Belgium Grand Prix 2013, Spa-Francorchamps - Race 11/19
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
I expect when drivers know they are beaten fair and square they will be quite happy with their result. Lewis knows Vettel was faster so was pleased with 3rd and happy to joke with Vettel.
Alonso on the other hand is staring at the 2 young punks that have stood in his way for the last 7 years, with fixed wide eyes, burning a hole in their heads, wishing ill on them, vains in his head popping out, eye twitching, clenching his fists in restrain.
Ok, maybe not that bad
. But as tummelv said, I can't imagine Alonso enjoys sharing the podium with Vettel over and over again.
Alonso on the other hand is staring at the 2 young punks that have stood in his way for the last 7 years, with fixed wide eyes, burning a hole in their heads, wishing ill on them, vains in his head popping out, eye twitching, clenching his fists in restrain.
Ok, maybe not that bad
. But as tummelv said, I can't imagine Alonso enjoys sharing the podium with Vettel over and over again.
To be fair, it is upto Alonso to manoeuvre his way into a faster car (ie. RBR).
He has to force the issue.
He has been with them for 3.5 yrs (I think) and they constantly give him a car which is approximately 0.3s/lap slower, in the race.
In the 90s top drivers would jump from team to team. In general best drivers ended up in the best team.
If Alonso wants a better team, he should try what Senna did and offer to drive for the best team, for free. That usually has a habit of getting the attention of the entire grid. Ferrari won't like it, but it will definitely give them a kick up the backside to understand that if they don't make a faster car, the Worlds best driver will leave them.
Alonso also has to consider that soon, he will no longer be the best, which means that if he wants to win a title, he will have to have a better car than Vettel. He isn't getting any younger and it would be tragic if he finished up without winning a single title for a decade.
He has to force the issue.
He has been with them for 3.5 yrs (I think) and they constantly give him a car which is approximately 0.3s/lap slower, in the race.
In the 90s top drivers would jump from team to team. In general best drivers ended up in the best team.
If Alonso wants a better team, he should try what Senna did and offer to drive for the best team, for free. That usually has a habit of getting the attention of the entire grid. Ferrari won't like it, but it will definitely give them a kick up the backside to understand that if they don't make a faster car, the Worlds best driver will leave them.
Alonso also has to consider that soon, he will no longer be the best, which means that if he wants to win a title, he will have to have a better car than Vettel. He isn't getting any younger and it would be tragic if he finished up without winning a single title for a decade.
I think that Hamilton may have an inkling that next year, could be his year...he may already have written off this year - so no big deal if he doesn't win.
Alonso on the other hand, wants to win this year.
IMO, this time has passed. Quite a few years ago actually.
I don't know. Give him a few more good results, and maybe a DNF for Vettel, and Hamilton could find himself suddenly in the title race.
But I agree with your view about him looking to next year. Anything that happens this year is a bonus, he won't tear himself up if he doesn't win this year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
If we say that Hakkinen was roughly the equal of Schumacher and that Senna was better than Prost, and that best driver+best team=WDC then you could make an argument that the only years that happened was in 1990, 1998 and perhaps 1991.
Like which drivers?
Only last year you were grudgingly singing Alonso's praises and drives as the best, now it's some years ago.
I really don't think the best driver in f1 tag is in doubt anymore than the best car has been for the last 4 years.
Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Prost.
They all did it.
They all wanted to be in the best machinery.
Senna less so as he was already in the best team (McLaren) for much of his career...but not due to loyalty. The moment Williams had the fastest car in 1992, he declared his wish to move to them, that year, even offering to drive for free. The problem was that Prost was due to arrive at Williams in 1993 and his contract stated that he would not drive with Senna. Hence, Senna had to stick it out with Mclaren in 1993, knowing that he would be arriving at Williams in 1994.
In general, if a team had the best car, they had the choice of the best drivers. Williams had the best car in the early 90s and they had Mansell (1992), Prost (1993), Senna (1994), who were widely regarded as the 3 best drivers in F1 at the time. No coincidence.
