506 replies to this topic

[skc]

It just occurred to me, why don't people rather focus on who comes in second. That driver could be the "peoples champ" and they could consider Vettel the "fake champ"

[GuilhermeMach]

Sorry but you were wrong, you made a statement which was swiftly debunked (as drivel) and my post is classed as drivel?

 

Please don't insult us by insinuating the car that won the WCC in 2012 wasn't the best (which is a combination of fastest/most reliable/consistant across all types of circuits), and the 2 years before, oh and this year as well. Oh and probably next year too...

 

Ugh, firstly, did you even read what I said? I clearly stated that he won the 2012 in the best package. Maybe bold text will help you get that. He had a very fast car (fastest in a handful of tracks, second fastest to McLaren in most of the other ones, bette reliabilty overall but still much worse than Ferrari and Lotus in that respect). But if you think that the RB9 was outright fastest than the MP4-27 over the course of the entire season you are delusional. So don't come here making the same point I'm making, spinning it as if I'm saying the complete opposite and claim that I'm insulting you.

 

Secondly, "arguably" and "almost" are opinions just as good as mine, hardly 'debunking'.

[paulrobs]

I'm not sure whether Red Bull's dominance harms F1 because for as long as I can remember - I've been watching F1 since the early 80's - there has always been dominance in the sport. Sometimes it lasts for a year or two and sometimes it goes on for say 5 or 6 years. I think dominance harms the fans of F1 rather than F1 itself. I didn't much care for the Ferrari dominance from 2000 because I found it boring and I've recently started to find the Red Bull dominance boring too and to my mind Sebastian Vettel has already won this year's WDC and Red Bull the WCC. Mathematical certainty no but highly probably, yes of course it is. It's not a case of whether they'll win every remaining race, which they may well do anyway, but more a case that no-one will be able to take that many points off them in the remaining races. I guess I don't find the current Red Bull dominance, and before this Ferrari's dominance, that enjoyable because I'm not a Ferrai/MS/Red Bull/SV fan so maybe I'd be more inclined to say it's harming F1? I'm also pretty sure I'd be delighted if McLaren/LH/JB/Mercedes were doing the same job as Red Bull/SV and even more dislinclined to think it was harming F1. I have huge respect for what Red Bull and Seb are achieving but I don't like what they are achieving, I'd prefer that it was my team/driver doing it.

 

I work with a guy who is an ardent Celtic supporter and, as an Englishman on the outside looking in, I've had many conversations with him about the plight of Rangers as surely he must feel at least some sympathy for them. All he ever says is "it's the gift that keeps on giving" and he has zero, and I mean zero, sympathy for their plight and can't see why Celtic's success might in any way be diminished by Rangers not competing with them. I'm not equating this to F1 but it's worth saying that most of the opinions and posts on this forum are swayed by personal allegiances so when someone says it's harming F1 I'm inclined to think that what they mean is their team/driver isn't doing the bulk of the winning.

[MarileneRiddle]

Those four seasons which I listed I almost un-debatable. In those four seasons, the driver with an inferior car won the WDC.

 

I could also make a strong case for 1994, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007 being won with an inferior car, but we won't get into that.

 

GuilhermeMach was indeed very wrong about his statement, I don't think I need to elaborate further on that tbh.

The reason why GuihermeMach over-reacted is probably because of the way you "can make a strong case" for other seasons (2006) where there are a few top cars close together and yet are replying to an argument in support of someone (Dozer) who claims that 2010 and 2012 were both dominant years for Red Bull Racing.

 

It seems like a double standard is being applied, where every other driver gets more consideration for their efforts than Sebastian. However, I am taking it more as you had taken offence specifically with GuilhermeMach's exaggeration, and was just disproving that specific point. In that case, consider your argument accepted and agreed with.

 

On the other hand, if you are supporting the argument that 2003, 2006 and 2007 are close years won with an inferior car, but 2010 and 2012 are dominant years for Red Bull Racing, then I was ask you to kindly state exactly how you are going to make an argument for the three above years (which I have watched so I will attempt to rebut against), and I will make the case for 2010 and 2012.

[William Hunt]

The dominance is not as bad as Ascari & Ferrari in 52'-53, 1988 with McLaren-Honda or '92-'93 with Williams-Renault or the days of Ferrari-Schumacher-Barrichello-Bridgestone so I don't think it is harming the sport. On the other hand: I would like to see another world champion next year. Nothing against Vettel, he deserves his titles, but 4 times in a row is enough.

