Search Results

I declare that Vettel is the quickest driver because he still extracted more from the RB6 compared to his teammate and remember during the summer the German driver raced with a damaged chassis which allowed Webber to be quicker and win. Also he is achieving numbers only reached by the greats of this sport. How good he is will take time to assess but out of all the top drivers he is still the least experienced.

For me the inkling we had just how good he was, was at Monza in 2008. The greatest qualifying performance for me since Schumacher was Q3 at Suzuka 2009. Phenomenal. I share Bernie's idea of the current f1 dream team: Alonso and Vettel. of course it would be an impossible sitation for any team

relax, man. i didn`t react at your previous posts, but now it`s too much.
tell me, please, how you rank bourdais performance in the other torro rosso, with more fuel on board, that day. i remind you the guy was 4th on the grid.
don`t you think that this might have had something in common with some adrien newey`s participation in upgrading 2008 torro rosso cars, that were, by the way, very quick in wet conditions even without it?

now, after 2010 rbr title saga, i`m sure that it was also pr project to back in the second half of 2008 torro rosso instead of rb main team with 2, let`s say, "retired" drivers in order to promote the young gun, "baby schumi", to elevate the selling numbers of some energy drink.
who is better advertising platform vettel or maybe webber?
the answer is easy.

and this talk about broken chasis is just pathetic, vettel admited he had had problems with throttle operating until some changes were made in engine electronics.
that`s right, he was fractionaly faster, mainly in qualifying, but he also enjoyed last run advantage most of the time, you must admit. and we all know qualifying is all today,.
so i would recommend you to wait a while with comparing him to senna.

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?

Once the specific circumstances are considered - all of them - it is one of the 'great' wins in F1 history. Vettel was a part of it - as was his (increasingly better performing during the season) STRF. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. There are so many firsts associated with that drive/driver/car/team, and so many props going out to the many connected to the drive - and so many in F1 lauding it all before, during and after, it is rather ingenious of you to discount it as 'just another good win' among the many in F1. But perhaps you are serious, and everyone is truly welcome to their Honest opinion. I would have to disagree with you though, and I believe 99.9% of the world of F1 would too (if they were honest).

You misunderstand me. I'm not doubting it was a fantastic win, but many people are of the opinion (like you say everyone is entitled to it) that there was no way the Toro Rosso could've won a race, but for Vettel. My point is that at Monza, it definitely was either the best or 2nd best car on the grid.

Of course Vettel was a part of it, but it was only 'against the odds' because of the team's history, not because of it's present (2008 of course) form. This wasn't a win in a Minardi, this was a win in an Adrian Newey-designed, Ferrari-powered full 'works' (in that it had the same developments as up at RBR) car that was run by old Minardi guys, a team who always ran their cars, however good they were, impeccably. The historical image of the team was no more, yet that is what makes up the bulk of the 'myth'... 'Vettel wins in Minardi' etc etc etc.

You misunderstand me. I'm not doubting it was a fantastic win, but many people are of the opinion (like you say everyone is entitled to it) that there was no way the Toro Rosso could've won a race, but for Vettel. My point is that at Monza, it definitely was either the best or 2nd best car on the grid.

Well they may be saying the STRF couldn't have won but for Vettel, but you are saying that Vettel couldn't have won but for the STRF. What's the difference? To me, both arguments are disingenious.

It was clearly the combination of Vettel and the STRF that got the job done that day. But you can't discount the artistry and aptitude of either.

Of course Vettel was a part of it, but it was only 'against the odds' because of the team's history, not because of it's present (2008 of course) form. This wasn't a win in a Minardi, this was a win in an Adrian Newey-designed, Ferrari-powered full 'works' (in that it had the same developments as up at RBR) car that was run by old Minardi guys, a team who always ran their cars, however good they were, impeccably. The historical image of the team was no more, yet that is what makes up the bulk of the 'myth'... 'Vettel wins in Minardi' etc etc etc.

Well I see what you are saying - and looking at it from that perspective, you likely expected Vettel to pole and win - thus there was no excitement for you except that you ended up being right.

But most people were not as perceptive as you and were shocked at the pole. And even after the pole, they felt that the STRF wouldn't be first to the checkered flag. "A podium would be fantastic" claimed the BBC commentator, and as a fan of Vettel, I agreed and hoped he'd do it. However, I fully expected some of the better running cars to take and keep the lead during the race. As the race progressed, that didn't happen, and it was with growing excitement that everyone started to realize that he might not only get a podium, but if he kept it up, 1st. That was what was against the odds. Not the ability of the car which was clearly running fantastic on the day - but Vettel's performance as a rookie (he was still in his 1st full season behind the wheel), and the continued performance of the car (it was running well, but it was - alas - a midgridder, which means that everything could go completely wrong at any moment. If you need proof of that, check out what happened to his teammate in that STRF running great on the day.)

To add to the excitement and against all odds ideology:

-It was raining and drivers were having problems - good drivers. Vettel drove well, but his car had a few excursions during the race as well, yet he managed to keep it on track in first.

