Search Results

Don't agree. Definitely better for RBR that Jenson had won. Realistically, Lewis is McLaren's best chance at the title and when McLaren has a strong weekend, he will be the one probably winning. Whereas, when Ferrari are strong, we know that Ferrari is behind Alonso.

Mark has to do with that Terrible start for two races, or more, while his title chance is on the tight rope. In what way could Red Bull leave the electric fault as it is?

Besides How strange that all of us, including us, tend to believe that Red Bull got One Weak spot that is Monza? With the knowledge and skill of Newey it should have been possible that the car runs at mush higher speed? It may well be completely irrelevant but in 2008 Vettel won there in his STR!

The whole team was busy fixing the front wing that flexes well and pass the FIA test. It should have required full energy of the team.

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 !

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

A bit of a sore loser. As much as I don't like Sebastian, he's wiped the floor with Webber who's in the same car. Take away Vettel and you don't see Webber having the last four titles. Yes, it's down to the car, but Vettel also has the extra speed to cope with it, unlike his teammate in the same car.

 

Just because Webber has been a fool for years and thankfully now leaves F1, does not lessen the greatness of the RB cars. After 2011 Webber should have been fired from Red Bull and from F1 in general, that pathetic was his performance. 

 

Difference is, Seb has taken the opportunities he had to take the titles in the last 4 years. Alonso could and should have done so in Abu Dhabi, but failed miserably. Also last year, Seb with a badly damaged car did everything exactly right to seal the championship. He won that one because of his cool and focused head. Alonso and his team in the sort-like situation in Abu Dhabi panicked badly and lost the championship themselves.

 

Seb had to fight hard for at least 2 of his WDCs (he fought hard as well for the others, just that others couldn't really follow him), while Alonso has basically been gifted all of his WDCs

 

Nonsense. Alonso was by far the best driver in 2006 and while it is true that the engine problems of Mercedes made it easier for Alonso in 2005, he still drove a perfect season, very high quality season. Far better than any season Vettel has ever managed.

Alonso deserved his titles completely, to say he was gifted his titles is borderline insane. 

Vettel on the otherhand should have won each title since 2009 (including) with ease, such was the dominance of his cars. That he had to fight for it so hard against Alonso in two of those seasons shows how great Alonso is and how much better than Vettel he is.

I'm not a particularly big fan of Alonso, but that doesn't make him wrong. Seb is an excellent driver these days, but frankly I believe that's down to Red Bull making him one. Vettel's success has been a virtuous circle as Gary Anderson put it. Every year he has less to prove and he can take things in a more and more relaxed mindset, while time is running out for the rest of the top guys.

 

If he were not a Red Bull driver, I don't believe he would have won a single championship title, let alone several. If Lewis or Fernando had been driving the RB5 derivatives, not only would I expect them to have been even more dominant, but having had a fair chance of beating Jenson to title in 2009. Vettel recently suggested that RB5 was good enough to do that.

 

Vettel's a wonderful driver, but I can't picture anyone considering him all-time great nevermind the greatest had he been anything besides a Red Bull man. Someone else would have got that recognition instead.

 

If Alonso had accepted the offer of Red Bull in 2009, he would be a 7x WDC by now, whereas Button and Vettel would be 0X WDC. Unlike Vettel, he would not have wasted the RB car in 2009, nor would have been taken to the last race in either 2010 and 2012. 

 

Exactly, but from Vettel fans. What that Red Bull chasis did in the wet before Monza:

 

2007 Nurburgring: Webber 3rd, Coulthard 5th, Speed and Liuzzi spun off

2007 Fuji: Coulthard 4th, Liuzzi 9th, Webber and Vettel crashed into each other while running 2nd and 3rd.

2007 China: Vettel 4th, Liuzzi 6th, Coulthard 8th, Webber 10th

2008 Monaco: Webber 4th, Vettel 5th, Coulthard and Bourdais retired.

 

Now consider the Ferrari engine in the Toro Rosso was way better than the Renault in the Red Bull at that time, and the fact that it was Monza, and suddenly it becomes a very far cry from the "he won in a Minardi" that Vettel's fans want us to believe.

 

Reality is the worst enemy of Vettel fans. TR was an excellent car that weekend, quite probably the best car of the weekend. That a driver like Bourdais, who was a complete failure in F1, was able to do so well with it, shows you just how great the car was.

 

Fernando Alonso is an idiot. His own two titles were a product of rule changes and loopholes.