Edited by William Hunt, 11 September 2013 - 16:23.

[GuilhermeMach]

The reason why GuihermeMach over-reacted is probably because of the way you "can make a strong case" for other seasons (2006) where there are a few top cars close together and yet are replying to an argument in support of someone (Dozer) who claims that 2010 and 2012 were both dominant years for Red Bull Racing.

 

It seems like a double standard is being applied, where every other driver gets more consideration for their efforts than Sebastian. However, I am taking it more as you had taken offence specifically with GuilhermeMach's exaggeration, and was just disproving that specific point. In that case, consider your argument accepted and agreed with.

 

On the other hand, if you are supporting the argument that 2003, 2006 and 2007 are close years won with an inferior car, but 2010 and 2012 are dominant years for Red Bull Racing, then I was ask you to kindly state exactly how you are going to make an argument for the three above years (which I have watched so I will attempt to rebut against), and I will make the case for 2010 and 2012.

 

I admitted to my exaggeration, please stop making a huge deal out of it.   I just get a little overboard when I see clearly bogus, misleading and hypocritical/misinformed opinions being spewed forth as facts (not talking about Kingshark here, althgouh I still disagree with almost the entirety of his list and stand by my view that if you give the best drivers the best package, he will win the title unless some freak occurence out his control happens, like in 1999 or 2008). Please forgive me, forumers

[MarileneRiddle]

I admitted to my exaggeration, please stop making a huge deal out of it.   I just get a little overboard when I see clearly bogus, misleading and hypocritical/misinformed opinions being spewed forth as facts (not talking about Kingshark here, althgouh I still disagree with almost the entirety of his list and stand by my view that if you give the best drivers the best package, he will win the title unless some freak occurence out his control happens, like in 1999 or 2008). Please forgive me, forumers

Definitely forgiven in my book. Don't want to scare you off, do I? 

 

I guess it is easy to get very passionate when discussing sports and my actual verbal arguments tend to be a lot more exaggerated than my written/typed ones (habit of a critical thinking student as opposed to a debate one  ). No harm, no foul (as long as you admit it and apologize  )

[hoohar]

 

 

Red Bulls "dominance" started, when Vettel joined the team. He was in the third Newey car of Red Bull. Up to then, the team didn't even score a win. Just coincidence? I can see absolute domination of Vettels teammate in these years. Otherwise there ist no domination like there was with McLaren in the 80's/beginning 90's, Williams 1992/1993+1996/1997 and Ferrari from 2001-2005. Red Bull only dominated in 2011. In every other season they did not win the majority of the races. But they were the most consistent team, maybe with the best driver of his generation. Is that a harm for the sport? No, it must be motivation for the other teams to get better - and that will make the sport in general better. We are seeing this already. This season, four teams were able to win races. Not many seasons in F1 offered that much variety.

 

You mean Redbulls dominance started when the regulations changed in 2009. The domination of Redbull is definately bad for the sport because we have had an engineer dominating the sport for the last 4 years, which is something nobody ever wants to see other than Redbull fans. It's ok for a year or 2 but now it has been 4 years of the same old thing and its just killed the sport imo, and its made worse by the fact such an unlike able spoilt driver is benefiting from this so much. A driver like Vettel winning so much has really cheapened the value of wins and titles, in comparison the achievements of so many great champions of the past who fought so hard against the odds to win while Vettel has just had his success basically delivered to him on a silver platter served up by Newey. This is one of the worst era's in the history of the sport, and if it does not change next year, it will no longer be worth watching.

 

I personally think Redbull have been cheating anyway. I know Newey is a genius but I find it hard to understand how after 5 years, the entire resources of paddock has not been able to catch up to his designs and his cars still have the same edge they did 4 years ago. In todays world of technology there are so secrets and the teams must have complete CAD models of the redbull car from photographs, yet they can't match it. Seems very strange. I think its all down to the engine and fancy engine mapping the Redbull has been getting away with al these years. Hopefully next year that will all change and it will once again return to a drivers championship. 

