That's being a bit hard on Horner to be honest. It is his team that has produced the fastest car we've seen on the grid for a long time, despite being one of the samller teams in terms of budgert. Why would you give him none of the credit for this achievement and then put all the blame on him for the reliability troubles and strategy errors that have cost the team so many points?
Hungarian Grand Prix 2010, Hungaroring Circuit - Race 12/19
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Agreed, the season would be about over now.
Horner can't take credit for the car superiority. Similarly, he can't be blamed for the unreliability.
However, he is a weak manager. He has been unable to shackle Webber and keep a lid on his mouth. Ron Denis had the same problem in 2007. A year later, he retired.
Horner needs to get control over his drivers (in particular Webber). If he believes that he must operate a No.1/No.2 system, then he has to relay this to Webber and force him to tow the line (just like Ferrari have done with their drivers). Obviously, Horner's boss wants a No.1/No.2 system in place and it is up to Horner to discuss the merits of this and if he sees this as the correct thing to do, then he must implement it.
When a driver is doing/saying as he pleases, it is up to the manager to bring that driver in line. This goes for any employee of any company.
From what we've seen, Horner tried to implement the No.1/No.2 system, but he failed. Now, it would appear (and we don't know what goes on behind closed doors) he has backed off.
In any case, RBR still have a good chance of winning both titles, so all this talk of Horner being a bad manager, may be academic if RBR win both titles this season.
SPOT ON!!!
The truth is that F1 racing teams are competitive. If they can bag the Drivers' Title in the process of winning the constructor's title, then they will come up with a strategy which allows them to do this.
In truth, teams want to win as many points, as many races, as many drivers titles and as many constructors titles as they can. They all count.
Before the incident Webber did seem to have stepped up a level and looked real world championship material. If he kind find that form again title should be his.
The problem with Webber is that he does well in 1 race and then he vanishes in the following race.
The RBR car is definitely flattering him, but it is his good fortune that he has a car which is almost a second faster than any other car. Alonso and Hamilton should try harder to get into RBR, if they want the best car.
And why is Vettel's conversion rate from Pole Position, so poor? In the last race, he was so fast, then he decided to get clever and backed the rest of the pack up, so far that Webber managed to open up a big gap ahead of him. To add insult to injury he was then penalised for it. I'm shocked that he did that and he deserved to get punished for it (if only from a racing perspective, you do not allow the man ahead of you to open up such a big gap).
I still believe Vettel will finish ahead of Webber, as Vettel is simply a better driver and has the backing of his team (bosses).
It will be interesting to see how far ahead of Ferrari RBR are, in Spa, given that Spa is a circuit which has every type of corner and is a track where you can truly measure the ability of the driver AND the car.
3 poles and 2 wins on the trot suggest that to be untrue. It would have been 3 wins on the trot had red bull not decided to bum him.
If the car is flattering Webber it's certainly flattering his team mate as well.
To suggest that Hamilton or Alonso should try harder to get in a red bull is laughable. Why would you leave two of the biggest teams in f1 with a proven track record of having the resources to turn a bad car around to go to a team that has gone through a 2 year good patch.
Why should they have to keep moving round just because they don't have the best car? How about helping a car develope and win?
That's one of the great things about Schumacher's career. Joining Ferrari in '96 and being instrumental in turning round a team which hadn't won a championship for over a decade. I am surprised by his relatively poor performance this year, but still think there's a chance of a successful season in 2011 in a car designed around him.
There is always the chance that the competitions in Schumacher's era (Hill, Häkkinen, Montoya, Villeneuve, Coulthard, Räikkönen etc) simply weren't as good as today's top drivers. The quality of the field has improved. If a 2010-spec Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Button, Webber had been racing in 2000-2004, maybe they would have beaten MS fair and square.
There is a general trend in sports for the absolute quality to improve over the years. The best tennis player in the world in 1980, would be lucky to qualify for a grand slam today, track and field records in 2010 are significantly better than they were in the past etc.
