603 replies to this topic

[BobbyRicky]

Anyone that wins a WDC in an utterly dominant car aint no worthy WDC because, as Niki Lauda said thirty years ago: "Take a trained monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car."

Thirty years later Sebastian told us: "I had to start my car like a computer. It's very complicated." And Nico Rosberg said, err, he pressed during the race, I don't remember what race, the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you two both. Is Formula 1 driving today too complicated with 20 and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future, concerning technical program, errrm, during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers.

[Ultraviolet]

Nope

He had the best car for 4 straight years

In 2010 he struggled to beat Webber

In the next 3 seasons Webber was already old and past him prime I think

And when Ric joined and "kicked him out of RB" he never wast the same again.

He had a very competitive (and a bit cheaty) Ferrari in a couple of years, yet he didnt deliver.

 

I think 2012 should have been won by Alonso. Vettel was extremely lucky to not wreck his car @ Interlagos.

 

I've noticed a tendency among Vettel's fans on this thread that Vettel's current form is dismissed as "He's 33, it's not all that surprising if he has lost a bit of his former raw pace", while claiming that beating the 33-37 year old Webber is a stunning demonstration of his outright pace.
 

[PlatenGlass]

While a 4-time world champion should normally expect to be considered among the all-time greats and Vettel isn't, I did think of one thing. In his four championship years, he was arguably better than Hamilton (undoubted all-time great) in two of them.

2011 is unquestionable. But 2013 is also arguable as Hamilton seemed to take a while to get used to the car and was I think generally slower than Rosberg early on in qualifying. And Vettel, rocketship or not, got a lot right that year.

On the flipside, Hamilton having a bad 2011 doesn't mean anyone doing better than him has greatness rub off on them. And regarding 2013, Rosberg turned out to be a good champion himself and Vettel likely would have struggled more in that car anyway.

But just a thought.

[guidofoc]

I think we have more than enough information to decide whether Vettel is as good as the 4 WDC suggest. And the answer is: no, he's not as good as that.

You see the champion in challenging times. He's fast, he's aggressive but he is not a champion. Full stop.

[shure]

 

Sheer speed means only so much. Without wheel-to-wheel skills, race craft, tyre management etc., it's not nearly enough. Just look at Vettel. Yes, back in his prime, he used to have speed - and not much else. He was quicker than Button, granted - but Button was a much more complete package.

 

As for Rosberg - no, Vettel was never quicker than him. Absolutely not, no way. Rosberg was the only guy who could trouble Hamilton over one lap year in, year out. In 78 races as teammates, Hamilton and Rosberg had a qualification H2H 41-37 - it was as close as it could get. Even Schumacher said that Rosberg was ridiculously fast over one lap and that he couldn't match him.

 

So yes, Vettel was quicker over one lap than Button. But quicker than Rosberg? Not a chance - not over one lap, nor in terms of race pace. 

 

Why not a chance?  Don't agree.  Webber beat Rosberg and Vettel beat Webber.  Now I'm not saying that therefore proved that Vettel>Webber>Rosberg but I also don't think that Rosberg suddenly increased his speed significantly after Mark left Williams or that Webber suddenly became pedestrian.  I'm open to the idea that Rosberg was quicker but personally I doubt it.  it's certainly not a slam dunk either way.

 

There was nothing wrong with Vettel's speed and in his heyday he was also called ridiculously fast.  The main issues for him appear to be spatial awareness when fighting others and an operating window that appears to get narrower all the time.  But when he is within that narrow window, such as he had with the EBD cars, I don't think there are many, if at all, who could touch him

[shure]

I think we have more than enough information to decide whether Vettel is as good as the 4 WDC suggest. And the answer is: no, he's not as good as that.

You see the champion in challenging times. He's fast, he's aggressive but he is not a champion. Full stop.

well that's clearly not true because he is a champion.  Full stop. And a four times one at that.

 

Vettel won his titles fair and square.  He didn't cheat, there were no controversies about his wins or his equipment, so why is he suddenly not worthy?  It's fair to rank him on where he stands vs other champions, but it's complete nonsense to say he's not a champion. No matter what happens to him now, he proved he was good enough between 2010-2013.

