492 replies to this topic

[Spillage]

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.

[JHSingo]

When has a driver who went on to win the title not had the best car?

 

Never.

 

This fallacy that it is all just about the car can be applied to pretty much every driver who has even won the title. That's just how racing is.

[sennafan24]

When has a driver who went on to win the title not had the best car?

 

Quite a few times it could be argued.

 

I felt Senna did it in 1990 and 1991. Some others think Prost did it in 1986.

 

I strongly believe Schumacher did it in 1995, and that Lewis did it in 2008.

[Bloggsworth]

Championship points are irrelevant. Unless you seriously want to promote the view that Coulthard was twice as good a driver as Fangio.

 

Bilgiferous drivel. Unless you can demonstrate to me that Coulthard and Fangio both drove for the same team at the same time, your point is meretricious trash. Button & Hamilton drove identical cars in the same seasons, as do Hamilton and Rosberg now.

 

Vettel is marginally faster than Webber on a consistent basis, but considerably luckier with the reliability of his cars. Had Vettel pressed on Sunday he would, as Brundle said, have lapped the field - He's good, but not that good.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 23 September 2013 - 11:58.

[savidb]

And than comes the 2000-2009 era, and suddenly the magic is gone. Only 2 serious championship assaults 2000/2003. But no championships for a decade!!!!!!!!!!! Dispite drivers like Raikkonen, Montoya, Coulthard, Hakkinen..........

 

 

In that era we have engine and tyre wars, so there were other ways to defeat newey. In this era, the tyres and engines are basically equal, so there is no way to out smart Newey in any other area other than aero. The regulations played perfectly into his hands. In the early 2000s the Mclaren engines became quite weak, which hobbled his cars for example.

 

As for the question about Vettel or Newey. Just go look at Vettels record without Newey, prior to F1. In 40 F3 races he achieved a grand total of 1 pole position. One pole posiiton. It seem's this amazing speed he apparently has now was somewhat missing when all his rivals had the same car as him....

[krea]

Maybe because some of these "random people" actually seen Vettel pre F1 (followed him and other young drivers) and know that he is nothing extraordinary. Just look on his pre f1 record if you don’t believe that.

Somebody is either born with a great talent or not. Scenario when a sportsman is average till he is 20 and then suddenly booom greatest ever simply never happens. If someone has a great talent it’s visible from very start - since a young kid.  Vettel is not that. 

 

 

You realize that Vettel was significantly younger than the other drivers in the same class?

 

There is a reason why Vettel is the youngest in pretty much everything championships, victory, pole, first points etc...

[JHSingo]

Quite a few times it could be argued.

 

I felt Senna did it in 1990 and 1991. Some others think Prost did it in 1986.

 

I strongly believe Schumacher did it in 1995, and that Lewis did it in 2008.

 

I fundamentally disagree. They wouldn't have won those titles if they DIDN'T have the best car. Maybe not the fastest all the time, but definitely the best. There's a difference.

 

To succeed in motorsport for any length of time, you need both. One doesn't outweigh the other.

 

Hamilton had the best car in 2008, but only won by one point.

 

Equally, I personally believe that last year's Ferrari wasn't anywhere as bad as people suggest. Sure, Fernando did a great job, but he wouldn't have won three races and finished second in the championship if the car was as awful as some people were suggesting.

 

I just find the hypocrisy from bitter fans rather amusing. If it was Alonso or Hamilton or whoever else in the Red Bull, the subject of the car probably wouldn't be discussed as much as it is now. Funny, that...

Edited by JHSingo, 23 September 2013 - 12:06.

[krea]

Sorry to pick you up on something again, but the problem is that some Vettel fans use Webber as a benchmark to prove Vettel's driving ability. Which in 2013 is a faulty comparison, to prove Vettel's driving ability you have to point to performances like Germany and his supreme consistency, not dominating the 37 year old over the hill Mark Webber, who was not a elite driver in his prime.

 

There are a wealth of valid reasons for Vettel fans to argue the driving merit of Vettel, the Webber comparison is not one of them in my opinion.

 

At the same time people using Massa to prove how much Alonso is outdriving the Ferrari.

 

double standards.

Edited by krea, 23 September 2013 - 12:08.