 

I will never forget when he uttered the words "Formula one is not a sport anymore". I will celebrate the day when he's gone from the grid.

 

The only one whose titles are a product of rule changes is Newey Passenger Vettel. 

Well, if you want to ignore reliability problems, you'll have to blame Hamilton for not winning 2012.

Why? McLaren was not the fastest nor the best car of the year, both of those honours easily belong to Red Bull.

I would presume he considers the TR at Monza 2008 to be the best in the field, a lot of others also think that.

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

 

And Vettel does even have a win in a TR. A car that was not a winner car in any way.

 

Your point?

 

A winner in any way? It was designed by Newey! Point invalid.

Are you trying to say that the STR3 was as bad as the A18?

 

The A18 (Arrows) had 6 retirements out of 17 starts, and out of the 11 finishes, only 2 resulted in points. The only podium finish, 2nd - came from 3rd on the grid, while teammate qualified 19th, two seconds slower and didn't finish the race.

In comparison:

The STR3 (Toro Rosso) had 2 retirements out of 13 starts and out of the 11 finishes, 9 resulted in points The only podium finish,1st came from pole position, while teammate qualified 4th, 0.900 slower and finished 18th.

 

 

 

edit:

 

 

 

Interesting. 

 

This is the perfect moment to ask the following question, Do you think Alonso thinks he could have won the WDC several times (4 times for example) during these years if he were driving a Red Bull?

 

Yes. Lewis & Kimi definitely as well.

I think if anybody needs to be introduced into the career of Michael they really need to look at 3 seasons first:

 

2000: A lot of preassure, driving a Ferrari, failing to win during the last 3 previous years, especially making a very bad move in 1997. And arguably racing against a faster Mclaren, he pulled it off.

1998: Just relentless, everything seemed to go wrong, tyres, superior Mclaren with Newey, fast Hakkinen, SPA with Coulthard and dramatic Suzuka. He still managed to fight it till the end. In fact, for me it's perhaps the most remarkable campaigns since I'm watching F1. Stunning.

1995: Brilliant, it's not getting appreciated enough because somehow Hill and Coulthard managed to make a total mess of the season. Imagine if it was Vettel driving that Williams. He would be crucified, no less.

 

bonus: return races in 1999. Just epic, and unexpected by no one. I remember the articles at the time, with various experts debating wheter he would ever be able to return to his form.

 

This is something that I miss with Lewis. Perhaps, he is even a better racer than Michael, but for me he lacks those very special seasons. He had his tough one in 2007 against Fernando. But after that? 2008 was really scrappy, almost looked like no driver wanted to win it. And everything in his Mercedes years can only be compared to Michael from 2001-2004. Yep, very similar, very impressive, fully deserved. But unspectacular and boring in both instances for both drivers.

 

Lewis's 2010 was very special, and I think very comparable to say a Schumi 1997. The racecraft he demonstrated in that season (the last without DRS) was some of the best in F1 ever (it was like Alonso's in 2012 but with even more of an edge to it). He had two imprudences in Monza and Singapore that were largely borne out of desperation at his equipment disadvantage as the Ferrari and Red Bull were out-developing them, and had already started the season from a better place. Without those two mistakes it would have been a better championship win than Prost's 1986. The McLaren could barely scratch any wins in the dry. There were multiple threats in the form of peers (Alonso) or people who were at least all-time greats (Vettel) as well as a formidable teammate (prime Button).

 

It's no coincidence that at all of the points when the field was most competitive (2009, 2010, 2012) Hamilton ended up being one of the heroes of the season. 

 

We're mostly going in circles because a contingent rightly (in my mind) declares that the driving competition in Shumi's heyday was wanting. Others counter that they only appeared so because Schumi rendered them so. But, as Atreiu has already said, Schumi can take wins, poles, podiums, championships (in other words, accomplishments) off of you, but he can't take away the caliber of driving you present to the viewer. And in that regard, your Alesis, Bergers, Hills, Villeneuve's, etc. are incontrovertibly some ways below, your Alonsos, Vettels, Verstappens, Leclercs, even Ricciardo, etc. 

Christian Horner

 

 

The 46-year-old Englishman has transformed a modest group center team into a team capable of dominating F1 for four years, becoming a permanent part of the sport's elite

The 'Red Bull phenomenon' is and remains one of the most particular events in the entire history of Formula 1. A team sponsored by an energy drink brand that not only wins in a few years (that was also successful at Benetton, more brand certainly not motorsport) but it is permanently positioned at the top, becoming one of the reference points of world motorsport. In 2005, when Dietrich Mateschitz bought the Jaguar F1 to transform it into Red Bull Racing, few could have predicted that the boy who ran the hut, Christian Horner , a 32-year-old with good hopes who in 1997 had founded an F3000 team, would have just become 10 years later one of the most successful managers in F1 history.