 

People get hung up on the number of titles but that's not really the measure of a driver.  Vettel has more than Alonso but I think Alonso is better than him.  And Hamilton has a lot more than Alonso and Senna  but I don't think he's any better than them, either.  Getting multiple titles proves that one wasn't a fluke and once you have those then I think you can rightly say you're an elite driver, no matter what happens after.  Vettel's maybe not the best of his generation, but he's still a worthy champion

[shure]

I've noticed a tendency among Vettel's fans on this thread that Vettel's current form is dismissed as "He's 33, it's not all that surprising if he has lost a bit of his former raw pace", while claiming that beating the 33-37 year old Webber is a stunning demonstration of his outright pace.
 

yeah that's not really true I don't think.  You'll always get the odd fanatic who makes excuses but I've seen plenty of Vettel fans on here who are quite openly re-evaluating him.  I think you are letting your very obvious intense animosity for the guy cloud your judgement in anything involving him

[Peugeot905evo1bis]

 

People state 2014 as an example of Vettel not being good enough and tarnish his prior successes, but you need to use context (and I said this at the time), he had just won 4 championships on the bounce, came into a new season where they couldn't even get the engine to run 10 laps, had to hack the car apart, he knew he wasn't winning anything that year, motivation would have been difficult.  

 

I bet it's easier to stay motivated when you've won 4 championships going for 5 than it is winning 4 championships and hoping to scrap for odd podiums the next year, everyone is human and even if you still rate this as a flaw it doesn't detract from his ability to race a car around a circuit under all circumstances the prior 5 seasons.

 

That's another reason why he is not one of the greatest contrary to what his stats suggest. Look at Schumacher, in 96, he just has won 2 championship in a row and the Ferrari is an absulotue garbage. Did he show any sign of demotivation ? No. He was unbelievable this year and manage to win 3 races with this poor car. Look at 2005, he won 5 championship in a row. The new regulation gave Michelin's teams a huge advantage. Did he lose motivation ? Did his overall driving level decrease ? No, he was just the same beast of a racer, tromping Barrichello like before, and pushing the car to the limits on every occasion.

Edited by Peugeot905evo1bis, 02 April 2021 - 08:27.

[Burtros]

Thanks to the many failings of Modern F1 there are three drivers who currently have more world titles than they should reasonably be able to achieve in their careers.

It’s simply a function of the many many regulatory failings that have been made over the years and continue to be made.

Vettel is simply the most stark and obvious example of this phenomenon.

[Dicun]

Why not a chance?  Don't agree.  Webber beat Rosberg and Vettel beat Webber.  Now I'm not saying that therefore proved that Vettel>Webber>Rosberg but I also don't think that Rosberg suddenly increased his speed significantly after Mark left Williams or that Webber suddenly became pedestrian.  I'm open to the idea that Rosberg was quicker but personally I doubt it.  it's certainly not a slam dunk either way.

 

There was nothing wrong with Vettel's speed and in his heyday he was also called ridiculously fast.  The main issues for him appear to be spatial awareness when fighting others and an operating window that appears to get narrower all the time.  But when he is within that narrow window, such as he had with the EBD cars, I don't think there are many, if at all, who could touch him

 

I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. When Webber was Rosberg's teammate, Webber was an established 29-year-old against a 20-year-old rookie Rosberg. Against Vettel, he was at the tail end of his career, whereas Vettel was already much more experienced than Rosberg in 2006 – and a GP-winner as well.

 

Schumacher claimed that over one lap, Rosberg was one of the fastest drivers he ever raced against - and that's coming from the guy who raced against Senna, Prost, Mansell, Hakkinen, a peak Raikkönen, Alonso, Hamilton etc. And then Rosberg delivered against Hamilton over one lap, too, for four years straight. 

 

Vettel was beaten in qualification H2Hs multiple times: in 2014, as a 27-year-old, he was beaten 12-7 by a team rookie Ricciardo. Then he was defeated 11-10 by a 37-year-old Raikkönen back in 2016 - and Raikkönen was never known for his qualifying heroics following his  McLaren years.  Then Vettel was yet again bettered by a team rookie when Leclerc beat him 12-9 in 2019. 

 

There's a clear pattern there, I think. In one corner, you have the driver who held his own against the driver with the most pole positions ever for four years and who was claimed to be one of the fastest guys the driver with the second most pole positions had ever seen. Then in the other corner, you have a driver who team rookies and 37-year-olds beat over one lap. In my book, Rosberg takes this, and it's not even close.

[Dicun]

I've noticed a tendency among Vettel's fans on this thread that Vettel's current form is dismissed as "He's 33, it's not all that surprising if he has lost a bit of his former raw pace", while claiming that beating the 33-37 year old Webber is a stunning demonstration of his outright pace.
 