[fastwriter]

like jan magnussen who won everything in lower formula before his f1 failure, or Niki Lauda who had to buy himself into f1. A certain Gilles Villeneuve wasn't exactly setting the world on fire pre f1

 

Vettels pre f1 stats are quite good, certainly if you take into consideration him not finishing the 2007 season and being injured in 2005 or 2006

 

but your absolutes are nonsense, even in lower formula one has to have the material, It is not like everyone in F3 has the same chance of a win. Cars might be equal, the teams most certainly are not.

 With the same cars in Formula BMW Vettel won 20 out of 22 Races as a very young kid. He won in F3, he performed well in FR 3.5 and showed great speed during his stint as Reserve Driver at BMW Sauber. So why do you think, his achievements in lower formulae are bad? They clearly are better than Alonsos Efforts for example.

[FastnLoud]

When has a driver who went on to win the title not had the best car?

 

Never.

 

This fallacy that it is all just about the car can be applied to pretty much every driver who has even won the title. That's just how racing is.

Lewis didn't have the best car in 2008, Ferrari had the best car in both the 2007 and 08 season. Not saying the 2008 Mclaren was slow it wasn't obviously it was a title winning car with speed but i don't think over the season it the best car.

 

Vettel has had the best car since 2010

[krea]

Lewis didn't have the best car in 2008, Ferrari had the best car in both the 2007 and 08 season. Not saying the 2008 Mclaren was slow it wasn't obviously it was a title winning car with speed but i don't think over the season it the best car.

 

Vettel has had the best car since 2010

 

Yeah, the McLaren car was a duck last year.

Edited by krea, 23 September 2013 - 12:11.

[savidb]

On Newey's consecutive successes, his Williams and McLaren cars from 1991 to 1999 (his last title-winning car before moving to Red Bull) either won the title at a canter or came close 2nd due to either controversial circumstances (1994), gremlins in a new technology (1991), or a driver in bad form (Hill in 1995)... every other year is a title, regardless of driver.... Mansell, Prost, Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen all swept their way to championships with visibly better cars than the competition.

 

What sets Newey apart now is that his collected knowledge and massive financial doping (with increased efficiency compared to the other great sugar daddy team Ferrari) from the parent company have made his cars so good that it really is a case of turning up at whatever circuit and being either guaranteed to win or finish on the podium bar 'Acts of God'... The political elements in Red Bull have sought to give their favoured driver the preferential treatment and equipment, meaning that the no. 2 gets the basic package whilst the wunderkind has the car with all the bells and whistles, and better QC from the looks of it. All the engineers and mechanics in the team are superb, but Vettel gets the best ones. Any new parts that will give a time improvement, Vettel gets them first. It may seem incredibly harsh on the 2nd driver but as long as his car is able to score good points in most of the races, they clean up in the championships.

 

Mika Hakkinen was well-rated before Newey came along, but had only 1 win gifted to him by his teammate to show for his fairly long career in F1, having driven some excellent cars along the way (if not quite up to the standard of the Williams, however, Ferrari, McLaren (pre-Newey), Benetton and even Ligier all won races in that period). Suddenly, in 1998 when he steps into the MP4-13, he becomes a driving god, a model of consistency and ferocious speed and finally lives up to the promise of nearly ten years before. When a car is that good, it can transform drivers. Vettel is simply the most recent beneficiary of the genius of Adrian Newey and now the financial muscle of Red Bull GmbH, having a greater and ultimately more expensive pool of R&D talent than probably any other team in history.

 

It's similar to football... put a top manager in charge of an expensively assembled team and it's gonna go places... see the recent successes of Bayern Munich, Barcelona... and the rapid financial-doping assisted rises of Man City, Chelsea and now AS Monaco. 

 

I'd love to see what Newey could do now on a budget... his Leyton House cars were beautifully simple and efficient compared to the bloated spending of his rivals. Equally, I'd love to see what Vettel, a very talented driver if not quite worthy of his achievements IMO, could do in a 'reverse-Hakkinen' situation, where he is taken out of the perfect Newey car and into something a little more compromised.

 

Great post. Someone who  knows their history. It is currently a repeat of the mid 90s when Michael was defeated by Newey 4 seasons a row, and lost in the final race on two occasions. Hopefully history repeats soon.