Now, this all changed in the late 90s, when MSc did something that no driver in recent years had done. He went from a multiple title winning team Bennetton, to Ferrari, who had not won a title for some 18 years (I think it was). MSc, at the time, regarded as by far the best driver in F1, having won the last 2 titles, was considered mental for making this move.
Why would the best driver in F1, at the peak of his powers, move from the team which had just won 2 titles on the trot (the last title in 1995, by a HUGE margin)? Only he can truly answer that. Up to that point, it was normally the case that a top driver would move to the team which had the fastest car and were currently winning races, not move in the opposite direction, which is what MSc was doing.
MSc showed great loyalty and finished his first career with Ferrari.
These days of course, it would frowned upon if a driver jumped ship the moment a team went from having the best car, to having the 2nd best car. And what Senna did, in publicly declaring that he wanted to move to Williams - would be almost sackable.
At the time it was reported that Senna was rewarded by McLaren for that antic by being given a £1M/race deal making him the most expensive driver in F1, because R.Dennis was desperate to keep him at any cost...and rightfully so. This was in the days when R.Dennis wanted the best driver in his team. Not like in 2007, when he actually got rid of the best driver. In comparison, Prost who won the title, was getting paid around £10M in 1993.
In 1994, when Senna did arrive at Williams, the pressure on him to win was immense. Best driver. Best team/car. Yet, MSc was the one who was winning. Some Senna supporters say that it was MSc who caused Senna to push too hard in Brazil (when Senna spun out, while being chased by MSc) and once again that Senna pushed too hard in San Marino (while being chased by MSc), which ultimately led to his death.
Anyway, I'm rambling...as you were gents.
They all did it.
They all wanted to be in the best machinery.
Senna less so as he was already in the best team (McLaren) for much of his career...but not due to loyalty. The moment Williams had the fastest car in 1992, he declared his wish to move to them, that year, even offering to drive for free. The problem was that Prost was due to arrive at Williams in 1993 and his contract stated that he would not drive with Senna. Hence, Senna had to stick it out with Mclaren in 1993, knowing that he would be arriving at Williams in 1994.
In general, if a team had the best car, they had the choice of the best drivers. Williams had the best car in the early 90s and they had Mansell (1992), Prost (1993), Senna (1994), who were widely regarded as the 3 best drivers in F1 at the time. No coincidence.
Now, this all changed in the late 90s, when MSc did something that no driver in recent years had done. He went from a multiple title winning team Bennetton, to Ferrari, who had not won a title for some 18 years (I think it was). MSc, at the time, regarded as by far the best driver in F1, having won the last 2 titles, was considered mental for making this move.
Why would the best driver in F1, at the peak of his powers, move from the team which had just won 2 titles on the trot (the last title in 1995, by a HUGE margin)? Only he can truly answer that. Up to that point, it was normally the case that a top driver would move to the team which had the fastest car and were currently winning races, not move in the opposite direction, which is what MSc was doing.
MSc showed great loyalty and finished his first career with Ferrari.
These days of course, it would frowned upon if a driver jumped ship the moment a team went from having the best car, to having the 2nd best car. And what Senna did, in publicly declaring that he wanted to move to Williams - would be almost sackable.
At the time it was reported that Senna was rewarded by McLaren for that antic by being given a £1M/race deal making him the most expensive driver in F1, because R.Dennis was desperate to keep him at any cost...and rightfully so. This was in the days when R.Dennis wanted the best driver in his team. Not like in 2007, when he actually got rid of the best driver. In comparison, Prost who won the title, was getting paid around £10M in 1993.
In 1994, when Senna did arrive at Williams, the pressure on him to win was immense. Best driver. Best team/car. Yet, MSc was the one who was winning. Some Senna supporters say that it was MSc who caused Senna to push too hard in Brazil (when Senna spun out, while being chased by MSc) and once again that Senna pushed too hard in San Marino (while being chased by MSc), which ultimately led to his death.
Anyway, I'm rambling...as you were gents.