 

Thinking about it, Horner's story is perfect for a team like Red Bull. Young, ambitious and intelligent, the Englishman began his motorsport career at 19 as a driver. It achieves good results in Formula Renault, Formula 3 and F3000. The turning point of his life, however, came in 1997, when he created Arden International, just 24 years old, to race in the F3000. This is the context in which he comes into contact with Helmut Marko , former pilot owner of the RSM Marko, a team that in 1999 will become Red Bull Junior Team. Horner takes little to understand that he is worth more as a manager than as a pilot and in a few years he hangs his helmet on the nail. From behind a desk he transforms Arden into one of the teams to beat, tightening relationships with Marko more and revealing an exceptionaltalent scout .

 

When the powerful Austrian brand decides to implement the big leap, the choice is quickly made: Horner becomes team principal, Marko a sort of special consultant. Purists don't like the idea and mock the new team, but Mateschitz, Marko and Horner have the long run vision. Year after year Red Bull grows. The first points arrived (fourth place with David Coulthard in the first ever race, in Australia in 2005), then the first podiums (always the Scotsman in Monaco in 2006). Then, above all, the best designer out there comes to the tune of millions: Adrian Newey . In 2006, a satellite stable, the Toro Rosso, also emerged from the ashes of Minardi. Paradoxically, in 2008 it found the victory before the 'parent company', with Sebastian Vettelin Monza. Just the young German becomes the emblem of the functionality of the Red Bull nursery. The eyes of Horner and Marko and the huge amount of money available allow Red Bull to create an Academy.

 

Horner uses the regulatory change of 2009 to bring the team closer to the top and with the Vettel-Webber duoin the car the successes begin to arrive. Since 2010, Red Bull has simply been the car to beat. The English manager, at 37, finds himself managing a very young team that plays world titles against giants such as Ferrari and McLaren and which, moreover, has two drivers who do not collaborate. Here is perhaps the main masterpiece of Horner, who despite some spectacular accident (Turkey 2010) manages to manage the relationship between Vettel and Webber keeping both in contention for the world championship. The failure to exchange positions between the two in Brazil, which could have brought the Australian to -1 from Fernando Alonso in view of the last race, is derided by everyone. But in the end, with a little luck, he's right. Sebastian Vettel, the 'designated' driver, wins the world championship in Abu Dhabi, after the cruel and ingenious 'love' pulled by the unaware Webber.

 

The rest is history. After the golden four-year period 2010-2013, Red Bull tries to adapt to the new regulations by starting from the young: Daniel Ricciardo spodesta Vettel, who emigrates to Ferrari. Then comes Max Verstappen , also a future designated champion, around which Horner and Marko build the team and for which they venture a move that is currently paying off: abandoning Renault engines in order to have a dedicated manufacturer, Honda. In conclusion, the numbers remain. Since Horner and Red Bull are in F1 the team has been the second most successful , behind only Mercedes. Not bad for the youngest ex-team principal in history and for an energy drink brand.

 

https://www.formulap...rko-474185.html

 

Translated from italian

Well, I care and that STR win with a newey-copy-car was lame.
 
It's not healthy if customer cars beat some of the constructor teams, possibly killing them off. It can end up like American open-wheels which is cheap and, for me, boring.

That was the exception to the rule, more often than not the customer teams will not beat the constructors. And it was fortunate because it resulted in Vettel's promotion to Red Bull and fast-tracked his career. How many other drivers have seemed to be terrific but never had a proper car to demonstrate their speed?

In all honesty, I can't find a single rational downside to how Vettel and STR won Monza 2008.

And now I don't agree with your assessment of Vettel. "He has that natural "x factor" somehow I can't see much of it. I have trouble remembering Vettel's memorable races. Maybe some can remind me of those and I'm not talking about races where he starts from pole and ends first in race. He is not known for defending properly from someone overtaking him, he has trouble overtaking himself, strategy difficult to judge but can't remember anything special, development questionable. (BMW letting him go for all those reasons). The only way he stands out is his qualifying but I still want to see him with a different teammate and especially in a worse car. Newey's designed car is so strong in qualifying that it's also hard to judge. Vettel maybe the best driver, could be very well, but for now he was lucky to be in the fastest car on the grid. I just can't remember him standing out with something exceptional while he was with STR. Look at Alonso, Lewis, Kubica, they can qualify, race, overtake, not make many mistakes, develop the car, especially Alonso and Kubica look like complete packages, Hamilton only needs to put his head in cold water from time to time and he'll be there too. Just thinking about it, can't remember Hamilton praised that much for his development skills.