-It was the very first win for any of the Red Bull backed teams - building on the Minardi sure, but that is the whole point - they had to build on it and they did it. It was a great win for RBR and Minardi lovers could also celebrate from a historical standpoint. More importantly, the whole team and crew could celebrate as well - it was a stellar accomplishment in every aspect that went into race day from crew, to team, to company to driver, etc.

-It was Vettel's first win and pole and he happened to be the youngest ever driver doing so - in a mid grid car that was having the day of its life right along with him.

-It was Ferrari powered - and it was Monza - the crowd was insane. The car with italian roots; the italian engine; the italian anthem being played (in error, lol) - it was fantastic.

So that is a small snapshot of why it was a fantastic F1 moment to many (there are other reasons of course). Seb's onboard lap following the race evidences what most on the grid thought about it too. You should check it out if Youtube still has a copy.

The honor will go to Vettel after this season. Back-to-back WDC, younger than Alonso and more wins/poles than Alonso (at similar ages). There's no way it isn't Vettel.

Well, Vettel is a super driver, no doubt, but I still miss from him some super drive in difficult conditions (in fact, Monza 2008 was almost hi best win). All his victories came after getting the pole and driving the best of all cars. 12 out of his 16 victories are from pole (14 of 26 in Alonso's case). Only time will tell, Vettel is to me a fantastic driver lucky to be in the right place (as Button was lucky in 2009 of having a Brawn). I think we all know that luck is part of this sport. And in that sense, I think Alonso never had that luck, because he never had a dominant car (in 2005 the McLaren was faster almost everywhere, and in 2006 the Ferrari-Bridgestone was quite faster for 2/3 of the year). So having that in scope, I think Alonso is the man of the current era because he could be there is extremely variant conditions (different teams, different rules, different tires...).

Vettel records are to me some statistical anecdote, equaly as Schumacher is topping all tables in stats but Senna is still remembered as the best one.

PD: I would say that currently, recent championships are remembered as the "Red Bull - Newey" dominance most than Vettel's dominance...

Renault this year was 4th on WC. with 88 points (and Alonso did 3 podiums before winning)

Toro Rosso was 6th with 39 points !!! (best result before Monza was a 5th of Vettel after start on the grid the 18th!)

I mean YOU CAN´T COMPARE.

Toro Rosso didn't even launch that car until the 6th race up until then Vettel was too busy crashing into people, the chassis was designed by one Adrian Newey and had a Ferrari engine in it (which as Red Bull moaned so much about was more powerful than its Renault counterpart). Looking at the results Vettel was the only driver scoring points in the second half of the season consistently, Bourdais struggled to do the same. With Alonso and Trulli both drivers were picking up points.

There is also the fact that in 2003 the engines weren't as reliable as they were in 2008, picking up more points can be attributed to that along with other drivers being out the race as a result of an accident.

I don't understand.

I know this is not a support thread, but i don't see the point of coming to the thread named "Alonso" to say "the block was better" or to talk about Vettel's achievements.

Wake up! There´s a german guy (only 24 years old) he´s going to join the same achievements than Alonso with almost 100 races less... we can talk about class above

Alonso was betrayed by Mclaren and I consider him a much better driver than Lewis (that not means that I not consider Lewis an amazing driver too).

In case you didn't notice Vettel was 1 year and a half in a not so nice team and then jumped right to a Newey's car that have been title contender for 3 years.
Meanwhile Alonso came to F1 in the worst team of the grid to later go to a middfield brand for years (till that brand could make a title contender car).

So I don't understand how could someone do comparisons about what two drivers achieved in X races taking into account those two drivers were not given the same tools equally or similarly during that number of races and that they both didn't have to cope with the same degree of competitiveness. Vettel has had a title contender car more often than not, and in two out of three years where he had it his car was so diminant that he had only real competition from his own team mate.

Therefore, an unfair data to take in order to talk about the class of these two drivers.

Also the Toro Rosso at Monza was the fastest car... and at China 07 or Monaco 08... Vettel always drove the best car. Even the Webber car is a different chassis car...

Erm... Actually if you even bothered to follow 2008 season, indeed the Toro Rosso was the fastest car at Italy and under the conditions that took place that day. Vettel got the pole position and Bourdais got 4rd at qualifying. Not that Vettel was given the victory, he was nice and is a talented driver, but again, denying a fact and reality to hail a driver is completely oblivious.

Also, the Toro Rosso from back then wasn't the Toro Rosso we know today despite that some Vettel's fans want to believe it was. In reality It was a car that allowed Vettel to finish in the top 10 exactly ten times and five times in the top 5. If a driver is able to finish in X position is because the car can run as fast to get that X position.

Of course Vettel is a very good driver, made the difference back then, and blah blah, but again you are bringing some quite unfair sarcasms there.

If you want to believe Vettel is a class above it's ok, but if you need to be unfair to hail him...



It's like if I said Alonso's car at Hungary in 2003 wasn't fast... He made the difference as Vettel did in a Toro Rosso but saying his car wasn't fast would be pretty dumb just like in Vettel's case regarding certain races such as Italy.

Also, I never heard anyone here saying Webber runs a car with a different chassis than Vettel, so besides unfair you are being a demagogue. Enjoy your cave.