[LewDaMan]

Something to think about the claim of dominance and the luck Vettel has:

 

Red Bull Racing before Vettel:

 

2005 no wins, no poles, 7th in the WCC

2006 no wins, no poles, 7th in the WCC

2007 no wins, no poles, 5th in the WCC (actually 6th, but McLaren was disqalified); Newey car

2008 no wins, no poles, 7th in the WCC (Toro Rosso with Vettel ended up 6th); Newey car

 

Red Bull with Vettel:

 

2009: 7 wins, 4 poles, 2nd in the WCC (Vettel outqualified Webber 15:2, Webber finished 9:8 races ahead of Vettel, due to SV's reliability problems, but was outscored 84:69,5)

2010: 9 wins, 15 poles, 1st in the WDC+WCC (Vettel outqualified Webber 12:7, finished ahead 11:7, outscored Webber 256:242

2011: 12 wins, 17 poles 1st in the WCC+WDC (Vettel outqualified Webber 16.3, finished ahead 16:3, outscored Webber 392:258, 11 of the 12 wins courtesy of Vettel)

2012: 7 wins, 8 poles, 1st in the WCC+WDC (Vettel outqualified Webber 11:9, finished ahead 13:7, outscored Webber 281:179)

2013: 6 wins, 4 poles, currently 1st in WCC+WDC (Vettel outqualified Webber 12:0, finished ahead 11:1, outscored Webber 222:130)

 

Red Bulls "dominance" started, when Vettel joined the team. He was in the third Newey car of Red Bull. Up to then, the team didn't even score a win. Just coincidence? I can see absolute domination of Vettels teammate in these years. Otherwise there ist no domination like there was with McLaren in the 80's/beginning 90's, Williams 1992/1993+1996/1997 and Ferrari from 2001-2005. Red Bull only dominated in 2011. In every other season they did not win the majority of the races. But they were the most consistent team, maybe with the best driver of his generation. Is that a harm for the sport? No, it must be motivation for the other teams to get better - and that will make the sport in general better. We are seeing this already. This season, four teams were able to win races. Not many seasons in F1 offered that much variety.

 

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous!

 

The obvious point is that 2009 saw a huge change in regulations. Newey signed for Red Bull in...2006? He obviously and completely understandably proritised 2009 onwards rather than pointlessly try to play catch-up with Ferrari and McLaren for two years under regulations they were dominating. You cannot compare 2009 onwards RBs with pre-2009 RBs. They are CLEARLY in a different league of performance from one another.

 

The 2009 Red Bull was quick out the bag and something else which renders your theory void - Webber went from 0 pole positions and 0 F1 race wins to multiple PPs and race wins. Now, unless those Red Bulls 2009 onwards were anything other than excellent cars, then how else can you explain Webber's sudden elevation to multiple GP winner? And all happening for Webber on the wrong side of 30 years of age.

 

Specifically on the thread's topic...Red Bull's dominance is no better or worse than any other period of dominance in F1. Although I think a lot of F1 fans would be happier if Vettel's luck had ended at crucial points of 2010 and 2012 and Alonso was 2010 WDC and Hamilton/Alonso was 2012 WDC. Dominance of any driver/car combination can get a bit frustrating to watch and if we were currently talking of Vettel as nearly a 2xWDC than a 4xWDC, then this thread wouldn't even exist and fewer people would dislike Red Bull.

 

And to be honest, as a driver in his own right...I don't think Vettel has shown enough all-round ability to be deemed a worthy 4xWDC but there we are. That's F1 for you.

[Tron]

I don't know how to put this, but when a car is good, any skilled driver can win in it. Look at Williams of 1992 to 1997. Certainly Hill and Jacques are good drivers, but their cars made them look like greats, while better drivers like Mansel and Prost dominated in them, yet Mansel and Prost in weaker car tailed for odd podiums.

 

So it's not Vettel making RedBull win, sure, he his great, probably one of the best of this era, but it's Redbull that's actually making him a great.

[bourbon]

Sourest grapes on the internet can be found in this thread.  Sorry all of the other drivers and their packages failed to match Seb/RBR in becoming the youngest WDC and multiple one at that - and with the team and a great teammate - bring home the WCC 3 years on the trot to boot, but here we are. 

 

No one has ever done what Sebastian has - ever.  No team has done what RBR has done either.  It is a remarkable, fascinating and amazing achievement for the entire team. 

 

Without dominance, there is only seasonal winning, which generally does not build a legacy of greatness (let's face it, we can count those 0 to 1 time WDC driver greats on 1 hand, and 0 to 1 time WCC constructor greats without any hands at all).  You need dominance or at minimal, multiple wins for teams and drivers in order to build a legacy.  Seb and RBR did it quickly and brilliantly and deserve only to be showered with praise.