[savidb]

 With the same cars in Formula BMW Vettel won 20 out of 22 Races as a very young kid. He won in F3, he performed well in FR 3.5 and showed great speed during his stint as Reserve Driver at BMW Sauber. So why do you think, his achievements in lower formulae are bad? They clearly are better than Alonsos Efforts for example.

 

Did you read my post? He scored 1 pole out of 40 F3 races? Where was the special speed?

[sennafan24]

I fundamentally disagree. They wouldn't have won those titles if they DIDN'T have the best car. Maybe not the fastest all the time, but definitely the best. There's a difference.

 

To succeed in motorsport for any length of time, you need both. One doesn't outweigh the other.

 

Hamilton had the best car in 2008, but only won by one point.

 

Equally, I personally believe that last year's Ferrari wasn't anywhere as bad as people suggest. Sure, Fernando did a great job, but he wouldn't have won three races and finished second in the championship if the car was as awful as some people were suggesting.

 

I just find the hypocrisy from bitter fans rather amusing. If it was Alonso or Hamilton or whoever else in the Red Bull, the subject of the car probably wouldn't be discussed as much as it is now. Funny, that...

Your point was that no one wins without the best car, where I just offered you examples of times when that is debatable.

 

Your point about "long period of times" is irrelevant, as most of the examples I gave were singular examples, and your weak accusation of double standards was not relevant to the point I was making either. And I was not arguing about the "fastest" car I was indeed arguing that the "best" car does not always win.

Edited by sennafan24, 23 September 2013 - 12:18.

[sennafan24]

At the same time people using Massa to prove how much Alonso is outdriving the Ferrari.

 

double standards.

Yeah, it does work both ways, Massa has also been washed up for years and beaten him means very little for Alonso in 2013.

[apoka]

As for the question about Vettel or Newey. Just go look at Vettels record without Newey, prior to F1. In 40 F3 races he achieved a grand total of 1 pole position. One pole posiiton. It seem's this amazing speed he apparently has now was somewhat missing when all his rivals had the same car as him....

 

In 2005, a certain (more experienced) L. Hamilton won most pole positions with Vettel being the rookie - in fact he became rookie of the year. In 2006, he was second, but in parallel was also test driver in F1 (more work than nowadays) and did some races in the Renault World series. See this article: http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728. Basically, he had an excellent junior career at a young age and was quickly promoted. Granted, he improved a lot in F1, but the potential was there well before and when doing his first races, I clearly remember that he was already seen as a potential future star driver.

[savidb]

In 2005, a certain (more experienced) L. Hamilton won most pole positions with Vettel being the rookie - in fact he became rookie of the year. In 2006, he was second, but in parallel was also test driver in F1 (more work than nowadays) and did some races in the Renault World series. See this article: http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/55728. Basically, he had an excellent junior career at a young age and was quickly promoted. Granted, he improved a lot in F1, but the potential was there well before and when doing his first races, I clearly remember that he was already seen as a potential future star driver.

 

That really did not answer my question.

[vista]

Some interesting bits about what Hamilton thinks of Vettels win in Singapore and it applies in general (cause he said something similar before, I think):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...mula1/24206375?

 

"I look at his laps on the on-board camera and it doesn't appear as though he is on the limit like some other drivers.

"When you have that much in hand it makes it that much easier to do so. At the end of the day he does the job he needs to do.

"They've also made a step somewhere on the car this weekend, but I still feel like we can fight at some point through the weekends for the rest of the season."

[icecream_man]

On Newey's consecutive successes, his Williams and McLaren cars from 1991 to 1999 (his last title-winning car before moving to Red Bull) either won the title at a canter or came close 2nd due to either controversial circumstances (1994), gremlins in a new technology (1991), or a driver in bad form (Hill in 1995)... every other year is a title, regardless of driver.... Mansell, Prost, Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen all swept their way to championships with visibly better cars than the competition.

 

What sets Newey apart now is that his collected knowledge and massive financial doping (with increased efficiency compared to the other great sugar daddy team Ferrari) from the parent company have made his cars so good that it really is a case of turning up at whatever circuit and being either guaranteed to win or finish on the podium bar 'Acts of God'... The political elements in Red Bull have sought to give their favoured driver the preferential treatment and equipment, meaning that the no. 2 gets the basic package whilst the wunderkind has the car with all the bells and whistles, and better QC from the looks of it. All the engineers and mechanics in the team are superb, but Vettel gets the best ones. Any new parts that will give a time improvement, Vettel gets them first. It may seem incredibly harsh on the 2nd driver but as long as his car is able to score good points in most of the races, they clean up in the championships.