 

It's all the more confusing when you consider that a 29-year-old Vettel was beaten 11-10 in qualifyings by a 37-year-old Raikkönen back in 2016.

[Risil]

I'd like to report that I had a dream last night that Ferrari had signed up Sebastian Vettel to support their title challenge. Make of that what you will, or don't.

Embarrassingly enough my first response within the dream wasn't to welcome the news as Vettel's new teammate, but to post about it on the forum!

[shure]

 

I don't think it's a fair comparison at all. When Webber was Rosberg's teammate, Webber was an established 29-year-old against a 20-year-old rookie Rosberg. Against Vettel, he was at the tail end of his career, whereas Vettel was already much more experienced than Rosberg in 2006 – and a GP-winner as well.

 

Schumacher claimed that over one lap, Rosberg was one of the fastest drivers he ever raced against - and that's coming from the guy who raced against Senna, Prost, Mansell, Hakkinen, a peak Raikkönen, Alonso, Hamilton etc. And then Rosberg delivered against Hamilton over one lap, too, for four years straight. 

 

Vettel was beaten in qualification H2Hs multiple times: in 2014, as a 27-year-old, he was beaten 12-7 by a team rookie Ricciardo. Then he was defeated 11-10 by a 37-year-old Raikkönen back in 2016 - and Raikkönen was never known for his qualifying heroics following his  McLaren years.  Then Vettel was yet again bettered by a team rookie when Leclerc beat him 12-9 in 2019. 

 

There's a clear pattern there, I think. In one corner, you have the driver who held his own against the driver with the most pole positions ever for four years and who was claimed to be one of the fastest guys the driver with the second most pole positions had ever seen. Then in the other corner, you have a driver who team rookies and 37-year-olds beat over one lap. In my book, Rosberg takes this, and it's not even close.

 

Vettel's been beaten in qualifying because as we've already established he has an incredibly narrow operating window.  You gave the Kimi 2016 example, but when you add the context that Vettel thumped Kimi 15-4 in qualifying in 2015 and 15-5 in 2017 it just emphasises how variable his performance can be even against the same driver (and of course that's against Kimi, another driver known for his variable performances).  I'm not arguing Vettel is consistent, since he's clearly not. But he has speed and it's not fair to single out select years while ignoring others.

 

the patterns you have described can all be answered by his lack of consistency and adaptability.  But he had no such issues in his title years and he comfortably beat Webber all those, the same Webber who beat Rosberg.  It's possible that Rosberg was a particularly slow rookie, but generally speaking drivers become better racers with age, but they don't get quicker in one lap pace.  And let's not forget that Webber up to that point also had a reputation for strong one lap pace.  You are of course entitled to think Rosberg is quicker but the facts don't support the idea that that's a certainty by any means

[Nemo1965]

People change. Their surroundings change, their bodies change, the minds change. Vettel was just as good as he seemed - back then. Sometimes driver get better as they age (Jody Scheckter, for example), some wiser, some sadder, some less.

 

Think of Leyton Hewitt. Was he just lucky that Federer came around a few years later? And David Nalbandian? Also unlucky to be part of the Federer-era? And people themselves.

 

Vettel is a four-time world champion, who won a race in a Toro Rosso... in the rain...after getting pole-position, so not because cars crashed or failed in front of him. To say that he was just lucky or a one-hit wonder... is a bit... short sighted. If anyone would think so, anyway.

[FTB]

Vettel's been beaten in qualifying because as we've already established he has an incredibly narrow operating window.  You gave the Kimi 2016 example, but when you add the context that Vettel thumped Kimi 15-4 in qualifying in 2015 and 15-5 in 2017 it just emphasises how variable his performance can be even against the same driver (and of course that's against Kimi, another driver known for his variable performances).  I'm not arguing Vettel is consistent, since he's clearly not. But he has speed and it's not fair to single out select years while ignoring others.

 

the patterns you have described can all be answered by his lack of consistency and adaptability.  But he had no such issues in his title years and he comfortably beat Webber all those, the same Webber who beat Rosberg.  It's possible that Rosberg was a particularly slow rookie, but generally speaking drivers become better racers with age, but they don't get quicker in one lap pace.  And let's not forget that Webber up to that point also had a reputation for strong one lap pace.  You are of course entitled to think Rosberg is quicker but the facts don't support the idea that that's a certainty by any means

In my opinion Vettel's one lap performance was very inconsistent in 2012. He beat Webber 11-9 in H2H and the median quali gap wasn't big from what I remember.