Edited by bourbon, 21 September 2013 - 02:11.

[Tron]

 No team has done what RBR has done either.  It is a remarkable, fascinating and amazing achievement for the entire team. 

 

Depends on what stats you're talking about, as it's about title streaks or constant race wins, McLaren, Williams and Ferrari have.

[LewDaMan]

I don't know how to put this, but when a car is good, any skilled driver can win in it. Look at Williams of 1992 to 1997. Certainly Hill and Jacques are good drivers, but their cars made them look like greats, while better drivers like Mansel and Prost dominated in them, yet Mansel and Prost in weaker car tailed for odd podiums.

 

So it's not Vettel making RedBull win, sure, he his great, probably one of the best of this era, but it's Redbull that's actually making him a great.

Absolutely.

 

Put it this way. Prost would have won the WDC in the Williams of 1992. Mansell would have won the WDC in the Williams of 1993. Senna would have won both WDCs in the Williams of 92&93 as well. Senna would have won the WDCs in the Williams of 1996&1997.

 

The difference is that Vettel (without doubt a WDC standard driver in his own right) has had a run of four excellent Newey cars, 2010-2013. Rather than spread over 92-93 and 96-97. And at a time when both Ferrari and McLaren were, in many ways, spectacularly useless in 2012. Both teams threw away a WDC for their drivers last year. 

 

In conclusion, Vettel winning 4xlights-to-flags WDCs doesn't make him a great of F1. ALL F1 WDCs have won many races in that way. Vettel also looks unimpressive when not on PP and unable to lead from the front.

 

We need to see Vettel without Newey and in a 3rd/4th best car for a year or two to get a clearer picture to see how much it has really been Red Bull/Newey dominance. I reckon Vettel would still impress but that would make him of normal WDC standard. His stats and some of his fans seem to paint him as some kind of other-worldly talent, which is just silly.

Edited by LewDaMan, 21 September 2013 - 02:19.

[LewDaMan]

Sourest grapes on the internet can be found in this thread.  Sorry all of the other drivers and their packages failed to match Seb/RBR in becoming the youngest WDC and multiple one at that - and with the team and a great teammate - bring home the WCC 3 years on the trot to boot, but here we are. 

 

No one has ever done what Sebastian has - ever.  No team has done what RBR has done either.  It is a remarkable, fascinating and amazing achievement for the entire team. 

 

Without dominance, there is only seasonal winning, which generally does not build a legacy of greatness (let's face it, we can count those 0 to 1 time WDC driver greats on 1 hand, and 0 to 1 time WCC constructor greats without any hands at all).  You need dominance or at minimal, multiple wins for teams and drivers in order to build a legacy.  Seb and RBR did it quickly and brilliantly and deserve only to be showered with praise.

 

Why does it have to be "sour grapes?" People are capable of using analysis to form their own opinions about a TEAM sport, without it being "sour grapes!"

 

Vettel is only a younger WDC than Hamilton and a younger 2 x WDC than Alonso by a matter of a days. It's really a bit of a silly stat, not least considering that both Villeneuve and Hamilton won a WDC with far fewer races under their belt than Vettel.

 

And no-one has ever done what Vettel has? You mean, win races/WDCs lights-to-flag from pole position? Well, they have. All other WDCs in fact! The difference is the advantage Vettel has had at a young age. No more, no less.

Edited by LewDaMan, 21 September 2013 - 02:26.

[Kelateboy]

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous!

 

The obvious point is that 2009 saw a huge change in regulations. Newey signed for Red Bull in...2006? He obviously and completely understandably proritised 2009 onwards rather than pointlessly try to play catch-up with Ferrari and McLaren for two years under regulations they were dominating. You cannot compare 2009 onwards RBs with pre-2009 RBs. They are CLEARLY in a different league of performance from one another.

 

Are you saying that Newey started designing RB5 in 2006?

 

Similar to this year, do you think RBR started designing RB10 a few years back to take advantage of the major regulation changes taking place next year?

 

In a normal year, RBR started development of next year car in Aug or Sept - a 5 month window. For 2014/2009 because of the major rules changes, they started much earlier but not years earlier because by that time, even the F1 Technical Regulations have not been officially published by the FIA.