 

Mika Hakkinen was well-rated before Newey came along, but had only 1 win gifted to him by his teammate to show for his fairly long career in F1, having driven some excellent cars along the way (if not quite up to the standard of the Williams, however, Ferrari, McLaren (pre-Newey), Benetton and even Ligier all won races in that period). Suddenly, in 1998 when he steps into the MP4-13, he becomes a driving god, a model of consistency and ferocious speed and finally lives up to the promise of nearly ten years before. When a car is that good, it can transform drivers. Vettel is simply the most recent beneficiary of the genius of Adrian Newey and now the financial muscle of Red Bull GmbH, having a greater and ultimately more expensive pool of R&D talent than probably any other team in history.

 

It's similar to football... put a top manager in charge of an expensively assembled team and it's gonna go places... see the recent successes of Bayern Munich, Barcelona... and the rapid financial-doping assisted rises of Man City, Chelsea and now AS Monaco. 

 

I'd love to see what Newey could do now on a budget... his Leyton House cars were beautifully simple and efficient compared to the bloated spending of his rivals. Equally, I'd love to see what Vettel, a very talented driver if not quite worthy of his achievements IMO, could do in a 'reverse-Hakkinen' situation, where he is taken out of the perfect Newey car and into something a little more compromised.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself. I'd like to see Newey back at Williams, a serious team that are struggling because of budget, it would pull them back towards the front of the grid and make the championship far more closely matched, sadly I doubt that will ever happen and while Newey has such a large budget at his disposal I fear RB will continue to be unreachable. Though having said that I am hoping that with the new regs of next year they will start finding themselves having reliability issues that will peg the gap somewhat....

[Zava]

Why do some Vettel fans use Webber as a benchmark to prove that the Red Bull is not the best car on the grid? The delusional biased is strong with this one.

 

I have yet to see an Alonso fan who uses Massa to argue that Ferrari had a terrible car in the 1st half of 2012, when Alonso lead the WDC by some 40 points.

Nor have I yet to see a single Hamilton fan use Kovalainen's performances in 2008 to prove that Lewis won a WDC with the 4th best car.

 

Webber has been a joke this year, almost as much as he was in 2011. Likewise, the Red Bull we saw today was one of the most dominant cars in recent history (2000's).

I didn't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if it was already addressed.

 

I think you got it half wrong. when I see someone using a benchMark (sorry...), or when I'm using him as one, it is in the context of "yes, red bull is (probably) the fastest car, but not an uber dominant rocket as it is said to be by a bunch of people. look at Webber, if the car would really be 1 sec/lap faster*, Webber would be bringing it home in second for sure". you see the difference, and I hope we can agree, that this is a valid thing to say. OTOH, if someone uses Webber to prove that red bull is not the fastest car, then I agree, not a valid argument.

 

and you weren't paying attention, Massa/Kova were both used as benchmarks, the same applies to them: if they were used to prove mclaren was 3rd/4th (back in the days, I've seen not 1, not 2 comments about mclaren being on par with/slightly slower than BMW ), or that ferrari was 4th/worse, they are wrong. if they were used to prove mclaren/ferrari was not fastest, then I guess they're right (though many disagree on mclaren not being the fastest in 2008, I'd say ferrari was at least a fraction faster)

 

 

*not talking about singapore, but in general, I still don't have any idea how was Vettel pulling 2+ seconds on the field (even if you take into account that Rosberg was told not to give a **** about Vettel and mind his own delta times)

Edited by Zava, 23 September 2013 - 12:40.

[savidb]

 

 

I think you got it half wrong. when I see someone using a benchMark (sorry...), or when I'm using him as one, it is in the context of "yes, red bull is (probably) the fastest car, but not an uber dominant rocket as it is said to be by a bunch of people. look at Webber, if the car would really be 1 sec/lap faster*, Webber would be bringing it home in second for sure". you see the difference, and I hope we can agree, that this is a valid thing to say. OTOH, if someone uses Webber to prove that red bull is not the fastest car, then I agree, not a valid argument.

