had the potential to be in the top 5 at Monaco 2011, but not the way he drove it. So yeah, having a great car with great potential is one thing. Driving it to its potential is another. More current examples? Ask Vettel's 2008 teammate - he too had some good performances, but he didn't make it sing the way Vettel did, not even close. Ask Hamilton's 2008 teammate. Heikke had the potential to win at Monza 2008, but Vettel outdrove him that day in his car that also had the potential. Ask Alonso, who had the potential for a top 5 finish at Valencia 2010, but literally gave it away to a mottle of midgridders as he sat in his car fuming over Hamilton and got no where near the potential from his car that day. That happens, that's racing. However, every driver I have mentioned has also pulled out some great performances so all you have to do is think back a little to find them.

So no, I cannot appreciate why some people keep talking about wanting to see Vettel in certain situations, when he has clearly been in them and performed well (and better with time as expected). And while you started off with that argument and ended on the 'comparisons to the greats' argument, I am purposely keeping them separate. I don't think you can accurately compare drivers from different eras, so I would agree with you that those types of conclusions about any driver on the current grid are just for fun.

If McLaren and / or Ferrari (preferably both) provide real competition this season and Vettel trashes them all, then I'll be the first in this thread to congratulate him and eat humble pie. I just somehow cannot see him (or any other driver currently on the grid) destroying the opposion like in 2011 without the best car by far at their disposal. If the McLaren is half as good as it looks so far, then I expect Vettel to take a good few wins, but nothing like witnessed last year. Either way, best of luck, I hope the battle is close and fair.

Kind of like 2010? Where were you in 2010? That is exactly what happened - Vettel took a few good wins. Although the RBR was the best car over all, Vettel's reliability issues evened things out completely. Now while you seem to need "pace" to even things out, what difference does it make what the evening factor is? Reliability, errors, incidents, strategy, lack of pace, who cares what the reason is? You are never, ever going to have a season where all the top cars have equal race and qually pace, equal reliability, equal team strategy calls, equal numbers of incidents, an equal number of errors, etc, across the board. You can't even get that in a spec series. But 2010 was as close as we can hope for in F1. 2010 gave us the close battle you are talking about, 5 driver/car combos going for the win with 3 races to go and 4 gunning for the win at the final race. You simply can't get any closer than that. The battle was close and fair and every one of those drivers was put in a position to have to press their cars to their potential to win. Vettel won, but it could have been anyone of them. So if you want to see that again, that is cool (but generally a difficult proposition). But if you are trying to pretend 2010 never happened or that the "reasons" fore parity matter - then I would have to disagree.

So I don't know why you say you "expect" to happen what already has happened if Vettel's car is not dominant. We already know that is what will happen. That is what has happened in racing down through the ages of time. No driver thrashes the entire field to the extent Vettel did in 2011 unless he has an overall dominant car (reliability, strategy, lack of errors, lack of incidents, and good race-qually pace included). I haven't ever seen any fan or foe of Vettel, or any other driver, suggest otherwise.

You will have to excuse the dodgy formatting. I'll be using red text for this post so you will be able to easily find my comments--the board informed me that I had exceeded the number of allowed quote tags before making my post. My apologies in advance for the inconvenience (and to everyone else who remembers my liberal use of red text in the past ).

Vettel did it with a dominant car, Alonso did not, infact you will barely find anyone who reckons the 06 Renault was the best car, yet no one with a straight face will claim wasnt the fastest car by a mile. Vettel fans just need to accept that he has only won titles in a dominant car, unlike really great drivers.

And again, we're certain of the car's pace through what formula exactly? You people keep ranting on about how you know which car was the best and how, but I still haven't seen any logical methods which can applied to provide a conclusive answer for the pace of all the drivers...

As if that proves anything at all?? It proves everything, and its one of the biggest reasons why Senna and Prost are rated so highly. A team mate is the only true benchmark a driver can have so it has a lot of value, proves a lot. How can you say Hamilton proved nothing by matching Alonso?? It proved he was a great driver. Losing to Button meant he had a poor season, but it does not erase what he proved in 2007. Vettel has yet to prove he can beat a quality top line team mate. Schumacher was also critisized for that by the way, but he made up for it by spending half his career without the best car.

(This is exactly the sort of bias I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. By your own admission, Button was not driving the best car last year, yet he still managed to secure a strong run of results and beat a 'rated WDC teammate'. The excuse? Exactly what I said it would be: "Oh, Hamilton had a bad year." How is it possible that what Hamilton did in 2007 is sufficient to prove his talent for the rest of his career? Would you really still rate him as a great driver if he had another season like 2011?

This is why we have a hard time taking opinions like yours seriously. If you don't rate Button even after he has filled your criteria, then there is absolutely no reason for us to believe you will rate Vettel either. This sort of double-standard is called 'hypocrisy'.)

This is no bias its the same criteria used against everyone else.

(As evidenced by the above quote, it clearly isn't.)

Very disputable that there were days he did not have the best car and prevailed. Just because he did not get pole, and had to struggle does not mean he does not have the best car. It could just mean he lost the car advantage he had.