 

[Kingshark]

No one has ever done what Sebastian has - ever.  No team has done what RBR has done either.  It is a remarkable, fascinating and amazing achievement for the entire team. 

 

   

 

Let me guess, you began watching Formula One in 2010?

Edited by Kingshark, 21 September 2013 - 02:29.

[LewDaMan]

Are you saying that Newey started designing RB5 in 2006?

 

No.

 

And are you saying that when Newey was hired it wasn't primarily with 2009 in mind?

[punknhedd]

I think the bigger harm to the sport is the dominance of aero, which leads to the DRS gimmick.  Would much prefer more open engine regulations, more reliance on mechanical grip, and not a spec tire.  I personally don't think KERS is a benefit to the sport either, and I disagree with the engine switch next year.  Will really miss the sound of the screaming V8s.  I really don't understand the necessity to be 'green' or 'relevant'.  What about the obscene amounts of money spent on F1 operations is relevant to real life anyway?  The greenness is the craziest thing to me.  It's a sport, not a fuel economy contest.  How much energy is used in other sports with lots of travel and long schedules with tens of thousands of fans driving to the event?  Think about the 150+ game schedule of baseball in the US, for instance.

 

Vettel has tremendous talent, but the car is the show right now.  The tremendous reliability of today's cars also means a damn good driver in the best car who performs consistently is really tough to beat over a season.  Less reliance on aero would also mean more close racing throughout (not just end of DRS zone passing or when someone's tires go off) with a bigger spotlight on driver errors.  Probably more DNFs due to those errors as well.

[Kelateboy]

No.

 

And are you saying that when Newey was hired it wasn't primarily with 2009 in mind?

 

Then another plus point for the Wunderkid since he won in the year (2008) before Newey was supposed to show his magic (2009 and beyond).... 

[LewDaMan]

Then another plus point for the Wunderkid since he won in the year (2008) before Newey was supposed to show his magic (2009 and beyond).... 

 

So much pro-Vettel spin...

 

Monza 2008 was unusual circumstances (rain affected qualy) and the STR3 wasn't a bad car i.e Newey, powerful Ferrari engine. But Vettel didn't even score another podium in 2008 so it really was a one-off circumstance.

 

But still a good win from a then likeable kid. But as I said, I can't stand the constant spin about anything-Vettel. "Wunderkid?"

[V8 Fireworks]

But still a good win from a then likeable kid. But as I said, I can't stand the constant spin about anything-Vettel. "Wunderkid?"

I prefer "Fingerboy" ;) Webber is "Potsie" off Happy Days. 

 

Vettel is clearly very good.  So did Schumacher do great things at Benetton.  So did Stewart do great things at Tyrell.  Many skilled young drivers shaking up the sport of F1 and putting their mark on it!  It would be unreasonable to say Vettel is "better" than Schumacher or "better" than Stewart, but Vettel is certainly very very good.

[Kelateboy]

So much pro-Vettel spin...

 

Monza 2008 was unusual circumstances (rain affected qualy) and the STR3 wasn't a bad car i.e Newey, powerful Ferrari engine. But Vettel didn't even score another podium in 2008 so it really was a one-off circumstance.

 

But still a good win from a then likeable kid. But as I said, I can't stand the constant spin about anything-Vettel. "Wunderkid?"

 

 

Monza 2008 was a special circumstance? Of course it was special because the WunderKid won the race with a dry-weather set-up in a monsoon condition. FYI, I prefer the term "WunderKid" to "Finger Boy" - just a personal preference, I guess.

 

STR3 was a special car? Then STR4 with such huge regulation changes in 2009 should have been a much better car than STR3, is it not? It was still designed by Newey, the year was 2009 where Newey was supposed to wave his magic wand, equipped with the more powerful Ferrari engine, and yet they had 0 podium and 8 measly points to show for STR4. 

 

The kid is special, but he is not the best thing since sliced bread - not yet.

[bourbon]

   

 

Let me guess, you began watching Formula One in 2010?

 

2013 actually.  I find it fascinating.

[Kingshark]

2013 actually.  I find it fascinating.

 

Oh, I see. 

 

I have no problem with fans praising drivers, but please don't make ridiculous statements like as if we've never seen domination before. 

[bourbon]

Oh, I see. 

 

I have no problem with fans praising drivers, but please don't make ridiculous statements like as if we've never seen domination before. 