You don't get it.

All that became because I said that the fastest laps are not the absolutely truth. And like I proved, I´m right.

Vettel was on the front and didn´t risked pushing, because he didn´t need. It´s logical and not too difficult to understand, a sign of maturity of the WC that became some years after Monza.

Vettel achieved the récord of points in Toro Rosso by so far. He did on 2008. Just 39 points, he achieved 35 for the team.

When he left TR the team achieved 8 points. And even with the new change of points in 2010... he still keeps the record.
(It´s normal Giorgio compared him with Senna not only qualyfing)

But we all know that Toro Rosso in 2008 was the fastest car and he needs a Newey car...

Very easy

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

But if he ever did come out & say it, his knockers would simply say he's making excuses for being beaten. Mark knows the deal & RBR has made it clear that team/car will being built around Seb. Seb is the future, unfortunately Mark is not, end of story.

Not to forget possibly 3+ (Multiple) World Champion, unfortunately Mark is not.

Although it sounds ridiculous, Webber can't really say anything regarding the car through his own performances!! I mean c'mon, whats he going to sell to convince Adrian Newey & co that the car should be built around him & not Sebastian Vettel ?? Nobody is going to say he's making excuses, but I can imagine the whole paddock, media & fans having a chuckle.... I mean he hasn't done anything spectacular to Demand his preferences. Vettel has.

Sebastian Vettel's time of saying build a car around me and I'll win you Championships started in Monza 2008, driving a Torro Rosso.
Mark Webber's time of saying build a car around me and I'll win you championships passed away in Korea 2010.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

While I agree with the rest of your post to a large degree, I can't believe the rubbish that is sprouted about Vettel's win in the TR (where fans keep thinking in won in a Minardi which a load of rubbish as well - a Minardi is one that Marques or Yoong or Alonso or Webber drove not a Newey designed car with Ferrari power).

- He won one race with TR (I didn't see him winning any other races)
- That race was perfect conditions for TR, Newey's chassis that year was brilliant in the wet and the Ferrari had greater horsepower than the Renault of the RB (look at them at the bottom of the speed traps)
- BOTH TRs would have outqualified BOTH RBs had Webber not pipped Bourdais late on in qualifying

Taking away nothing from Vettel did what he does best which was lead from the front and stay there but him being a great driver in the TR when the car + weather suited the track at the right time is often overlooked by fans.

It wasn't a Minardi, it was a STRF with Newey input. And Seb made the most of it by beating out the big sister car - Single handedly. The Monza win was icing on the cake - but it was that PLUS the other 25 old school points that got him promoted to the seat at Red Bull. Seb drove a fantastic season in that car, by any standards, and proved he deserved to be in a top car. Not only did RB promote him, Macca thought he was pretty terrific too and tried to get him. So it isn't just crazed fans that saw his 2008 as a great bit of racing.

I don't see him with Alonso/Hamilton which IMO Alonso is the same so he would have no problems with Vettel coming over. Vettel doesn't also have Dr. Marko pulling strings for him like he had at TR and now RB. If he does go over to Ferrari and he beats Alonso then he would be considered a great to me. Out of the younger drivers, Hamilton/Vettel are the natural successors to Alonso which you can see why Ferrari have gone that direction.

What strings is Marko pulling for Seb at RB - and with whom? Why would that have any impact on his going to Ferrari?

It wasn't a Minardi, it was a STRF with Newey input. And Seb made the most of it by beating out the big sister car - Single handedly. The Monza win was icing on the cake - but it was that PLUS the other 25 old school points that got him promoted to the seat at Red Bull. Seb drove a fantastic season in that car, by any standards, and proved he deserved to be in a top car. Not only did RB promote him, Macca thought he was pretty terrific too and tried to get him. So it isn't just crazed fans that saw his 2008 as a great bit of racing.



What strings is Marko pulling for Seb at RB - and with whom? Why would that have any impact on his going to Ferrari?

If you read my post properly I was referring to that win and that win alone. Not the season as a whole as I never mentioned anything else about the season because clearly seb was talented, that was obvious to see and he earned his chance and has grasped it. I have nothing against that so you don't need to be so defensive in your seb love mate.

Bourdais said Marko was like poison in that garage, not to mention Jamie getting an earful from Marko in Korea which lead would have contributed to his sacking and you really think what they say and don't say behind closed doors is going to someone leaked out to the public? There is a whole load of politics behind closed doors whether it be RBR or any other teams just as there is in any organization. Seb has been protected by Marko since the start of the RBDYP, he is less likely to be the golden child if he heads to ferrari and Fernando handily beats him initially.

Sakae, from what I've read the conditions are loosely based where Ferrari are in the constructors championships at a point in time in the 2013 championship as to ensure for Vettel that he will has a decent car underneath him for 2014. Who knows the exact condition. On the other hand if RB do not say for example manage top 3 constructors for next season then Vettel has a get out clause and hence free to speak to Ferrari. However, if RB do hit those targets then I would imagine the option is exercised and Vettel would then have to see out 2014. Much the same IMO a similar scenario to Webber hitting a particular target for him to retain the RB seat for next season.