I saw a number of special moments with Vettel during his early career, very early on actually. I'm only sorry that such fine displays were lost on you.
But perhaps the most noteable was his 2008 pole and win at Monza in very tricky conditions in... wait a minute... an STR.

There were numerous other displays of skill and speed and of course immaturity back in 2007... "damn kids" - Webber 2007.

Not your fault though, either you have only been following F1 for 5 minutes or you have no capacity to assess talent down the back half of the grid. One or the other clearly.

Ask any intelligent F1 pundit with access to the drivers, or engineers who have worked with Vettel and they will tell you one thing, the kid is blindingly fast. That is the x-factor as far as i am concerned. You can't teach speed, you either have it or you don't and this kid has got it in spades. He has been around for 4 short seasons, perhaps in a few years time he would have delivered some races you will find memorable, others here can already see the talent, we don't need special circumstances to define his speed.

Sure, he is no Alonso, but give him time and he may get close, he has all the right foundations to be a legend of the sport.

Alonso and Kubica, spot on they are the benchmark for me also, Lewis is great to watch a real talent (just in the wrong team ;) )
But don't underestimate Vettel. Unlike 2009 a top 3 driver did win the title in 2010. He wasn't the best in 2010, but he was deserving.

He ripped Alonso a new one in his rookie season, and half a dozen drivers on the grid could have done what Vettel has done in those Newey Rocketships.

If they all drove the same cars, Hamilton would soon be banned from the sport...;)

I've heard of one eyed fans... you must have no eyes.

Forgot to mention that Button beat Hamilton in 2011, not just tied on points. So does that make Button the best?

1. Alonso.

Of all his teammates, none ever came close except Hamilton. Almost won in 2010 and 2012 with cars that were probably 3rd fastest, and definitely behind the RBRs. Been a bit sill this year, actually. Malaysia ha should have felt the wing falling off. Still, best driver of the post-Schumacher era.

2. Raikkonen.

The post 2012 model Kimi seems to be the smoothest driver out there. He was naturally faster than Alonso before 2006, but has kind of turned into Mr. Consistency and is good with the tyres. Just how he was able to take 3rd after a comeback when Schumacher was floundering... very skilled. Still, he lost to Massa in 2008.

3. Vettel.

Yes he had Newey rockets and is an annoying person, but he just keeps on winning somehow. Monza 2008, his comeback in Brazil 2012. Still, unchallenged by a truly competitive teammate.

4. Hamilton.

Equaled Alonso in 2007, but has been fast but fairly inconsistent since. Only just won in 2008 against Massa, had too many brain fades in 2010 and 2011 and has only just made himself into a driver as consistent as Alonso in 2012. Lost to Button in 2011.

5. Rosberg.

Three years in Mercedes and he beat the legend Schumacher by a wide margin every single year. Seems to be almost matching Hamilton at Mercedes.

Looking at this as objectively as I can Vettel simply hasn't adjusted to the current regs. He is a top driver, no doubt, but then again so are most of the grid.

In my opinion he isn't a great yet though. Had he won championships with two teams, through different regs, or regularly competed at the sharp end in machinery that didn't deserve it, I'd change my mind.

Make no mistake the Red Bull in 2014 is a great car. Riciardo is proving that. And he's beating Vettel without much difficulty it appears.

I hypothesise that perhaps Vettel cannot compete against the current grid without the exhaust trickery that Newey produced.

And don't throw Monza 2008 at me...

 

 

The only thing I'll throw at you is that it is way too early to judge. So far their best result has come from Vettel.

Looking at this as objectively as I can Vettel simply hasn't adjusted to the current regs. He is a top driver, no doubt, but then again so are most of the grid.

In my opinion he isn't a great yet though. Had he won championships with two teams, through different regs, or regularly competed at the sharp end in machinery that didn't deserve it, I'd change my mind.

Make no mistake the Red Bull in 2014 is a great car. Riciardo is proving that. And he's beating Vettel without much difficulty it appears.