That's not quite the whole story. Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne followed him a year later. Co-incidence? I think not. Ferrari are the best funded team on the grid bar none, ignoring the mystique and mythology crap that goes along with them. 5 straight world titles (and a lot of people stopping watching the sport) was the result.
As for the Williams revolving door of World Champions - Sir Frank didn't like having to pay them like World Champions the year after.
Only last year you were grudgingly singing Alonso's praises and drives as the best, now it's some years ago.
And I quickly retracted my comments once he started to be consistently beaten by Massa in the second half of the season.
6 months of being good in the 7 years since he was last Champion does not earn him the 'best driver on the grid' tag people seem so keen to throw at him, IMO.
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I remember Massa being faster in 3 races last year. It was enough to shift my opinion from Alonso having a superhuman season to him being more on par with Hamilton's.
Anyway, I do think that Alonso is the best out there atm. But on the question of whether there's doubt, imo there is reasonable doubt. I mean, Hamilton matched him blow for blow in his debut season. I find it hard to believe that someone's debut season in F1 would be the best they can produce. Maybe he's not as consistent as Alonso, or maybe he's not as good at car setup or team motivation or whatever other unquantifiables, but there's definitely room for doubt there.
As for Vettel, the thing about Vettel is we honestly don't know how good he is. We have no clue. We know he's better than Webber, we know he's better than whoever his team mate at toro rosso was. But beyond that we're in the dark. I like Webber a lot, but personally I think there's 6 or 7 guys on the grid that could comfortably beat him in the same team. There's three right now beating him in worse cars. So I think it's unlikely that he's as good as Alonso but there is room for a smidgeon of doubt there. I'd really love to find out.
Anyway, I do think that Alonso is the best out there atm. But on the question of whether there's doubt, imo there is reasonable doubt. I mean, Hamilton matched him blow for blow in his debut season. I find it hard to believe that someone's debut season in F1 would be the best they can produce. Maybe he's not as consistent as Alonso, or maybe he's not as good at car setup or team motivation or whatever other unquantifiables, but there's definitely room for doubt there.
As for Vettel, the thing about Vettel is we honestly don't know how good he is. We have no clue. We know he's better than Webber, we know he's better than whoever his team mate at toro rosso was. But beyond that we're in the dark. I like Webber a lot, but personally I think there's 6 or 7 guys on the grid that could comfortably beat him in the same team. There's three right now beating him in worse cars. So I think it's unlikely that he's as good as Alonso but there is room for a smidgeon of doubt there. I'd really love to find out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
Skeeter is wrong about F1, water is wet.
Alonso doesn't have a great car this year, but he's performing well above it. He is absolutely the best driver on the grid, followed by Hamilton, Raikkonen and Rosberg.
It's all very subjective but from my point of view:
For Vettel to prove that it's not all down to the car he needs to go for a season where the top three or four teams are fairly even on pace in both qualifying and in the race.
We then need to see him consistently win by a margin of two or three seconds instead of 20 or 30…
For Vettel to prove that it's not all down to the car he needs to go for a season where the top three or four teams are fairly even on pace in both qualifying and in the race.
We then need to see him consistently win by a margin of two or three seconds instead of 20 or 30…
Isn't it a widely held opinion that McLaren has the best car last year? And it was being driven by 2 WDC's.
Yet.... Vettel still won?
How is it that Vettel needs to win by a tiny margin to prove hes good, where winning by a big margin doesn't?. How utterly bizarre is it that massively out performing your rivals means people think you are rubbish. Do people think Sebastian Loeb is rubbish because he destroyed all challengers for 9 years in a row? Do people think Schumacher is rubbish because he destroyed all challengers for 5 years in a row?
I mean come on guys, hes done this now for 4 years! He's been at the front for 5 if you include 2009. He's won by massive margins, he's won by tiny margins. He's won with the best car, he's won not in the best car. He's beaten 'the best driver on the grid' and Alonso/Hamilton (delete as appropriate). He's destroyed his team mate, only just beaten his team mate. He's won in a field with 5 other WDCs in it. He's won in an era where the whole grid (exluding the 'new teams') has been covered by 1 second. Short of winning the WDC in a Caterham what else does he have to do?