 

 

 

How can Webber bring it home for second when he constantly losing 5 places the start followed by loss of KERS then gears?

[ensign14]

Bilgiferous drivel. Unless you can demonstrate to me that Coulthard and Fangio both drove for the same team at the same time, your point is meretricious trash. Button & Hamilton drove identical cars in the same seasons, as do Hamilton and Rosberg now.

 

They did not.  They had their own cars.

[stevesxm]

2012 - RB was the fastest car easily. McLaren were as fast in some races, but overall RB was on a different planet. 

2013- Mercedes are close to RB in qualifying, but in racepace, due to their tyre problems, they are not even close to RB. Only some mega laps from their drivers, especially Hamilton have gotten them some poles.

Red Bull only outright fastest in the last 2-3 races?    Jesus. Just no words.

There are maybe 2 races overall this season where RB has not been the car to have.

i think you are just wrong about this...    the mclaren was the faster car virtually all of last year and if they could have done a pit stop without screwing up or making tactical blunders or 1/2 a dozen other things ,  then hamilton would have been the runaway champion.   they threw away at least 4 sure race wins with team screw ups and at the end of the year when they had to make the car better, they couldn't keep up.    red bull simply doesn't do that.  and the red bull last year for most of the season was not the best car at all... but the team was the best team by far and still is.   they simply make no mistakes in a game where one mistake costs you a win and two makes you a back marker.   the red bull cars are very very good all the time and vettel drives them very very well all the time  and the team does a great job all the time.   until the other teams can do the same on all three counts  week in and week out , the results are always going to be what you see right now.    you have only to listen to the mercedes radio transmissions to understand how team confusuion and lack of clear direction costs you dearly even when you have a great car being driven really well.   i think those of you that say the car is winning these races and not vettel are simply wrong.   he does a brilliant job getting everything the car has to offer and bringing it home alive.   there isn't anyone else in the field that's even close.   hamilton faster on the single isolated lap ?  sure.  ill give you that ... but thats it.   in identical cars 10 races , hamilton wins 4 and vettel wins 6.  the same deal with alonso and vettel wins 8 and alonso wins 2  and thats assuming alonso has a team mate to block or crash for him.

[Maustinsj]

i think you are just wrong about this...    the mclaren was the faster car virtually all of last year and if they could have done a pit stop without screwing up or making tactical blunders or 1/2 a dozen other things ,  then hamilton would have been the runaway champion.   they threw away at least 4 sure race wins with team screw ups and at the end of the year when they had to make the car better, they couldn't keep up.    red bull simply doesn't do that.  and the red bull last year for most of the season was not the best car at all... but the team was the best team by far and still is.   they simply make no mistakes in a game where one mistake costs you a win and two makes you a back marker.   the red bull cars are very very good all the time and vettel drives them very very well all the time  and the team does a great job all the time.   until the other teams can do the same on all three counts  week in and week out , the results are always going to be what you see right now.    you have only to listen to the mercedes radio transmissions to understand how team confusuion and lack of clear direction costs you dearly even when you have a great car being driven really well.   i think those of you that say the car is winning these races and not vettel are simply wrong.   he does a brilliant job getting everything the car has to offer and bringing it home alive.   there isn't anyone else in the field that's even close.   hamilton faster on the single isolated lap ?  sure.  ill give you that ... but thats it.   in identical cars 10 races , hamilton wins 4 and vettel wins 6.  the same deal with alonso and vettel wins 8 and alonso wins 2  and thats assuming alonso has a team mate to block or crash for him.

 

Eh? 

[stevesxm]

Eh? 

i can use smaller words and bigger print if that helps you...

[Maustinsj]

i can use smaller words and bigger print if that helps you...

 

Yes please.

[bub]

Eh? 

 

He missed out the IMO.

[Maustinsj]

He missed out the IMO.

 

That was short enough, but I need bigger type 

Edited by Maustinsj, 23 September 2013 - 14:42.

[Bruce]

A certain Gilles Villeneuve wasn't exactly setting the world on fire pre f1

 

 

In 1975, running his own team (Equipe Villeneuve Skiroule) as a 24 year old he won 1 race, finished seond once and was 5th in the championship. 