I hypothesise that perhaps Vettel cannot compete against the current grid without the exhaust trickery that Newey produced.

And don't throw Monza 2008 at me...

Bizarre to think that his first race win in F1 was 1991, an astounding 30 years ago, his longevity far surpasses any tech director in the sports history and his car is still fighting for a title this year. Imagine if a designer from 1950 was leading the title fight in 1980! it's  mind numbing. It also answers the 90's favourite debate of Newey Vs Shuey rather decisively.

 

Almost more amazing is that in 30 years of racing his cars have only gone 4 seasons without a race win and 2 of those were spent building Red Bull up from the back of the grid.

 

 

This is certainly an impressive list of F1 machines and an even more impressive list of victories. Having said this, I'd argue his record is even more impressive if you consider the 2007-2009 Toro Rosso cars to be Adrian Newey designs. If you include the STR2, STR3 and STR4, then Vettel's win at Monza in 2008 in the STR3 (I believe based on the same design as the RB4) not only adds yet another victory to this tally but also means that only three Newey designs from 1991 onwards have failed to win a grand prix (MP4/21, RB3/STR2 and RB11). Also, I think McLaren won 7 races in 2000 (4 for Mika Hakkinen and 3 for David Coulthard).

 

I find it interesting that he seemed to experience something of a lean spell in the mid-to-late 2000s, in the seven seasons from 2002 to 2008 his cars scored just five wins in this period if you exclude the MP4/20 (the 2005 McLaren won twice as many races as his other designs from those seasons put together). I do wonder whether McLaren benefitted from the single tyre rule in 2005, even more so than the other Michelin teams such as Renault, as they did much better that season than they did in either 2004 or 2006, with the exact opposite being true for Bridgestone-shod Ferrari. It's ironic that the only other Newey car from 2002 to 2008 to win multiple GPs was the MP4/17D in 2003, which was only used that season due to the issues with the MP4/18, yet Kimi Raikkonen was able to finish just two points short of Michael Schumacher in it.

This is certainly an impressive list of F1 machines and an even more impressive list of victories. Having said this, I'd argue his record is even more impressive if you consider the 2007-2009 Toro Rosso cars to be Adrian Newey designs. If you include the STR2, STR3 and STR4, then Vettel's win at Monza in 2008 in the STR3 (I believe based on the same design as the RB4) not only adds yet another victory to this tally but also means that only three Newey designs from 1991 onwards have failed to win a grand prix (MP4/21, RB3/STR2 and RB11). Also, I think McLaren won 7 races in 2000 (4 for Mika Hakkinen and 3 for David Coulthard).

I find it interesting that he seemed to experience something of a lean spell in the mid-to-late 2000s, in the seven seasons from 2002 to 2008 his cars scored just five wins in this period if you exclude the MP4/20 (the 2005 McLaren won twice as many races as his other designs from those seasons put together). I do wonder whether McLaren benefitted from the single tyre rule in 2005, even more so than the other Michelin teams such as Renault, as they did much better that season than they did in either 2004 or 2006, with the exact opposite being true for Bridgestone-shod Ferrari. It's ironic that the only other Newey car from 2002 to 2008 to win multiple GPs was the MP4/17D in 2003, which was only used that season due to the issues with the MP4/18, yet Kimi Raikkonen was able to finish just two points short of Michael Schumacher in it.

2005 McLaren for sure benefitted from single tyre rule/Michelins. Back then Michelin did bring different kind of tyres for the teams to the tests and teams could choose the best suited tyres for them to use (said by Kimi, last year).
At Monaco 2005 Mclaren was able to use softer tyres than Renault, due to them being gentle to the tyres and we all know Kimi being one of the most gentle driver to the tyres as well.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
What garbage. The pity is, you don't even recognize the poor service that Red Bull got from Ferrari with their engines cooling issues. Incidentally, Newey is more than competent on aerodynamics. And so is his staff. The Renault case is a simple example that a team quite willing to spend lots on an engine, was happy to buy the Renault unit. That's testimony to the equality of engines now. They went to the huge trouble of progamming another ECU, when all they had to do was put in an engine they were intimate with. They chose not to.

It's also evidenced about what the teams say about engines - that they are all pretty much the same now. You should read what Mauro Forghieri says about current F1 engines, how totally boring the whole engine thing now is, I presume you've heard of him. If what you say is correct, the Toro Rosso should have been dominant over the RBR3 on low aero tracks. It wasn't.