(Again, where is this magic formula we have that can separate car pace from driver ability? )

There are two main criteria for a driver to prove themselves. The car, and team mate.

(According to who, exactly? People who think they can isolate the driver factor in a team sport? There are too many variables that prevent us from doing so, so this criteria is rendered invalid for use of concluding fact due to heavy subjective influence. You want to use it to form your own opinions? You're more than welcome to do so--but if you're going to do this, you have to apply the same standards for every driver, rather than cherry-picking outliers in order to create the ranking you want to see. You should also remember that this is only your opinion and it is important not to take it too seriously--in other words, don't confuse it with fact, as you have frequently done in your posts here.)

Hamilton and Alonso have won titles without dominant cars, while Vettel has not, so stop making up false facts.

(

The first part of your sentence contradicts the second part. The idea that Hamilton and Alonso's titles were not won in dominant cars is your opinion and cannot be proven as fact.)

Hamilton and Alonso have proved their class against top quality team mates,

(In the interest of asking, who exactly? Which 'top-quality' teammates did Alonso beat before racing against Hamilton? Hamilton is rated because he performed well against Alonso, who was relatively unproven before he raced Hamilton? By that logic, Buemi and Alguersuari could be the best two drivers ever to have raced. )

Vettel is being judged by the exact criteria everyone else is.

(No, he's being judged by your criteria in this case, which you are not applying to everyone evenly, as proved above.)

Some people like you cannot accept he fails to meet those criteria,

(After examining your posts, hopefully it isn't hard to see why.)

To be honest, it depends on your character, most people like a fair fight for something to be interesting, a smaller minority don't care, a win is just a win to them, period.

So it's a character thing now, is it? For the record, we all want to see a fair fight, and I hate to break it to you, but each F1 season is a fair fight. Every team builds and races a car under the same rules. Sounds like a pretty level playing field, if you ask me. Naturally, there will be differences in car and driver pace, but these differences help us to see exactly what we're holding the competition for: who is best. May I repeat for the umpteenth time, if you still haven't read it yet: F1 is a team sport, and the drivers are not the only people who give a team success. F1 is made all the more remarkable when teams are close throughout the year, but the reason these battles are remarkable and special is because they are so rare. This 'smaller minority' you refer to are the ones who see F1 for what it really is, and understand that winning even with a 'dominant car' by a large margin is still just as fairly earned and valid as a win in a close fight. If you can't understand this, then I'm afraid you are the one who has no understanding of F1, not us.

Monza 2008 was a good drive but like I said, Frentzen won races in a Jordan in 2009.

Er, what?

You clearly know absolutely nothing about F1, if you think, it proves nothing to prove yourself without the best car, and against strong team mates.

(Fascinating. And here I was thinking that the reason we've been running in this thing all these years was to win the WDC and WCC. )

No its just objectively judging Vettel. something you are clearly unable to do, to the point of even denying Vettel has beenb flattered by great cars, and other drivers have not. The mere concept seems to offend you, despite being objectively used for decades in the sport, but if its used against little Vettel its unfair and double standards.

(What 'offends' us is your repeated assertion that your hypocritical judgment is valid. Other posters have come and gone suggesting that Vettel is not the best and have been received quite cordially, because they make it clear that it is just their opinion and don't take their opinions any more seriously than anyone else's.)

lol. He has had a free ride his entire career by redbull,

(You make it sound so easy. Speaking of bias...)

Yes brittle when the going gets tough,

(And this has never happened to Alonso or Hamilton, right? Not even at China '07, Brazil '07, or Abu Dhabi '10, right? )

Of course, its all subjective evaluation, just as saying Senna is one of the greatest of all time. It does not mean an educated evaluation cannot be reached.

(Actually, it does, for reasons I've already pointed out. There are too many variables in Formula One to accurately determine who the best driver is. You can come to whatever conclusion you want with whatever criteria you want, but if you do not consistently apply these criteria then you must not expect us to take your opinion seriously.)

I have to admitt Im a very good judge of drivers, for example I was 100% sure, Alonso would destroy Massa, while the majority of people thought it would be a battle (lol), and after half a season I was sure Hamilton was special, so I know what I am talking about.

(Your confidence in your perceived infallibility is quite amusing. May I remind you that pride often cometh before a fall.)

It is quite clear Vettel is very good, but I am still not convinced he is truly great, based on the reasons I mentioned. I still question his ability to be fast in anything other than a brilliant Newey chassis. He could be another Kimi, who needs a certain car to excel. I hope they finally get rid of Webber next year and put Vettel up against a real young talent.

(As others have pointed out, the likelihood of your opinion changing is not very high.)

Its funny because Im pretty much the only open minded one here who is actually not making any claims, other than its too early to judge Vettel, unlike everyone else who refuses to consider they could be wrong and to budge from their beliefs.

For full disclosure, I am a Vettel fan. I believe it is very likely that he is the fastest, most-talented driver on the grid at the moment. However, my opinion is not permanent and is prone to change should I feel it is contradictory to what reality indicates. As I said before, I will let the racing do the talking--Melbourne can't come soon enough.

