Search Results

2011 would suggest otherwise. Likewise the end of 2010, some elements of 2009 (awesome season for lewis despite result!) and 2008 suggest Lewis has improved little since 2007.

He got his Mclaren seat because he was quick from the word go. He wasn't just quick, he was only 1-2 tenths slower than the reigning two time champ at the time! Lewis was a MEGA rookie. No other rookie will ever achieve what he has. Jacques and Lewis were special in that respect. Lewis found his form quickly and was leading the title for most of the season!

In 2008 he certainly made a few mistakes he should not have, and even on occasion looked rather... so-so. He limped over the line to take his title after his rival dominated the race.

In 2009 he got every bit of the car's performance and used it! He used the Mclarens low speed grip to amazing effect and arguably out performed drivers in better cars! Still he made errors you would not expect from a driver of his ability. Monaco is the big one for me, and of course Monza. But Monaco was a killer mistake and I have never before, or even since been so disappointed in him. It was a race where he had the chance to show the world just how mega he could be. Instead he stuffed it in the wall and we were left to wonder.

2010. Epic start and mid season. He again got the max out of the car 100% of the time. Then once again in classic Lewis style, he lost it when it mattered the most.

2011. What do you want me to say about this season? It was perhaps his worst in F1.

2012. Similar to 2010 IMO. Getting 100% out of the car 100% of the time... so far.

Let me put it this way. I do not believe it is possible for Lewis to improve in terms of pace or ability. I believe he has NOT improved his race craft, or ability to read a race or even read a season. I think he is rash with decisions and sometimes shows to be a little too eager. He needs to learn when to stop, and when he has lost.

Ultimately this is going to come down to you, proving to me that he has improved. Based on your idea, Rubens should have been the best F1 driver ever. DC should have got better rather than turn to sh*t. And Jenson should be blitzing Lewis.

What seems to hurt Lewis is that we have Vettel who seems to learn from his mistakes and be a better driver because of it. With Vettel, Lewis can not rely on his talent or pure speed because Vettel is as quick, if not quicker. When was the last time Vettel was involved in a tangle with another driver? Or even when he made a mistake in qualifying or a race? I can't remember so it would be great if you could tell me?

You can't get do a season getting 100% out of the car 100% of the time. Take 2010 example, he had to rag that car to the edge, thats why in middle of the season he made to 2 misjudgements 2 races in a row, Italy and Singapore - he had to be opportunistic as thats what get him there in the first place.
I don't think you go on improving forever in sport as you age as sportsmen/humans have their peak. For F1 I'd say its around age 31, after this you won't gain anymore from your experiance.
As for Vettel, its been too easy for him when he has such a rocketship of a car. You can't separate his abilities from that of his car. With a dominant car you can easily give the perception of absolutely thrashing the field.

One thing that has never helped Hamilton in this regard is that even for a half a season he's never been fortunate enough to take it easy and rackup wins the easy way, and that goes a long way to ones perception of a driver.
Vettel is quick but how quick? is it the car? It's 4-4 this year in quali between him and webber. And in 2010 it needed the #1 driver love and support from Dr Marko, Horner and Newey to hug him and take off parts off webbers car and put it on his. How much is that support worth? That arrangement was everything for Schumacher and Alonso. Again Hamilton hasn't had this luxury, he has had to graft it the hard way with 2 world championship teamates. Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel never had world championship teamates to beat in the same car.

i hv no idea why hamilton is labeled as fastest driver when he has been driving a winning car all the time?? With such error prone, and inconsistency, i rather opt for Alonso + Kimi or kimi+vettel !!

raikkonen is literally the only "good driver" to not win a title with Newey.

On the other hand Hamilton has been getting screwed over by his RE and TP for the last few years. Plus he is a lot more consistently fast than raikonen.

unsettled by massa?? rather kimi was having a tough year in 2008 when a few of his wins results in unfortunate event!! Canada, France, Belgium~~~

Canada - some wooden eye crash into him from the pitlane

France - exhaust pipe failure

SPa- raining on last lap, wrong tyre, no grip = crash

There were A LOT more races where raikkonen was complete garbage - Australia, Turkey, Monza, Singapore (that was hilariously bad), Hockenheim, Monaco, etc.

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

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

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

Learn this, mate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Eh, I think Ricciardo could make something of it. He seems to be on the edge of a great result every so often, only to be struck by a strategy failure.

Vettel benefited in the final year that they could share designs between constructors, his win in 2008 was very much aided by the Newey inspired elements that came down from the parent team to the 2008 car. Remember that Bourdais also good showings in that car, and qualified 4th in Monza.

Once that design link was gone Toro Rosso hasn't really been in a position to do much more than be lower midfield, which is a hard place to impress from. Attrition is well down on years passed, so podiums are nigh on impossible for a team of that caliber. Dan has already matched the best Jamie A. could do, a 7th.

As for the other drivers:

- Liuzzi was like a Zonta or Piquet Jr., he won at the GP2 level but was too crash prone and mentally weak to last long in F1. His poor showing against Sutil wasted that good opportunity in what was a half decent car.