 

I did not say we had not seen domination before.  My exact words were:  "No one has ever done what Sebastian has - ever.  No team has done what RBR has done either."

 

I referred to his being youngest world driver's triple champion and the material records he has broken.  I referred to RBR, similarly young in practical terms, doing the same thing. 

 

What I believe is ridiculous is negating the amazing success of RBR/Seb under the guise of boredom based on a dominance that only occurred in 2011 - maybe this season will be seen along those lines to a lesser degree, but 09, 10, 11, 12 were not dominant seasons.

Edited by bourbon, 21 September 2013 - 05:28.

[Tron]

I referred to RBR, similarly young in practical terms, doing the same thing. 

 

Besides the name, Redbull is one of the oldest teams, so they're not technically young.

[bourbon]

Besides the name, Redbull is one of the oldest teams, so they're not technically young.

 

Yes, that is what I meant by 'in practical terms' because they had to breath life into the team; a new culture, work ethic, vision, viewpoint, perspective, expectations, etc, plus bring in others and keep it cohesive.  That is not easy to do.

[Tron]

Yes, that is what I meant by 'in practical terms' because they had to breath life into the team; a new culture, work ethic, vision, viewpoint, perspective, expectations, etc, plus bring in others and keep it cohesive.  That is not easy to do.

 

I hear you. You're right there, but others have had such technical revolutions that also went on to win for long periods, it's not that Redbull is the first or holds a record to it, otherwise, they and everyone else will forever fall short to the only "team" with a 100% winning record, Brawn GP.

Edited by Tron, 21 September 2013 - 06:30.

[Forma1]

I did not say we had not seen domination before.  My exact words were:  "No one has ever done what Sebastian has - ever.  No team has done what RBR has done either."

 

I referred to his being youngest world driver's triple champion and the material records he has broken.  I referred to RBR, similarly young in practical terms, doing the same thing. 

 

What I believe is ridiculous is negating the amazing success of RBR/Seb under the guise of boredom based on a dominance that only occurred in 2011 - maybe this season will be seen along those lines to a lesser degree, but 09, 10, 11, 12 were not dominant seasons.

 

After laughing for an hour, I have to say:

2011 was a year to forget.

What about 2010, 2012 and 2013?

 

2010: total domiance in load of races, Hungary or Barcelona were just ridiculous.

2012: Total dominance in races like Bahrain or Valencia and then in some of the second half's races.

2013: Total dominance in Canada, Bahrain, Spa, Monza and my gut says there are still to come...

 

Dominance doesn'T mean you dominate the whole season. If you have 7-8 weekends a year when you controll the whole weekend and on most of the others you are able to fight for wins or at least for third place, man, that's called dominance.

 

Just to mention: when did Fernando last have a dominant car for just one single weekend? Maybe in 2007.

I can't repeat enough myself Seb has been doing a great tidy neat job, but Red Bull just make it to easy to him. His biggest issues is to choose his actual helmet livery or hair colour, while that Fernando has to press the last drop out of that Ferrari.

[joshb]

Alonso had a dominant car in Monza last year definitely, but it broke on his qualy lap

[joshb]

Amyhow, Alonso had his chance to show what he could do in the best car early on this year

2nd Retired, 1st, 8th and 1st

 

He trailed Vettel

 

Easier to cope with the lack of pressure/expectation when the car isn't the best and your teammate isn't doing it justice either

Harder when you have the tools- suddenly you go cautious and fail to exploit the full performance

[Forma1]

Amyhow, Alonso had his chance to show what he could do in the best car early on this year

2nd Retired, 1st, 8th and 1st

 

He trailed Vettel

 

Easier to cope with the lack of pressure/expectation when the car isn't the best and your teammate isn't doing it justice either

Harder when you have the tools- suddenly you go cautious and fail to exploit the full performance

1. Dominant car in Monza? It was a tenth or so quicker in qualy than McLaren. That is far from dominance. 

 

2. It's much easier to cope with any situation when your car is dominant. If you do it right, you are on pole, if you do a mistake, you are on pole, if your mess up in three corners, you are still on pole, if you mess the whole lap up, you are second.

With that Ferrari even if you are perfect you can normally target between 4 and 7.

[sopa]

Yeah, Forma1 is right in this sense that dominance doesn't mean you lap everyone in every single race.