[shure]

In my opinion Vettel's one lap performance was very inconsistent in 2012. He beat Webber 11-9 in H2H and the median quali gap wasn't big from what I remember.

to be fair everybody's performances were variable in 2012.  Nobody understood the tyres properly in the first half of the season and the results were all over the place.

 

I'm not defending his performances.  Overall he's just too variable and inconsistent for a team to have that much faith in him and at the moment you'd have to say he's not justifying his salary.  But I think it's unfair to make out that he doesn't have pace.  It's tapping into it that's an issue.

[FTB]

to be fair everybody's performances were variable in 2012.  Nobody understood the tyres properly in the first half of the season and the results were all over the place.

 

I'm not defending his performances.  Overall he's just too variable and inconsistent for a team to have that much faith in him and at the moment you'd have to say he's not justifying his salary.  But I think it's unfair to make out that he doesn't have pace.  It's tapping into it that's an issue.

That was a weird season. In 2011 or 2013 he thoroughly dominated Webber over one lap but it was very close in 2012. 2012 was probably my favourite season ever, with so many teams having pace at different weekends and an amazing WDC fight, even if the result didn't make me happy.

Edited by FTB, 02 April 2021 - 09:23.

[shure]

That was a weird season. In 2011 or 2013 he thoroughly dominated Webber over one lap but it was very close in 2012. 2012 was probably my favourite season ever, with so many teams having pace at different weekends and an amazing WDC fight, even if the result didn't make me happy.

I can certainly understand that viewpoint!  Personally 2012 was one of the worst seasons for me as it's the most stark reminder of the Pirelli cheese tyre philosophy that has blighted the sport.  I do get how it can make it exciting for some but I miss the days of performance tyres 

[YoungGun]

I'd like to report that I had a dream last night that Ferrari had signed up Sebastian Vettel to support their title challenge. Make of that what you will, or don't.

Embarrassingly enough my first response in the dream wasn't to welcome the news as Vettel's new teammate, but to post about it on the forum!

 

 

That's what forums are for. To share dreams, don't feel embarrassed. 

[Dicun]

People change. Their surroundings change, their bodies change, the minds change. Vettel was just as good as he seemed - back then. Sometimes driver get better as they age (Jody Scheckter, for example), some wiser, some sadder, some less.

 

Think of Leyton Hewitt. Was he just lucky that Federer came around a few years later? And David Nalbandian? Also unlucky to be part of the Federer-era? And people themselves.

 

Vettel is a four-time world champion, who won a race in a Toro Rosso... in the rain...after getting pole-position, so not because cars crashed or failed in front of him. To say that he was just lucky or a one-hit wonder... is a bit... short sighted. If anyone would think so, anyway.

 

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

 

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

[YoungGun]

 

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

 

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

 

 

When a "B" team driver wins a race it's news. When they fail to live up to performance RB discards them and folk cry the driver was unfairly treated. Glad to provide examples if required?

Edited by YoungGun, 02 April 2021 - 09:40.

[PlayboyRacer]

Think of Leyton Hewitt. Was he just lucky that Federer came around a few years later? And David Nalbandian? Also unlucky to be part of the Federer-era?

I always felt the unluckiest during the Federer era was Andy Roddick. The amount of times Roger knocked him out of a Grand Slam, be it semi final or final... was ludicrous!

[Dicun]

I always felt the unluckiest during the Federer era was Andy Roddick. The amount of times Roger knocked him out of a Grand Slam, be it semi final or final... was ludicrous!

 

To be fair, the 2009 Wimbledon final was on Andy's racquet. That botched volley on the fourth set point that would have given him a 2-0 lead over Federer will undoubtedly haunt him until his dying days.

 

https://youtu.be/rctOtFOXco8?t=372

[PlayboyRacer]

To be fair, the 2009 Wimbledon final was on Andy's racquet. That botched volley on the fourth set point that would have given him a 2-0 lead over Federer will undoubtedly haunt him until his dying days.

https://youtu.be/rctOtFOXco8?t=372

No you're absolutely right. Wasn't that an unbelievable final! I remember watching it like it was yesterday.

[KinkyMasta]

It's not all black & white..

 

We try to treat drivers like in FIFA or PES when they are human beings...

 

In the 2010-2013 years he got a dominant car and less pressure than Hamilton or Alonso. He drove off on the distance while the others played catch-up.