The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work. With the current engine rules, the expenditure / benefit curve peaks quite early and becomes almost flat. Ferrari can afford to do 99%, and not restrict resources from other more productive areas of car improvement. And you can bet that with the top 6 teams, their engine performances will be very similar. But that the ability for the drive wheels to deliver that power will vary much much much more between the teams than will engine performance. And they way to fix those problems is with aero and mechanical development.

I think you have missed the point yet again Melbourne Park, no one was debating the level of service Ferrari gave Red Bull, but rather as you confirmed it was the cooling requirements of the Ferrari unit which was not given to Red Bull by Ferrari in comparison to Renault who may have offered more assistance here. But again if all the engines are the same (as you believe), then so must be their cooling requirements. I think you are not giving Newey enough credit to suggest he needed more help from a rival team regarding the aero of his own design then what Ferrari was giving him.

My point is simply that Newey being an aerodynamicist saw the advantage in the Renault unit over and above the Ferrari one, that can't be debated, i was not commenting on Newey's competences but rather that as an aerodynamicist, if all the engines were the same why the big drama from Newey to adopt the Renault unit? This cannot be based on service alone but rather the aero limitations due to the Ferrari engines cooling requirements. This was the key comment from Newey and if you look at the current Ferrari design compared to the Renault, which team has greater levels of cooling apendiges on their body work??? The answer is for all to see.

As for your ECU comment...you will find that Ferrari and Renault used the same system, so not a big work load here to change the engines over, certainly not a "huge trouble" as you suggested.

As for your comments regarding Mauro Forghieri, yes he is well known, he is commenting on the many FIA restrictions which have shifted focus away from engines to aero, and yes the engines are very similar to each other which is a product of the FIA rules, but by no means are they identical, if they were and there was no room for development he would be out of the job.

Here is an extract from an interview with Newey regarding the engines of 2007, not 2008.

Q: Given that the engine regulations are much more restrictive now than then, how much value does that extra data add?

AN: Engine development in the hardware sense is obviously restricted with the frozen regulations, but there’s still an awful lot in the way the engine is operated that is crucially important, and that’s where I think our relationship with Renault will pay dividends.

That's straight from the horses mouth regarding engine development potential. The interview also goes on with Newey siting the number of differences between the units, most notably in the cooling requirements.

As for your point on Torro Rosso and Red Bull; Torro Rosso is the sister team of Red Bull, i would have assumed you knew that, in which case you would also know that Torro Rosso was a number of evolutions of car development behind Red Bull as Red Bull supply them with the entire car, from chassis to aero. But the one aspect of the car which is different is the engine. In actual fact the Torro Rosso car is a year old Red Bull for the most part with a number of refinements; regardless its aero effciency is somewhat behind the Red Bull.

So to prove a point lets look at the top speed trap times on a power circuit or low aero circuit as you suggested...Monza. Vettel was consistently 3 kph faster at every intermediate then the next best Red Bull car (Webber). Now this does not tell the full story obviously but it is indicative that for a car effectively carrying an older version of Red Bulls own aero, that even given the loss in aero efficiency to the Red Bull they had faster speed trap results. The engine difference may, just may have played a part in this dont you think?

So although the Torro Rosso was not as good overall compared to the Red Bull, in the area where engine performance can be seen the most and between two manufacturers who develop their engines to their fullest capacity, at a low aero track the Torro Rosso was faster in the straight line... Blows your theory out of the water. Especially once you consider that Red Bull was using up to date Renault spec engines, whereas the Torro Rosso outfit were contractually receiving a prior evolution of the Ferrari engine, and yet still faster on the low aero circuit...hmmmm

Let's gain some clarification here, no one is saying that engine performance is the only measure of performance, my comments were in response to yours, in that and i quote..."engines are not an issue now."

My point was simply they are more an issue in 2008 then in 2007 and that their importance in the entire package should not be discounted due to the significant knock on effects they create both for aero efficiency, tyre wear and of course the combination of this is overall car speed. If it were no longer an issue as you stated, then the top manufacturers, Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Renault, Toyota, etc would re allocate all their spending from engines to either aero or mechanical R&D...funnily enough, they don't so therefore they are an issue unless all these teams just like to spend money for no reward...before you start, leave Toyota alone because they were nice enough to setup the retirement funds of Mike Gascoyne and Ralfy Boy.

If you don't agree with the above which was the core aspect of my response before you decided to take it somewhat off course (for obvious reasons) then state your reasoning. But i take it from your earlier response that you do agree.