 

In 1976, he won every race he finished, retiring from 3 (with technical problems) Westwood, Pau (F2) and Daytona. He won 9 races that year and won both the Canadian and US championships. In 1977 he had 3 firsts in Formula Atlantic, winning the Canadian Championship again and raced for 5 different teams, including McLaren and Ferrari. 

 

This doesn't even mention his performances in snowmobiling. 

 

Trust me - if Gilles Villeneuve had NOT been setting the world on fire, there is no way that he, as an unfunded driver from rural Quebec would ever have landed an F1 drive...

[FastnLoud]

Yeah, the McLaren car was a duck last year.

 

It was the best car for how long? Once Newey sorted it out Vettel went on to dominate races again.

[doc83]

like jan magnussen who won everything in lower formula before his f1 failure, or Niki Lauda who had to buy himself into f1. A certain Gilles Villeneuve wasn't exactly setting the world on fire pre f1

 

Vettels pre f1 stats are quite good, certainly if you take into consideration him not finishing the 2007 season and being injured in 2005 or 2006

 

but your absolutes are nonsense, even in lower formula one has to have the material, It is not like everyone in F3 has the same chance of a win. Cars might be equal, the teams most certainly are not.

 

 

Have you seen any Vettel’s races in carting? Or do you rate him solely based on f1?

Also you point to the drivers who we can’t compare to their peers when they were very young. Lauda was a kid in 50/60’s. Did he race in any series when he was 8-17? If yes what are his stats.. I have no idea. Magnussen won what exactly before F1?  You mean F3 when he was 21?

Vettel was very good when young, - yes, but not amazing.

 

As for Newey…if he was so extraordinary before Redbull why none of the established divers went after him to RB ?

[bourbon]

Sorry to pick you up on something again, but the problem is that some Vettel fans use Webber as a benchmark to prove Vettel's driving ability. Which in 2013 is a faulty comparison, to prove Vettel's driving ability you have to point to performances like Germany and his supreme consistency, not dominating the 37 year old over the hill Mark Webber, who was not a elite driver in his prime.

 

There are a wealth of valid reasons for Vettel fans to argue the driving merit of Vettel, the Webber comparison is not one of them in my opinion.

 

Why are you posting that to me?  I agree.  I think teammate comparisons are absolutely invalid and I've never said anything else.  You have never and will never see me post that Seb is doing great as shown by Mark's performance, or that Alonso is doing great based on Massa's performance, or that Lewis was great based on Heikki or Jenson's performance, etc.  That is hogwash as there are too many distinctions.

 

Seb/RBR won on Sunday and it was a brilliant win.  One doesn't need any type of comparison to see that.  Just watch the drive - it was aggressive, exciting and great to watch.   If you were lucky enough to have onboard viewing, then you could see a bit more of it than the RD showed and it was great stuff.  So yeah, Sebastian's fans had lots to celebrate and there was no need to bring any other driver into it. 

[RedRocksF1]

Nobody can get the truth about it. We don´t have the whole data that the team has. But we can try to discover

 

For me there are some points of interest:

 

- I´m not sure Webber has the same car, from what happened in 2010 with the front wing, and the failures are more in Webber´s car.

- When has Vettel got his advantage? Mainly when the car was superior and starting from the pole.

- 2 sec per lap is not the difference in driving skill for sure.

- In the first part of 2012, when the RB was not dominating, I didn´t see a Vettel that marked a huge difference.

 

My conclusion is that the difference is the car much more than the driver. But I´m not sure about the percent

[sennafan24]

Why are you posting that to me?  I agree.  I think teammate comparisons are absolutely invalid and I've never said anything else.  You have never and will never see me post that Seb is doing great as shown by Mark's performance, or that Alonso is doing great based on Massa's performance, or that Lewis was great based on Heikki or Jenson's performance, etc.  That is hogwash as there are too many distinctions.

 

Seb/RBR won on Sunday and it was a brilliant win.  One doesn't need any type of comparison to see that.  Just watch the drive - it was aggressive, exciting and great to watch.   If you were lucky enough to have onboard viewing, then you could see a bit more of it than the RD showed and it was great stuff.  So yeah, Sebastian's fans had lots to celebrate and there was no need to bring any other driver into it. 

Fair enough, I thought you were wondering why people dismiss beating Webber as a achievement. I do use teammate comparisons as a reference point at times to compare relative performance, but there is only so much you can conclude from them.