 

It's very stressful to deliver, when you know no matter what, you'll be 0.5-0.8 tenths per lap behind.. Your only hope is to apply as much pressure as you can and hope for the car in front to break or make a mistake, whilst any error for your part would be game over. That's what great drivers do.

 

They also adapt to any set of rules, no matter what. Or to put it a bit more bluntly:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=khA67-r5lSQ

[Spillage]

I don't really get the idea that you're only a great driver if you win a load of races from below third on the grid. Firstly 'below third' seems to be a bit of an arbitrary measure - why not 'below 2nd' or 'below 4th'? Vettel has won 6 races from third on the grid, 11.3% of his total. Hamitlon has won 12 races from off the front row, 12.5% of his total. So if you take 'third or lower' rather than ;fourth or lower' as your arbitrary starting point then their stats look pretty similar. But you can draw that line anywhere you like to make any point you like. I could claim that John Watson was the greatest ever because nobody else has ever won from below 20th on the grid, for example.

 

I think reliability must play a role in this as well. I haven't crunched the numbers but there aren't too many retirements nowadays. At least a few of the older guy's wins must have been inherited hit troube in front of them, something that rarely happens nowadays (though I can think of at least a couple of Alonso's  'below-third' wins inherited in this fashion, not including Singapore 2008...)

 

Besides, there is more than one way to be agreat driver. Some drivers, like Alonso and Button, have great racecraft and are brilliant at working their way through the field. Some drivers are just really good at maximising the car's potential on Saturday and so don't need to. That's what Vettel was able to do at Red Bull. Qualifying well and dominating from the front is just as legitimate as battling back through the field. It doesn't mean Alonso or Button are better than Vettel was, just that their skillsets are different.

 

The ultimate example of this is Fangio. Who would deny that he was a great driver? Yet he never won a World Championship race from below third on the grid either. He was just very good at qualifying and very good at converting a strong grid position into a victory. That alone can make you a great driver.

 

So yeah, I don't think this measure really proves a lot. The starting position is too arbitrary, it doesn't factor in luck and in any case consistently qualifying well is a positive attribute. Vettel is clearly not the driver he used to be; I think he looks burned out, a bit like Damon Hill and Mika Hakkinen did towards the very end of their careers. But this is a guy who dominated the Italian Grand Prix in a Toro Rosso. That's no less of an achievement just because he stuck it on pole on Saturday as well.

[NixxxoN]

Webber was only in his early 30s during that time. If you excuse Webber for "old age and past his prime", then you should also excuse Vettel for the last 4 years the same age as Webber.

 

I'm absolutely not saying you should excuse either of them. 

If not that, then its probably got something to do with the car being designed to suit Vettel's style, and that is key, Vettel is one of these drivers who needs a perfect car for him to deliver.

 

Fact is, 2009 and 2010 Vettel-Webber were much closer than in 2011 to 2013. My bet is that from 2011 onwards the car was made to suit Vettel style, 2009 and 2010 probably not.

 

In 2014 Vettel got no longer a perfectly fitting car for his likings, and he instantly fell into mediocrity, got smashed by Ricciardo

Edited by NixxxoN, 02 April 2021 - 12:55.

[ARTGP]

I had a interesting thought:

 

Let's say we have a discussion along the premise of "Was the EBD RB10-RB13/Newey" ever as good as it's 4 WCC titles suggest?    In this conversation you would find that the Red Bulls never had great straight line speed or the best engine. But the car overdelivered in other areas (cornering) and won the title that way.  You never here anybody question the EBD Red Bull's superiority, despite the fact that Newey's designs have clear weaknesses. In fact more and more people suggest the RB10-RB13 must have been the most dominant car we've ever seen for someone like Vettel to have won with it.

 

Now let's play this game with Vettel.  He never had *insert quality he never had here*, but overdelivered extremely well in other areas and won 4 titles.  Is that not a perfectly valid assessment of "greatness" during that time period in the same way that we rate the car he drove?

 

In this framework of thinking, why does Vettel get knocked, but not the cars he was driving? The EBD Red Bull had a clear straightline speed weakness which was influenced both by the levels of downforce and the Renault engine which wasn't the most powerful (but had good drivability). But obviously the Red Bull had strengths in other areas that allowed the cars to win so many WCC.

 

Now talking about cars again. Should we be asking if the Red Bull was as good as it's 4 WCC suggest? After all, many of the Mercs of the hybrid era had both cornering and straight-line speed superiority, which is something Red Bull's cars never had (both).