Its not like him and his team mate have walked to 1-2 finishes in every race for 4 years straight, yet thats seems to be the illusion people cling onto when they claim 'its all the car'.
What more can he do for people to actually start admitting that, maybe, he's winning because he actually pretty good?
(Jesus, all that from a guy who doesn't like him)
Yet.... Vettel still won?
How is it that Vettel needs to win by a tiny margin to prove hes good, where winning by a big margin doesn't?
. How utterly bizarre is it that massively out performing your rivals means people think you are rubbish. Do people think Sebastian Loeb is rubbish because he destroyed all challengers for 9 years in a row? Do people think Schumacher is rubbish because he destroyed all challengers for 5 years in a row?I mean come on guys, hes done this now for 4 years! He's been at the front for 5 if you include 2009. He's won by massive margins, he's won by tiny margins. He's won with the best car, he's won not in the best car. He's beaten 'the best driver on the grid' and Alonso/Hamilton (delete as appropriate). He's destroyed his team mate, only just beaten his team mate. He's won in a field with 5 other WDCs in it. He's won in an era where the whole grid (exluding the 'new teams') has been covered by 1 second. Short of winning the WDC in a Caterham what else does he have to do?
Its not like him and his team mate have walked to 1-2 finishes in every race for 4 years straight, yet thats seems to be the illusion people cling onto when they claim 'its all the car'.
What more can he do for people to actually start admitting that, maybe, he's winning because he actually pretty good?
(Jesus, all that from a guy who doesn't like him
)
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Piquet moved from the dominant Williams to Lotus. Mansell moved from Williams (who'd won the last two championships) to Ferrari. Prost moved from the dominant McLaren to Ferrari. All moving from superior cars to lesser equipment (bar Mansell's Ferrari move, due to Williams in 1988 choosing to focus on the normally aspirated years to follow).
One of the reasons some commentated Hamilton left McLaren. Being a part of building up another team into a race-winning and potentially championship winning outfit is an attractive proposition... and of course in Schumacher's case, he was handsomely rewarded too, which must have helped sway him.
Senna was behind Schumacher. Schumacher had overtaken him in the pit stops. His death at Imola had **** all to do with Schumacher. Tamburello at that point was flat out even in the 80s, irrespective of the car or driver. Only mechanical failures caused drivers to crash (see Piquet and Berger). I'm adamant that everything pointed to steering column failure in that crash, and Williams went to stupid lengths to try to convince the Italian authorities that it wasn't the case, lengths which even laymen can surely see through.
Despite Schumacher taking two wins, had Imola not happened, Senna would have thumped Schumacher. Williams soon sorted the car and Benetton and Schumacher got twitchy as the season unfolded. Senna knew he had the upper hand on Schumacher, and Imola was the first step in getting the car to comply... sadly, one of aspects which made it comply was that steering column...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
Right, so Vettel isn't even in the top four drivers?
I know he's got the best car, but he is a three times world champion, highly likely to be a four times champion, and has comprehensively beaten every F1 teammate put before him, with only Webber getting even remotely close (and arguably Heidfeld in their one race together). Rosberg has won three races.
Other than the brilliant effort he put in for the first half of last year, I just can't see what Alonso has done over the last 7 years to mean he is 'absolutely the best'?
He's been beaten by a rookie, cheated, had some average drives and won no championships. If you look at his career from 2007 to now I don't see how he even makes the top 3? Sure he's had moments of brilliance, but so have a lot of drivers.
I just think people are caught up on him being the guy who beat Schumacher, and just ignore everything since.
He's been beaten by a rookie, cheated, had some average drives and won no championships. If you look at his career from 2007 to now I don't see how he even makes the top 3? Sure he's had moments of brilliance, but so have a lot of drivers.
I just think people are caught up on him being the guy who beat Schumacher, and just ignore everything since.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
His consistency in a car which is sometimes so far off the pace is what does it.
Singapore in 2008, while remember for Piquet's antics, should equally be remembered for how utterly stunning Alonso was all weekend.
He's basically Mansell, but with natural talent.