 

Even in 1992 I remember McLaren won a handful of races. In 1996 Williams dominated, but Schumacher dominated Spain. In 2002 Ferrari dominated, but Williams dominated Malaysia, challenged in Brazil. McLaren won Monaco, challenged in France.

[Briz]

Yeah, Forma1 is right in this sense that dominance doesn't mean you lap everyone in every single race.

 

Even in 1992 I remember McLaren won a handful of races. In 1996 Williams dominated, but Schumacher dominated Spain. In 2002 Ferrari dominated, but Williams dominated Malaysia, challenged in Brazil. McLaren won Monaco, challenged in France.

 

1992 the only race where a McLaren won on merit was at Hungaroring, it was really weird - either Senna was godly that day or Mansell in really bad shape or both. Mansell was wrapping up the title with his second place, that probably was a factor. It was a depressing year other than that, 2011 is to 1992 what 2010 is to 2011... I have a maybe controversial opinion that if Mansell really wanted he could have lapped the field in many of the races that year, he just didn't want to devalue his championship by doing that.

[Kelateboy]

After laughing for an hour, I have to say:

2011 was a year to forget.

What about 2010, 2012 and 2013?

 

2010: total domiance in load of races, Hungary or Barcelona were just ridiculous.

2012: Total dominance in races like Bahrain or Valencia and then in some of the second half's races.

2013: Total dominance in Canada, Bahrain, Spa, Monza and my gut says there are still to come...

 

Dominance doesn'T mean you dominate the whole season. If you have 7-8 weekends a year when you controll the whole weekend and on most of the others you are able to fight for wins or at least for third place, man, that's called dominance.

 

Just to mention: when did Fernando last have a dominant car for just one single weekend? Maybe in 2007.

I can't repeat enough myself Seb has been doing a great tidy neat job, but Red Bull just make it to easy to him. His biggest issues is to choose his actual helmet livery or hair colour, while that Fernando has to press the last drop out of that Ferrari.

 

Going by this "revised" definition of what a dominance is, then I could safely say that more than half of WCCs since the inception of formula-1 were won by dominant teams.

[Forma1]

I define it again:

 

Just have a look at this sheet:
http://www.formula1..../2010/835/6770/

 

It is just humiliating. Red Bull showed this kind of performance or that in a similiar form. That is dominance. Can't expalin any other way. THe thing is only Fernando could take on the fight against Vettel, but that Ferrari have been 3rd or 4th fastest avaragely, some times a bit better, sometimes even worse (Sauber, Renault (2010), Mercedes, Force India, TOro Rosso were quicker than them at times.).

 

I don't wannt cut off the credit from Seb, but he had such an easy time, just go for it and cruise, no real fight for the chamionships. Ok, 2010 and last year, but in 2010 he messed it up so made his life harder hor himself, last year, yeah, that was down to Alonso. THat guy showed an exceptional year in an exceptional form I have never ever seen.But just in pure car performace Red Bull have been controlling everything, sometimes dominant, sometimes "only" able to get 2nd, 3rd place. Always there. 

[Module]

Going by this "revised" definition of what a dominance is, then I could safely say that more than half of WCCs since the inception of formula-1 were won by dominant teams.

 

And more than half of the WDC's have been won by a driver with a vicory in atleast a third of the GPs.

 

Someone could actualy put forward the idea that the winner of WDC and WCC has to be better than the rest in atleast some of the races!!!

[squall1981]

this isn't dominance. 2010 car was fast but unreliable

2011 was the only dominant year

2012 Hamilton was given the fastest car but didn't maximise it

2013 red bull actually started slower, and mercedees have the fastest qualifying car, red bull have just developed it better, it is more other teams incompetence than dominance

[Kelateboy]

this isn't dominance. 2010 car was fast but unreliable

2011 was the only dominant year

2012 Hamilton was given the fastest car but didn't maximise it

2013 red bull actually started slower, and mercedees have the fastest qualifying car, red bull have just developed it better, it is more other teams incompetence than dominance

 

To emphasize his point on RBR dominance in 2012, Forma1 offered Valencia GP as one of the prime examples.

 

The very GP that Vettel retired due to an alternator problem. 

 

How could a team or a car be considered dominant for the race when it does not last the whole race distance? 

 

Off to watching FP3 live on ESPN Starsports.

[jimjimjeroo]

8 different winners in 8 races on 2012 that's not dominance! But it still bores the hell outta me that he is at the top of the standings :/

Edited by jimjimjeroo, 21 September 2013 - 10:03.