Edited by ARTGP, 02 April 2021 - 10:39.

[derstatic]

Brilliant match of Tennis that. And that 2nd set tiebreak was a proper choke from Roddick. However... 

 

On the topic of Vettel it's curious imo. You don't win 4 titles by chance, and Webber was no mug so those are deserved even if they were earned in a dominant car. I think there are a few factors at play here that influence our opinions of Vettel. Some within his control, some not.

 

First, he peaked so early. A four time champion at 26 or 27 there is alot of time after that success and from being a champion there is only one way, and it's down. Losing 3-0 in victories to Ricciardo, a newcomer in Vettel's team was the first sign probably. That's poor as a defending 4 time champion. Ricciardo is an excellent driver obviously, but a 4 time champ should be able to handle him in his own team.

 

Second, the mistakes. We have all seen them, much too frequently and they seem to continue. I can't think of any other driver with Vettel's merits who is hitting so many solid objects and having so many spins in battle for position. 

 

Third, to get a car places it doesn't belong. The Red Bulls of 2010-2013 should usually be on pole, and very frequently he got them there, that's fine. What we very rarely have seen is getting results like Alonso in 2012 or Leclerc in 2019-2020 putting lesser cars in positions they do not deserve. That 3 points separated Vettel and Alonso in 2012 says way more about Alonso. 

 

For me this sums that Vettel was a great driver, but for my top ten list of the greatest drivers, I'm not taking him into consideration. 

[ARTGP]

Brilliant match of Tennis that. And that 2nd set tiebreak was a proper choke from Roddick. However... 

 

On the topic of Vettel it's curious imo. You don't win 4 titles by chance, and Webber was no mug so those are deserved even if they were earned in a dominant car. I think there are a few factors at play here that influence our opinions of Vettel. Some within his control, some not.

 

First, he peaked so early. A four time champion at 26 or 27 there is alot of time after that success and from being a champion there is only one way, and it's down. Losing 3-0 in victories to Ricciardo, a newcomer in Vettel's team was the first sign probably. That's poor as a defending 4 time champion. Ricciardo is an excellent driver obviously, but a 4 time champ should be able to handle him in his own team.

 

Second, the mistakes. We have all seen them, much too frequently and they seem to continue. I can't think of any other driver with Vettel's merits who is hitting so many solid objects and having so many spins in battle for position. 

 

Third, to get a car places it doesn't belong. The Red Bulls of 2010-2013 should usually be on pole, and very frequently he got them there, that's fine. What we very rarely have seen is getting results like Alonso in 2012 or Leclerc in 2019-2020 putting lesser cars in positions they do not deserve. That 3 points separated Vettel and Alonso in 2012 says way more about Alonso. 

 

For me this sums that Vettel was a great driver, but for my top ten list of the greatest drivers, I'm not taking him into consideration. 

 

He seemed to do this in 2015 where Mercedes power advantage was outrageous.

Edited by ARTGP, 02 April 2021 - 10:41.

[cpbell]

Admittedly, this is quite off topic, but given the last few post I think it's very relevant - I think Nico Rosberg is the most underrated driver of all time.

One of them, certainly, but there have been others.

[Dicun]

I don't really get the idea that you're only a great driver if you win a load of races from below third on the grid. Firstly 'below third' seems to be a bit of an arbitrary measure - why not 'below 2nd' or 'below 4th'? Vettel has won 6 races from third on the grid, 11.3% of his total. Hamitlon has won 12 races from off the front row, 12.5% of his total. So if you take 'third or lower' rather than ;fourth or lower' as your arbitrary starting point then their stats look pretty similar. But you can draw that line anywhere you like to make any point you like. I could claim that John Watson was the greatest ever because nobody else has ever won from below 20th on the grid, for example.

 

I think reliability must play a role in this as well. I haven't crunched the numbers but there aren't too many retirements nowadays. At least a few of the older guy's wins must have been inherited hit troube in front of them, something that rarely happens nowadays (though I can think of at least a couple of Alonso's  'below-third' wins inherited in this fashion, not including Singapore 2008...)

 

Besides, there is more than one way to be agreat driver. Some drivers, like Alonso and Button, have great racecraft and are brilliant at working their way through the field. Some drivers are just really good at maximising the car's potential on Saturday and so don't need to. That's what Vettel was able to do at Red Bull. Qualifying well and dominating from the front is just as legitimate as battling back through the field. It doesn't mean Alonso or Button are better than Vettel was, just that their skillsets are different.