Being the best a decade ago, even ignoring age related deterioration, may not mean you're the best now. The quality of the competition simply improves.
I 100% agree with you on this.
Teams/sports people of yesteryear, by right, should be blown away by the current crop of sportsmen/women. This is mainly down to better training techniques/strategy and nutrition.
One thing of note though, is that F1 is about skill...not so much about fitness. It could be argued that as F1 is so heavily biased towards skill, that maybe fitness/nutrition isnt such a strong factor. Its difficult to tell what is going on with MSc. My own feeling is that being out of the sport for 3 years has left him extremely rusty, after all F1 has arguably the best drivers in the world and if you are "rusty", you will struggle, regardless of how good you once were.
It was actually MSc who decided to go on a crusade (with Ferrari), to bring them to front. He was the guy who had long term plans. Before then, you will notice that drivers always wanted to be in the best car at any given time. Mansell, Prost and especially Senna shared this ethos. Senna famouly announced on TV that he would drive for Williams for free as he was so frustrated at driving for McLaren (who were winning races, but were not as good as Williams).
Then came MSc, who radically changed this strategy. He believed that he had the ability to make any team great, but he needed time. When he first announced his departure from the all-conquering Bennetton to Ferrari, EVERYBODY thought he was selling out for money and that he would struggle at Ferrari. When he made Ferrari great, most realised just how good he actually was.
MSc has changed the way a lot of drivers "play the game", in modern F1. These days drivers tend to stay with the same team for a good few years. This wasnt necessarily the case in years gone by.
You only have to look at the number of drivers Williams and McLaren (the 2 top teams in the early 90s), got through from 1989 - 1994 (before the MSc factor kicked in).
Lets look at Webber's record this season:
8 9 2 8 1 1 3 5 Ret 1 6 1
The Ret, was his own fault, as he was near the back of the field anyway, so this will count against him.
Look at the first 4 results (8 9 2 8): 1 top 2 finish, but he was nowhere in the other 3 races.
Next 3 races (1 1 3): he did great. World Champ form.
Next 4 races (5 Ret 1 6): in 3 of these races, he showed indifferent form. Strange when you consider that he was driving the best car.
Final race (1): he won it.
Now if you look at the above, he did go through a purple patch where he finished top 3, for 3 races on a trot. You alluded to this. But what about the other races? 8th, 9th, 8th, 5th, retired (while at the back), 6th.
I stand by my earlier comment - Webber lacks consistency. I feel Vettel is far more consistent, though he makes silly errors as he did in the last race (ie. allowing Webber to open up a huge lead in front of, during the SC period).
It depends how you treat retirements.
For example, in R:
Webber<-c(8,9,2,8,1,1,3,5,NA,1,6,1)
Vettel<-c(4,NA,1,6,3,2,NA,4,1,7,3,3)
Ignoring the retirements produces a variance and standard deviation of:
var(Webber, na.rm = T): 10.29
var(Vettel, na.rm = T): 3.88
sd(Webber, na.rm = T): 3.21
sd(Vettel, na.rm = T): 1.96
So Vettel is the more consistent.
But if we don't ignore retirements, and say equate them to coming 11th (no points) we get:
var(Webber): 13.33
var(Vettel): 11.88
sd(Webber): 3.65
sd(Vettel): 3.45
Vettel is still a little more consistent.
But if retirements are equivalent to coming last, 24th, the results change to:
var(Webber): 42.39
var(Vettel): 67.42
sd(Webber): 6.51
sd(Vettel): 8.21
With Webber the more consistent.
For example, in R:
Webber<-c(8,9,2,8,1,1,3,5,NA,1,6,1)
Vettel<-c(4,NA,1,6,3,2,NA,4,1,7,3,3)
Ignoring the retirements produces a variance and standard deviation of:
var(Webber, na.rm = T): 10.29
var(Vettel, na.rm = T): 3.88
sd(Webber, na.rm = T): 3.21
sd(Vettel, na.rm = T): 1.96
So Vettel is the more consistent.