[DILLIGAF]

I can't see how Red Bull is harming the sport at all. Their dominance may annoy off fans of rival teams or drivers but as a Ferrari fan who am I to complain after watching 5 years of dominance from 2000-2004. At some point Red Bull's dominance will end, possibly as early as 2014 with the big changes coming in. Suck it up and move on.

[Kingshark]

this isn't dominance. 2010 car was fast but unreliable

...

2012 Hamilton was given the fastest car but didn't maximise it

 

Say what? 

 

Lewis was arguably the best driver of 2012, but was let down by his McLaren team.

[rhukkas]

For everyone who says 2012 the McLaren was the best car please see what Button thought about it http://www.theguardi...laren-worst-car

 

And Hamilton drove a fantastic year, just let down by the team on more than one occasion.

 

Anyway, back to topic. Expect worst ever ratings for Sky F1 this weekend. It's hard to know if there is even an F1 on this weekend.

[LewDaMan]

this isn't dominance. 2010 car was fast but unreliable

2011 was the only dominant year

2012 Hamilton was given the fastest car but didn't maximise it

2013 red bull actually started slower, and mercedees have the fastest qualifying car, red bull have just developed it better, it is more other teams incompetence than dominance

Are you joking?

 

Four wins and four other likely wins taken away i.e Spain fuel error meaning sent to back of grid, Singapore car failure whilst first, Abu Dhabi car failure whilst first, Brazil Hulkenberg ended his race and was given a penalty. That's just the lost race wins. You can add Maldonado costing him a 4th or 5th place in Valencia, Grosjean costing him a race in Spa, two botched McLaren pitstops dropping him from 4th to 8th in Bahrain, puncture 1st lap Germany, anti-roll bar failure Korea dropping him from 4th to 10th etc etc etc

 

And after Newey nailed double-drs after Singapore, Red Bull locked the front-row of the grid how many times? After having zero front-row lock outs before that. Red Bull themselves were quickest for nearly half of the 2012 season.

 

As for 2010, if not for car problems and Vettel's errors, the WDC would have been sewn up long before Abu Dhabi. In 2010 Red Bull also got 15 of 20 pole positions. They absolutely were dominant. Not far off 2011 dominance, in fact. Only 2010 dominance was across two drivers whereas in 2011 it was across one.

Edited by LewDaMan, 21 September 2013 - 12:50.

[repete]

After laughing for an hour, I have to say:

2011 was a year to forget.

What about 2010, 2012 and 2013?

 

2010: total domiance in load of races, Hungary or Barcelona were just ridiculous.

2012: Total dominance in races like Bahrain or Valencia and then in some of the second half's races.

2013: Total dominance in Canada, Bahrain, Spa, Monza and my gut says there are still to come...

 

Dominance doesn'T mean you dominate the whole season. If you have 7-8 weekends a year when you controll the whole weekend and on most of the others you are able to fight for wins or at least for third place, man, that's called dominance.

 

Just to mention: when did Fernando last have a dominant car for just one single weekend? Maybe in 2007.

I can't repeat enough myself Seb has been doing a great tidy neat job, but Red Bull just make it to easy to him. His biggest issues is to choose his actual helmet livery or hair colour, while that Fernando has to press the last drop out of that Ferrari.

I would say Spain 2013 was pretty domiant  for alonso. Just cause he wasnt on pole, doesnt mean the car wasnt dominant in the race.

[sheepgobba]

Yes. 

 

A new champion and constructions champions would be such a breath of fresh air. 

[DrivenF1]

I think it is damaging the show and causing some fans to stop watching. This isn't good.

 

Red Bull is built around Vettel which doesn't help. He struggled in 2010 and they introduced engine mapping which suddenly made him faster than Webber i.e. after Monaco and Spain. In 2012 Webber was ahead but they improved the car and Vettel was far better. Makes sense from Red Bull's perspective and they've been amazing but it doesn't help the show.

[Shiroo]

well at the very momemnt RBR seems as dominat as it was in 2011

[Slackbladder]

Season over.. Vettel could have gone much faster in qualy, when you compare his lap with rosbergs.

[Coral]

I am sick of Formula Red Bull, they are so dominant it is no longer funny. It's not their fault, yes they are the best, but I am so fed up with it.

 

I actually enjoy MotoGP more these days, and I never, ever thought I would say that...