 

I also agree that sometimes all you have to do is observe, the blanket stats do not tell the full story. To add what you said, whatever your opinion on the drive on Sunday, one thing even the most ardent Vettel critic can dispute is that he drove a disciplined and calculated race, he pushed when he needed to and settled down when he was instructed to. It is a bit like he was completing little missions as he went along. 

 

I gave Alonso credit for controlling the race from the front in Spain earlier this year, so I have to give the same kudos to Vettel in Singapore. He knows how to control his emotions to ensure the best result, whilst the "satisfaction" comment in Monaco shows he is far from a emotional cripple, he is clearly very passionate about what he does. He uses and controls his emotions to his benefit and not to his detriment.

Edited by sennafan24, 23 September 2013 - 15:57.

[discover23]

Did people forget which young drivers always top the charts during the young driver test outings..

[Jerem]

Maybe because some of these "random people" actually seen Vettel pre F1 (followed him and other young drivers) and know that he is nothing extraordinary. Just look on his pre f1 record if you don’t believe that.

Somebody is either born with a great talent or not. Scenario when a sportsman is average till he is 20 and then suddenly booom greatest ever simply never happens. If someone has a great talent it’s visible from very start - since a young kid.  Vettel is not that. 

 

I don't see anyone questioning Alonso's talent on behalf of his pre-F1 performance, although he was only 4th in his F3000 season in 2000, behind Junqueira, Minassian and Webber, with one pole and one win.

I'm not saying Alonso is not good, nor even that he was not good back then. Just that it doesn't make sense to compare pre-F1 performances. Some drivers get better, some are more suited to F1, some are good in inferior categories and not wealthy enough to make it to F1... Looking at stats from inferior categories to rate a driver and refusing to look at stats from F1 because "the car is just that much better than the others" doesn't make sense.

[Zava]

Did people forget which young drivers always top the charts during the young driver test outings..

yup, it seems a lot of people foeget that Vettel was topping charts in fp2s* back in 2006, when he was a freaking 18-19 year "old" kid, driving a sauber BMW.

*not sure if plural, but I'm fairly sure he won fp2 in turkey that year, that was when I learned his name, saying "better watch out for this guy"...

[discover23]

yup, it seems a lot of people foeget that Vettel was topping charts in fp2s* back in 2006, when he was a freaking 18-19 year "old" kid, driving a sauber BMW.

*not sure if plural, but I'm fairly sure he won fp2 in turkey that year, that was when I learned his name, saying "better watch out for this guy"...

I do not. - that BMW in 06 was really fast on practice and pre-season testing... check Kubica's times.

he is a great talent so why wouldn't he top the charts.. A great talent driving the fastest car.. That is what we have.

[Vesuvius]

DC:
"Vettel and Alonso are two alltime-greats and class above others in modern era, they are: equal."

[Vesuvius]

I do not. - that BMW in 06 was really fast on practice and pre-season testing... check Kubica's times.
he is a great talent so why wouldn't he top the charts.. A great talent driving the fastest car.. That is what we have.

Vettel did even more impressive times than Kubica on BMW, both fantastic-proven talents.

[Module]

I do not. - that BMW in 06 was really fast on practice and pre-season testing... check Kubica's times.

he is a great talent so why wouldn't he top the charts.. A great talent driving the fastest car.. That is what we have.

 

So the dominant cars are BMW until Vettel moves to STR and after that RBR? If I get this right every car SV drives is counted as a dominant car? So it is always just the car if Vettel drives it?

 

On the other hand all McLarens and Ferraris of past years have been crap and only Hams and Alonsos driving have saved them...

 

OK, I can see the logic...it's just the car not Vettel

[Timstr11]

Clearly it's both the car and the driver.

But I will only acknowledge Vettel's brilliance when he and his team accepts a proven top driver alongside him (like Hamilton has). 

[Tenmantaylor]

Quite a few times it could be argued.

 

I felt Senna did it in 1990 and 1991. Some others think Prost did it in 1986.

 

I strongly believe Schumacher did it in 1995, and that Lewis did it in 2008.

 

Not picking you out on this or disagreeing with you, but..... 