 

The ultimate example of this is Fangio. Who would deny that he was a great driver? Yet he never won a World Championship race from below third on the grid either. He was just very good at qualifying and very good at converting a strong grid position into a victory. That alone can make you a great driver.

 

So yeah, I don't think this measure really proves a lot. The starting position is too arbitrary, it doesn't factor in luck and in any case consistently qualifying well is a positive attribute. Vettel is clearly not the driver he used to be; I think he looks burned out, a bit like Damon Hill and Mika Hakkinen did towards the very end of their careers. But this is a guy who dominated the Italian Grand Prix in a Toro Rosso. That's no less of an achievement just because he stuck it on pole on Saturday as well.

 

That wasn't the only point raised, though it certainly is a huge indicator if a driver can fight his way from starting from a lower grid position. Sailing off into the distance and controlling the race from there is arguably much easier than to be running while surrounded by other cars. But the point is: nobody was talking about why Vettel hasn't won a load of races like that. The issue was why Vettel still hasn't won even a single race like that after over 13 years in the sport, and 258 race starts. The driver with the 3rd most GP wins, who is also the 8th most experienced driver in terms of GP starts - and still not a single victory like that from him. Why?

 

Besides, Vettel's shortcomings also include problems with spatial awareness, weakness in wheel-to-wheel battles, lack of race craft, and a tendency to make mistakes when under pressure. I could name numerous examples for each and every issue I listed here. 

 

All these factors make a strong case for Vettel never being as remotely as good as his statistics suggest.

[Anuity]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited by Anuity, 02 April 2021 - 10:50.

[Ultraviolet]

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

 

 

I suspect part of the reason for this is that it was only the third year since Toro Rosso had taken over from Minardi. Wrong though it may be, many of us still thought of the car in similar terms to Minardi. So winning in it seemed utterly extraordinary.

 

[Ultraviolet]

I don't really get the idea that you're only a great driver if you win a load of races from below third on the grid.

No one has said you are.

 

That statistic provides a good starting point to consider whether a driver has, over their career, demonstrated the all round skills that would indicate greatness. These past 8 pages are all about whether looking behind the figures does or does not provide the evidence to back up the hypothesis the statistics suggest.

[PayasYouRace]

Anyone that wins a WDC in an utterly dominant car aint no worthy WDC because, as Niki Lauda said thirty years ago: "Take a trained monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car."

 

 

Niki wasn't talking about dominant cars when he said that. He was talking about modern cars, or at least what was modern when he said it. He said that in 2002, not quite thirty years ago. He then proceeded to spin during his test with Jaguar, demonstrating that he was not at trained monkey level.

[NixxxoN]

Niki always liked to make over the top / exaggerated claims

[Izzyeviel]

Vettels win at Monza in '08 is one of the all-time greatest performances in F1 history. I'm staggered that people think its overrated. 

[ARTGP]

No one has said you are.

 

That statistic provides a good starting point to consider whether a driver has, over their career, demonstrated the all round skills that would indicate greatness. These past 8 pages are all about whether looking behind the figures does or does not provide the evidence to back up the hypothesis the statistics suggest.

 

Without going completely off the deep end, I think it's Vettel's driving alone, not the statistic itself, that demonstrates his limited skills.

 

There are too many variables that determine why drivers have wins from behind. Many of the drivers in the list never had DRS or electric boost. So that immediately narrows down the relevant comparison to just Hamilton and Alonso. And that's ultimately a very small dataset. It just so happens that we already rate ALO/HAM above vet, but again the statistic itself seems a bit superficial, and as proposed by others, extremely arbitrary. After all, to start outside the top 3 already implies you have to beat Hamilton, Alonso, Verstappen, Button and Ricciardo among other things. I just don't think that statistic has much value. Just seems like wild confirmation bias to me.

Edited by ARTGP, 02 April 2021 - 11:14.

[NixxxoN]

He seemed to do this in 2015 where Mercedes power advantage was outrageous.

2015 Ferrari was a good car, 2nd best by some distance. Although, 2 out of his 3 wins that year, were because merc had problems

[PlayboyRacer]

2015 Ferrari was a good car, 2nd best by some distance. Although, 2 out of his 3 wins that year, were because merc had problems

Yeah agree. That year Ferrari and Vettel were in no man's land.