As you stated "The facts are that if teams don't do everything available on their engines, they'll go slower. But if they do do everything available, it will not make them much faster than a team that does say 95% of the available work."

This is very true, an increase in engine performance will not make a team much faster, but i think we can all agree it will make then faster. The most important point to consider is that TC masked a lot of the power delivery problems with many units, now however with TC gone engine power delivery is even more important, hence you will expect to see more expenditure on engines in 2007 winter testing and throughout 2008 then you did during the TC era as the expenditure pay back is far greater then before.

I don't think this can be debated. If you try to debate it then that would be as you say, total 'garbage'.

It's funny people trying to argue the RB6 wasn't utterly dominant... did you ever watch onboards? I can't count the number of times there was a particular corner on a track that both Vettel and Webber were flat out on while every other car had a lift (Silverstone, Barcelona and actually Monaco are good examples of this). Do you think that Webber and Vettel just have balls of steel and that everyone else is a wimp? Monaco 2010 is particularly telling, there are videos comparing Kubica to Webber side by side, for the whole first half of the lap Kubica is inch perfect and is actually a little bit ahead of Webber, it wasn't until turns 13-14 (the fast left right chicane, I'm terrible with corner names) where Webber get's the lead. Right at that corner you can see that Webber is flat out while Kubica (and every other car) had to have a lift... that was the 4 tenths right there, a clear example of Red-Bull's aero dominance making the difference.

Also you might say that the aero is balanced out by the loss of speed on the straights. Well consider the fact that in Australia last week Vettel was 17km/h faster than the nearest car through the high speed chicane at Australia. You do know he is going to carry that extra 17km/h an hour onto the next straight, I would bet that if you put the speed trap right before the braking zone before turn 13 that the Red-Bull would have the highest trap speed. Literally the only area downforce is a compromise is on a slow corner than a long straight situation (AKA Monza), but any time there is a high speed corner before a straight the drag penalty will be more than balanced out by the extra speed you can carry onto the straight. This is why Vettel was able to overtake with relative ease at Silverstone last year, he was massively faster than any car through the fast right hander onto the new section which allowed him to be along side into the slower corners and make the move stick.

Conclusion aero is KING in F1. The RBR chassis has clearly had the best aero for the last 1.5 seasons so thats why I (and apparently a few others) find it hard to rate Vettel. Obviously I rate him higher than Webber as for the last two years he has been better, and I think he is as quick as anyone in qually. But in a car without that qualifying edge like the MP4-25 or F10 I don't know if he would put up the same fight that Alonso and Hamilton did. My personal ranking is that Tier 1: Alonso and Hamilton, Tier 2: Vettel, Kubica, Button and Rosberg, and if I'm honest I think Vettel, Kubica and Rosberg could be tier 1 but in my mind they are unproven.

My .02

i see that some people try not to remember that:
in 2007 vettel was on average 0,5 sec slower than heidfeld in bmw and not faster than vitantonio in str.
in 2008, at some point, a fellow named adrien newey had something to do with the str developement (i think it`s telling that not with rbr - they had "retired" drivers).
in 2009 in overall best car on the grid vettel lost to, underrated imo, button who struggled in the second part of the season.
and at last, in 2010 in a car by light years fastest on the grid he almost lost the title and not only to his teammate, but to alonso in a third best car.
ok, he`s wdc now, but how can he be rated higher than button?

What are you talking about dude? proof? what is it that you want me to prove? I'm here simply stating my opinion, not prove anything to anybody, you either like what I write or you don't, agree, or disagree, I don't intend to prove anything to anybody.

I didn't get that impression.

To get back to my original point which has been diverted a bit......Yes there are car differences, and yes, I take that into account.

Not enough evidently.

There are certain circumstances where a driver can me a difference, and yes, Brasil 08 was one of those.

And how? There isn't a magical window in the conditions of the track where car differences are nullified. Each car will always behave and perform uniquely in any condition. That's one of the beauties of F1. If F1 was a spec series, I'd agree with you.

Now, there are a few things that we know for a fact, that Lewis was driving a World Championship contending McLaren, that McLaren is one of the best teams in Formula 1 (regardless of where they sit in the standings in a particular year), that Hamilton is one heck of a racer, and that Hamilton is a demon in the wet, can we agree on this?

A world championship car and a world championship team can have it's shortcomings in areas, areas where not so good cars and teams can shine with Brazil 2008 being an example of this for McLaren.