 

 

Name: Sennafan

Avatar: Lewis

 

You just need an MS quote as your sig and you would achieve post nirvana  ;)

 

On this subject had Alonso won it last year I think it would been one of the greatest achievements in 'not the best car'. Just think had Grosjean not wiped him out he would have done it...

[joshb]

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?

[sennafan24]

Not picking you out on this or disagreeing with you, but..... 

 

 

Name: Sennafan

Avatar: Lewis

 

You just need an MS quote as your sig and you would achieve post nirvana  ;)

 

On this subject had Alonso won it last year I think it would been one of the greatest achievements in 'not the best car'. Just think had Grosjean not wiped him out he would have done it...

You failed to account for me naming Prost, wise ass 

[Afterburner]

Most wins of any active driver, most poles of any active driver, and most championships of any active driver--with the most time left in his career of all the world champions. Hate to break it to you, but, like it or not, earned or not, he's the most successful active driver right now, and that's certainly one of the most fundamental criteria on anyone's list when determining the 'best driver on the grid', no?

 

It's eventually going to get to a point where the numbers are going to make it virtually impossible to put his success down to the car anymore. I'm just enjoying the ride.

[apoka]

Nobody can get the truth about it. We don´t have the whole data that the team has. But we can try to discover

 

For me there are some points of interest:

 

- I´m not sure Webber has the same car, from what happened in 2010 with the front wing, and the failures are more in Webber´s car.

- When has Vettel got his advantage? Mainly when the car was superior and starting from the pole.

- 2 sec per lap is not the difference in driving skill for sure.

- In the first part of 2012, when the RB was not dominating, I didn´t see a Vettel that marked a huge difference.

 

My conclusion is that the difference is the car much more than the driver. But I´m not sure about the percent

 

1. The number of failures for Webber and Vettel are more or less equal. (Sorry, can't find the specific thread for this, but I know it exists.  )

2. Or the other way round: When he is superior and starts from pole, those are seen as the times when he has an advantage.

3. Agree.

4. He was still leading the WDC or close to it until that Valencia DNF in the lead cost him big time. (In essence, he was mostly faster than Webber in his career. Sometimes mechanical failures make it look like Vettel is not that much ahead or that Webber is very far off.) His struggles were in qualy (initially) - the races were fine (Webber was faster in 1-3 races that season depending on whom you ask).

5. I think in F1, it's always more the car than the driver, but that holds for everyone.

 

That doesn't really tell us how he would do against Alonso or Hamilton in the same team, but he is apparently maximizing the driver-car-combo and that's what F1 is mostly about.

[discover23]

So the dominant cars are BMW until Vettel moves to STR and after that RBR? If I get this right every car SV drives is counted as a dominant car? So it is always just the car if Vettel drives it?

 

On the other hand all McLarens and Ferraris of past years have been crap and only Hams and Alonsos driving have saved them...

 

OK, I can see the logic...it's just the car not Vettel

you do not watch F1 at all if you don't think that RedBull is a class of the field..

Edited by discover23, 23 September 2013 - 18:19.

[Gorma]

Most wins of any active driver, most poles of any active driver, and most championships of any active driver--with the most time left in his career of all the world champions. Hate to break it to you, but, like it or not, earned or not, he's the most successful active driver right now, and that's certainly one of the most fundamental criteria on anyone's list when determining the 'best driver on the grid', no?

It's eventually going to get to a point where the numbers are going to make it virtually impossible to put his success down to the car anymore. I'm just enjoying the ride.

Well put!

[squall1981]

you do not watch F1 at all if you don't think that RedBull is a class of the field..

red bull were class of the field in 2011 only

 

2009 it was fast but unreliable like mcclaren last year and brawn/Toyota were the best 2 for half a season, red bull was equal fastest second half with Mcclaren

2010 fast, but unreliable 

2011 dominant but only in vettels hands, McLaren got second in the championship ahead of webber

2012 Mcclaren had the fastest outright car, team blunders, bad pits don't change that, even with the mechanical DNF's Hamilton would of won if not for team errors, doesn't change the fact they had the fastest car though

2013 Ferrari and mercedees started fastest, vettel did a good job picking up pts. mercedees have had the best qualifying car all season and based on the recent stats still do. Red bull have developed well but only the past 3-4 races have been the best.

 

2011 aside it is easy to see Hamilton has had just as good a car as vettel since late 2009