[jjcale]

People need to get off the stats and go back and watch the old seasons .... just by chance I rewatched 2008 over the winter and paid attention to drivers other than LH this time .... and the most impressive guys on the grid (other than LH and Massa) were Kubica and SV ... and IMHO SV was more impressive. He was a beast! 

 

As for the number of titles, when he had the best car he won the title. When he had a car to fight as in 2009, 2017 and 2018 he fought for the title.... what more can you reasonably ask for at the top end of the grid? 

 

True - he makes a lot of errors; and he has declined a bit over the last few years, but that is just age ... if the question is was he ever as good as the 4 titles suggest - then, yes - absolutely. 

Edited by jjcale, 02 April 2021 - 11:24.

[NixxxoN]

Vettels win at Monza in '08 is one of the all-time greatest performances in F1 history. I'm staggered that people think its overrated. 

How so?
The car was simply very good in those specific wet conditions and in that specific track... Bourdais was around up there too, he qualified 4th (but he stalled the car at the start and ruined his race). Vettel did very well but it also was a one-off great performance by the car. Otherwise he would have done similar things in other races, but he was nowhere near close.

Also Monza is one of the "easiest" tracks to drive on the calendar, if that had been done in Monaco, for example, it would be a far greater achievement.

Edited by NixxxoN, 02 April 2021 - 11:32.

[1Devil1]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[1Devil1]

People need to get off the stats and go back and watch the old seasons .... just by chance I rewatched 2008 over the winter and paid attention to drivers other than LH this time .... and the most impressive guys on the grid (other than LH and Massa) were Kubica and SV ... and IMHO SV was more impressive. He was a beast! 

 

As for the number of titles, when he had the best car he won the title. When he had a car to fight as in 2009, 2017 and 2018 he fought for the title.... what more can you reasonably ask for at the top end of the grid? 

 

True - he makes a lot of errors; and he has declined a bit over the last few years, but that is just age ... if the question is was he ever as good as the 4 titles suggest - then, yes - absolutely. 

 

People seem to forget that, Vettel was praised before he got in the Red Bull similar to Leclerc. He had the spark to become a world champion people recognise 

[PlayboyRacer]

I find Vettels 2008 maiden triumph at Monza shares some similarity with Damon Hill's Hungary 1997 performance. Both are great performances in cars that were middle of the road - the Arrows far worse at times - but on those particular weekends their cars were quite competitive.

Vettel qualified on pole at Monza. Hill qualified 3rd at Hungary, right with Villeneuve and pole sitter Schumacher. Clearly their weapons for those respective weekends were plenty lethal. And they used them to brilliant effect.

[NixxxoN]

Yes, sometimes not very competitive cars can become the best car on the grid in one specific race or two.

Remember Alonso's maiden win in Hungary 2003. Won comfortably and he even lapped Michael Schumacher.

However in most other races Alonso was not even in the podium fight and MS ended up becoming champion.

[Gyan]

That's another reason why he is not one of the greatest contrary to what his stats suggest. Look at Schumacher, in 96, he just has won 2 championship in a row and the Ferrari is an absulotue garbage. Did he show any sign of demotivation ? No. He was unbelievable this year and manage to win 3 races with this poor car. Look at 2005, he won 5 championship in a row. The new regulation gave Michelin's teams a huge advantage. Did he lose motivation ? Did his overall driving level decrease ? No, he was just the same beast of a racer, tromping Barrichello like before, and pushing the car to the limits on every occasion.

Don't know how I missed Gambelli's post but I couldn't agree with you more. And your argument applies not only to Schumacher but plenty of other champions, including Hamilton and Alonso. Hamilton spent 6 years without a title challenge but that didn't end his motivation. Alonso's fortunes were even worse as he drove even worse cars than Hamilton for most seasons after 07 but that didn't make Alonso lose motivation. Quite the contrary, it made him even more determined and so much that he dragged an at best 3rd fastest car to a championship challenge in 2012. He still didn't lose any motivation in his final seasons either. Vettel is immensely fragile and simply does not have the mentality of a champion if he loses motivation literally the first moment he doesn't have a world-beating car and its a shame that a driver with that mentality ended up winning multiple championships.

Edited by Gyan, 02 April 2021 - 13:25.

[greenman]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[greenman]

 

Also Monza is one of the "easiest" tracks to drive on the calendar, if that had been done in Monaco, for example, it would be a far greater achievement.

You mean like in 2008, where Vettel started 19th and ended up 5th?