The McLaren of that year while quick, was particularly difficult to drive and required a certain driving style to get the most out of it as shown by Kovalainen's smoother driving style killing the tyres too quickly. It's shortcomings was definitely in tyre wear, particularly on intermediate tyres when the track conditions started drying, evidence of this being in Silverstone when Kovalainen wore his rear tyres out so much that he spun several times and when the performance from Hamilton's tyres went off at Monza, the same race where Hamilton was originally on a one stopper but the team believed more rain was coming so they gave him extremes instead of intermediates. Brazil was more about McLaren pitting Hamilton too early for inters, and while the drivers who stayed out on slicks were still posting fast lap times, Hamilton was out there floundering on hot treads.

There are more examples of your perceived God-like team and car screwing up, but I thought that was enough.

Now, here comes little ole Vettel, (If it makes you happy, I'll remind us all it's a Newey design STR, so was the 06, 07 and 08, RBR, didn't see them lighting up the boards, but anyway...) Now, this Toro Rosso you claim was really good in the wet, and it very well could be (IMO no it wasn't as great as all that)

I didn't claim that, but it certainly looked pretty handy didn't it? Remember Fuji 2007? Monaco 2008?

but even if it was as good, or even better than the McLaren, however unlikely,

Why unlikely?

Hamilton, being the demon that he is in the wet would just dust off this young crappy driver in the far superior STR, because, we all know, that Hamilton can make the difference in the wet. Now, the only way that wouldn't be, is if the driver driving the car which was better than him was driving at least close to the level of Hamilton in the far superior and dominating STR so that the car difference would negate, or neutralize Hamilton's superior driving in the wet, otherwise Hamilton would still win, you understand this?

No

You see, you keep saying the Toro Rosso was better than the McLaren in the conditions, but you fail to account for the fact that Hamilton thrives in those conditions.

Um, for sure he's had great wet weather performances, but I don't see how it makes the differences between their cars any clearer. You could say that Vettel's cars have always been the best in the wet and that he just failed to drive it to its potential, but then there is no proof of that so I'm not going to bother. My question is why are you even bothering? Why believe something without any proof to back it up?

(About cars designed by Newey)

Just to put things into perspective, top 4 cars from qualifying Monza 2008 (in case someone forgot) were:

1. Vettel (TR) - Newey
2. Kova (McL)
3. Webber (RB) - Newey
4. Bourdais (TR) - Newey

These are facts - you draw your own conclusions.

1 15 S. Vettel Toro Rosso B 1:37.555 7
2 23 H. Kovalainen McLaren B 1:37.631 +0:00.076 +0:00.076 7
3 10 M. Webber Red Bull B 1:38.117 +0:00.562 +0:00.486 7
4 14 S. Bourdais Toro Rosso B 1:38.445 +0:00.890 +0:00.328

Bourdais pitted 3 laps after Vettel (and in general he is not a crap driver although F1 maybe did not suit him).

You are doing just the opposite. The "Newey designed Red Bull" of 2008 cannot compare to the 2009/10 versions. Vettel beat the 2008 Red Bulls too in his "Newey STRF" - that is why it was brilliant. The car retired 6 times - it was no great wonder, the "wonder" was Vettel (9 point finishes in his first full year = 34 points. He was the top driver for the entire RBR F1 conglomerate that year, which is why he EARNED [can I stress that word] his Red Bull Ride).

(About cars designed by Newey)

Just to put things into perspective, top 4 cars from qualifying Monza 2008 (in case someone forgot) were:

1. Vettel (TR) - Newey
2. Kova (McL)
3. Webber (RB) - Newey
4. Bourdais (TR) - Newey

These are facts - you draw your own conclusions. Mine is:
OMG OMG Bourdais qualified fourth in a heavier Minardi !!!! Beating Ferraris, BMWs and one McLaren (Ham)!!!

(About cars designed by Newey)

Just to put things into perspective, top 4 cars from qualifying Monza 2008 (in case someone forgot) were:

1. Vettel (TR) - Newey
2. Kova (McL)
3. Webber (RB) - Newey
4. Bourdais (TR) - Newey

These are facts - you draw your own conclusions. Mine is:
OMG OMG Bourdais qualified fourth in a heavier Minardi !!!! Beating Ferraris, BMWs and one McLaren (Ham)!!!

Wow. That does put things into perspective.

Kind of supports the view that the Red Bull and Toro Rosso cars of that year (especially the Toro Rosso with the Ferrari engine) were very good, just lacked development.