Search Results

Vettel’s 2008 Monza win was MASSIVELY over-hyped. If you actually sit down, and look at the facts of the weekend, you will come to the realization that it wasn’t that amazing at all.

And the car should have been DQed for the entire season because it used RBR/Newey IP. <- My unpopular opinion.

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. 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

It's not that unique actually.

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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.