- Speed never had much hope at all. Also had an attitude issue.

- Bourdais was beaten heavily by Vettel. On his own, I rate him higher than Luizzi, but Buemi was obviously a better choice and had more points before Bourdais was dumped.

- Buemi has moved into a testing role so he must have some value. I think he would make a fine #2 driver.

- Jamie A. was the only real failure of the system. I think he had the edge over Buemi in 2011, yet he was dumped unceremoniously. Sadly we saw the much more capable Kobayashi and Glock leave the series a year later due to budget constraints, so maybe he was just an indicator of what was to come. Jamie was obviously more capable than say Gutierrez.

I think that overall, the RBR young driver program kind of gave too much time to inadequate drivers like Liuzzi in the early years and then developed unreasonable expectations by the time it came around to Jamie A. If anything, I think they would have had the best Webber replacement in Alguersuari had they kept him on for 2012.

RBR does not need a clash of the titans between Vettel and Raikkonen, McLaren in 2007 showed what a problem that can cause.

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

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

Evidence and Facts??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fullhouse, you sir, are an idiot!

Pardon my french. What I meant to say was that during YDT and both drivers' efforts during the season have proven great deal speed but not the level of consistency and maturity. Overall not enough raw skill for RBR seat IMHO. At least not yet. In terms of points Vergne has actually more points from 2011 and 2012. If you look what Vettel did on his journey at STR (points + pole&win @ Monza 2008) neither driver is there. Kimi's first season with Sauber was huge as well.

I agree the consistency is not quite there yet, but that is also partly masked by the poor strategy STR give both drivers (e.g. DR would have finished 4th/5th at Silverstone if they pitted him at the same time as Rosberg/Webber etc not to mention poor pitstops). Overall not enough raw skill? Right...if you look at the times at YDT you can see that DR was only 3 tenths behind Vettel's best lap on new hards while Vettel did his on new mediums (fuel loads aside). If cannot see that DR has been putting the TR where is doesn't belong i.e. top 10 then do you expect poles or top 3's from them in a car that is midfield. There are IMO at least 10 cars quicker than the TRs this season.

Comparing Vettel's STR to today's STR is a joke. Vettel had the best rain chassis that year - one built by Newey and the most powerful engine at Monza. Heck Bourdais would have qualified third if Webber hadn't pipped him at the end. Not to mention the competition is much stronger now. Neither driver is there because the car isn't there yet DR has shown that he can put the car where is doesn't belong.

As to points where Vergne was ahead of Ricciardo, you just look at the points rather than the story. Korea, DR was way ahead of Vergne before brake problems and would have had more points. Monza DR's car failed on the last lap when he was in the points again. Vergne is very good in mixed conditions, the only weakness right now I see of DRs but other than that DR has him covered everywhere else.

Some of these polls, whether it be forum polls or the FB poll that RB created is always going to be in favor of Kimi as he has been an established driver and would have far more fans anyway.

Some of these posts are hilarious.

Do have to laugh at comments like "he hasn't produced a Monza 2008 type performance yet." What do you expect the guy to do? Back then, Vettel had an Adrian Newey chassis AND a better engine than even Red Bull themselves had. Ricciardo has neither of those luxuries. I think the fact that he has qualified in the top ten for four consecutive races in a far inferior car shows you that he is quick.

And the inexperienced argument is funny too. Applying that logic, Vettel, Hamilton and Raikkonen and possibly even Alonso wouldn't have gotten their big break.

I agree. Even if everything was ideal at every track from the first race, if he didn't crash in Malaysia and instead finished on the podium, didn't open DRS again in Bahrain and finished 5th in Monaco, and that was possible, he would now have something between 176 and 182 points, at best 15 points behind Vettel. RB9 is too strong, and Vettel is also driving incredibly well. Alonso will probably finish second anyway at the end of the season, so he will provide the best possible result with this car.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

DId you miss the start of the 2009 season ?

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

 

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

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

 

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

 

Will Vettel be able to do it?

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

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

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

 

Hockenheim - Vettel 8th, Bourdais 12th

Budapest - Vettel Ret, Bourdais 18th

Valencia - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Spa - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 7th

Monza - Vettel 1st, Bourdais 18th

Singapore - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 12th

Fuji - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Shangai - Vettel 9th, Bourdais 13th

Interlagos - Vettel 4th, Bourdais 14th

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Hockenheim - Vettel 8th, Bourdais 12th

Budapest - Vettel Ret, Bourdais 18th

Valencia - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Spa - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 7th

Monza - Vettel 1st, Bourdais 18th

Singapore - Vettel 5th, Bourdais 12th

Fuji - Vettel 6th, Bourdais 10th

Shangai - Vettel 9th, Bourdais 13th

Interlagos - Vettel 4th, Bourdais 14th

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Perez Malaysia 2012

 

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

 

(pin, grenade, throw)

 

 

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

Perez Malaysia 2012

 

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

 

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