But if we don't ignore retirements, and say equate them to coming 11th (no points) we get:
var(Webber): 13.33
var(Vettel): 11.88
sd(Webber): 3.65
sd(Vettel): 3.45
Vettel is still a little more consistent.
But if retirements are equivalent to coming last, 24th, the results change to:
var(Webber): 42.39
var(Vettel): 67.42
sd(Webber): 6.51
sd(Vettel): 8.21
With Webber the more consistent.
It's a bit harsh to say webber lacks consistency, if you take both drivers (as that's who you have to compare them to really)
When webber has been "off the pace" so has vettel so it's unfair to say it's webber's fault when his team mate isn't getting the best of the car either.
Code:
Vettel 4 Ret 1 6 3 2 Ret 4 1 7 3 3
Webber 8 9 2 8 1 1 3 5 Ret 1 6 1When webber has been "off the pace" so has vettel so it's unfair to say it's webber's fault when his team mate isn't getting the best of the car either.
First result (4): his car failed, while he was leading. Not his fault.
Second result (ret): he retired while leading the race. Not his fault.
third result (1): no comment.
4th result: (6): poor form. no excuse. Vettel must be blamed for this.
then we move into sequences:
3 2: Decent results.
ret: Vettel has to take his share of blame for this.
4 1 7: his first place was good, but the 4 and 7th place finish was indifferent.
3 3: decent results.
The results where I feel Vettel let himself down are in bold (6th, ret, 4th, 7th). IMO he has had 4 poor results out of 12 races. Although this does not place him in the same category as Hamilton, Alonso or even Button, he has certainly done better than Webber.
With Webber, as stated previously, he could win the last race and be completely out of it in the next race. With Vettel, I feel he is more consistent.
Webber has definitely raised his game this year. There is no question about it, but Vettel is definitely the class act of the 2 drivers. IMO RBR are right to back Vettel.
I disagree with that statement.
In the first race, Vettel was leading the race when his car broke. Webber finished 8th.
In race two: Vettel was leading when he broke down. Webber finished 9th.
You have to understand that Vettel is not in the top tier of drivers, but he is definitely better than Webber.
Remember, to compete with the top tier drivers like Alonso and Hamilton, you have to be DAMN GOOD. Not just good...but DAMN GOOD. Button is actually very good and doing great, but even then he is getting dropped by his team-mate. Massa is being completely taken apart by Alonso. This shows just how good the top tier drivers (Alonso and Hamilton) are.
What a short memory people have MS announced he would be winning races by midseason when he joined ferrari. He knew that because of the team they assembled. MS didn't make ferrari great, the sum of parts they assembled made them great. The money to pour into buying the best and testing 24/7.
He's an amazing driver but he just happened to come along at the same time as the best engineering talent to ferrari and to be fair the biggest cheats.
Lets look at Webber's record this season.
Forget all that why can't you just admit when you are wrong when you make a statement about webber being good for one race then failing. It would save you a lot of time digging up irrelevant stats that still don't prove you are right when clearly the record book says you're wrong
I don't believe that applies to F1 at all. I don't buy all this f1 drivers are the best in the world either. It's not like they go to other formats and set the world on fire.
Alonso and Hamilton are the only ones I'd entertain would be up there with the best drivers of the last 20-30 years excluding obviously MS.
Much of how good you are in f1 depends on which direction the rules go, MS has lost none of his pace, the new cars tyres just don't suit him. Kimi seemed a different driver once most of the electronic aids went. He just never seemed as comfortable or able to push as hard.
I don't think people realise just how much the fitness in F1 counts these days. A good friend/family member of mine does a fair bit of work for webber. The hours a day he does training cycling and running is mental.
If there's one area of F1 where MS upped the stakes initially it was fitness.
To me it seemed more like he didn't give a toss.
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
I knew I should have stuck a bet on Webber after China.. he was going 16/1 on most betting sites. 2 GPs later which he won back to back = 