Generalisations are a good way to make a lot of enemies in a short amount of time. The level of hypocrisy displayed in your request for others to have an open mind while you continue to maintain a narrow perspective, reinforced by your own contention that you "know what [you] are talking about", is staggering.

With all due respect, your argument is invalid.

Beating a WDC is tosh on another level too ....

If you dont rate Vettel (who is a 2xWDC) , then basically you are saying is WDC is no biggie
... any tom dick or Vettel can be a WDC okay ! Now if the WDCs is no biggie then How can beating a WDC be any proof of greatness ??

Thats the circle people get themse;lves trapped into when they use selective criteria

Excellent point.

"I'd rather be the guy getting booed than the one standing on the second step right now." ~ Mario Andretti, Monza 2013 post-race ceremonies

 

Pretty much says everything that needs to be said, I think.

 

In pre-race Mario said: 'Sebastian Vettel is a rare breed that only comes along one in a long while and can extract the maximum from whatever you give him to work with" 

 

He is right of course.  Vettel has people saying that the 2008 STRF was a WDC car.  A WDC car!!  lol.  That is AWESOME!  Newey himself agrees Seb is special, but I guess he'd be considered a blinkered old man who doesn't know his foot from a front wing...

It all depends on Newey.

some funny statistic, between 1999 and 2010 NO Newey car delivered a championship. Drivers in those cars: Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen, Juan Pablo Montoya, Pedro de La Rosa, Mark Webber, Christijan Klien.
Another funny statistic: Between 9/10/2005 (Raikkonen Japan) and 14/9/2008 (Vettel Monza) no Newey car won a single race (although to be honest he didn't design a car in 2006. But fielded 4 in 2008)

one could conclude that even a Newey designed car is no guarantee for succes. (I will admit the RB7 is a great car, but it is no way near as good as the championship standings suggest.)

some funny statistic, between 1999 and 2010 NO Newey car delivered a championship. Drivers in those cars: Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen, Juan Pablo Montoya, Pedro de La Rosa, Mark Webber, Christijan Klien.
Another funny statistic: Between 9/10/2005 (Raikkonen Japan) and 14/9/2008 (Vettel Monza) no Newey car won a single race (although to be honest he didn't design a car in 2006. But fielded 4 in 2008)

one could conclude that even a Newey designed car is no guarantee for succes. (I will admit the RB7 is a great car, but it is no way near as good as the championship standings suggest.)

Some people assume a Newey car guarantees success.

some funny statistic, between 1999 and 2010 NO Newey car delivered a championship. Drivers in those cars: Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen, Juan Pablo Montoya, Pedro de La Rosa, Mark Webber, Christijan Klien.
Another funny statistic: Between 9/10/2005 (Raikkonen Japan) and 14/9/2008 (Vettel Monza) no Newey car won a single race (although to be honest he didn't design a car in 2006. But fielded 4 in 2008)

one could conclude that even a Newey designed car is no guarantee for succes. (I will admit the RB7 is a great car, but it is no way near as good as the championship standings suggest.)

The RBR on Webber hand´s is a similar car as McLaren this year. On Vettel hands... it´s one of the best cars. Easy. Even Jenson Button recognized.

Lets see how this 'special' driving style works in a non newey car that is super glued to the track. He was slower than bourdais until torro rosso got the updated newey chassis.

some funny statistic, between 1999 and 2010 NO Newey car delivered a championship. Drivers in those cars: Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen, Juan Pablo Montoya, Pedro de La Rosa, Mark Webber, Christijan Klien.
Another funny statistic: Between 9/10/2005 (Raikkonen Japan) and 14/9/2008 (Vettel Monza) no Newey car won a single race (although to be honest he didn't design a car in 2006. But fielded 4 in 2008)

one could conclude that even a Newey designed car is no guarantee for succes. (I will admit the RB7 is a great car, but it is no way near as good as the championship standings suggest.)

His special driving style would probably work just as well in any other car. It's about understanding the tyres. I dare to say he would not have te problems Alonso has at the moments. I don't doubt Vettel would get the harder tyres working on the Ferrari. He would probably score more points in the Ferrari than it has now.

some funny statistic, between 1999 and 2010 NO Newey car delivered a championship. Drivers in those cars: Mika Hakkinen, David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen, Juan Pablo Montoya, Pedro de La Rosa, Mark Webber, Christijan Klien.
Another funny statistic: Between 9/10/2005 (Raikkonen Japan) and 14/9/2008 (Vettel Monza) no Newey car won a single race (although to be honest he didn't design a car in 2006. But fielded 4 in 2008)

one could conclude that even a Newey designed car is no guarantee for succes. (I will admit the RB7 is a great car, but it is no way near as good as the championship standings suggest.)

If it would be so easy - just a better car than rest of them - then AN could sit in, drive it, and win as well. There would not need for Sebastian. Horner would be sitting in the second one. A lot of money would be saved that way.