of course skeeter.....I believe that you're right. As you said, many variables exist, and with the "sport" being as technical as it is generally the best car/driver combo wins out. Human nature usually means that a person likes another driver because of many reasons...his flair, his attacking skill, his all around performance, his sideburns, his choice of girlfriend....whatever means we all support different drivers! Debate away lads and lasses, it's a german who's gonna win this year, but I believe a brit will be second....
Singapore Grand Prix 2011, Marina Bay Street Circuit - Race 14/19
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
I was reading an article which stated that Ferrari are way ahead on the development curve, for their 2012 car. Apparently they are already at a stage where it can go into production.
I'm hoping that Ferrari can create a car for 2012 which can compete against the RBR car. The other teams must stop Vettel from winning 3 WDCs in a row.
I'm hoping that Ferrari can create a car for 2012 which can compete against the RBR car. The other teams must stop Vettel from winning 3 WDCs in a row.
dont think any one team have a hope in stoping RBR next season - all we can hope for is that the Ferrari's and McLarens improve drastically on their favoured types of circuit to each challange the RBR at each particular race
Thats a bit harsh imo - as it implies (given your earlier statement) that they DID luck into it - rather than Brawn working for a year on the (updated) design and Button assisting for several years with development before the 2009 car was unveiled. It may have been a new name above the door but it was a smaller version of exactly the same team (with a new, rushly integrated, engine admittedly).
No difference at all to RBR winning the championships last season (apart from no new team name). If anything RBR had a much easier run at it
The RBR car is SO good this year , it would actually be very interesting to see what Massa could have done in it - simply because at most races there has been such a big margin between Vettel and the rest, most of those results (and probably even qualifying on pole) would have been identical had any of the top 6 - 7 guys on grid been in the car.
Maybe thats a little harsh on Mark - but in his defence he has clearly been No 2 in that team (possibly unfairly) for a few seasons, I dont think Horner would ever have let Mark and Seb compete totally fairly in a championship head to head, its been obvious for a long time (what ever has been said publicly) that SV was always No 1, even though Mark did astounding well last season
Thats a bit harsh imo - as it implies (given your earlier statement) that they DID luck into it - rather than Brawn working for a year on the (updated) design and Button assisting for several years with development before the 2009 car was unveiled. It may have been a new name above the door but it was a smaller version of exactly the same team (with a new, rushly integrated, engine admittedly).
No difference at all to RBR winning the championships last season (apart from no new team name). If anything RBR had a much easier run at it
The RBR car is SO good this year , it would actually be very interesting to see what Massa could have done in it - simply because at most races there has been such a big margin between Vettel and the rest, most of those results (and probably even qualifying on pole) would have been identical had any of the top 6 - 7 guys on grid been in the car.
Maybe thats a little harsh on Mark - but in his defence he has clearly been No 2 in that team (possibly unfairly) for a few seasons, I dont think Horner would ever have let Mark and Seb compete totally fairly in a championship head to head, its been obvious for a long time (what ever has been said publicly) that SV was always No 1, even though Mark did astounding well last season
Last edited:
You mean like making unforced errors in Korea and Valencia? Finishing 8th, 9th, 2nd and 8th in the first four races? Is that the kind of pace a champion shows? Someone who throws away a championship despite 100% reliability is not a top tier driver...
Webber showed potential at Minardi and to an extent Jaguar, but during the transition to RB he seemed to lose a lot of speed. Old hat Coulthard (who had never beaten a teammate) beat him in 2007 and 2008. Of course his age is going to work against him now as well.
That's a terrible misinterpretation of what happened. Most glaringly, Webber beat Coulthard handily in 2008.
Now in 2007, the RBR was so unreliable that they had a retirement in just about every race which makes points impossible to compare. Webber retired in almost half of the races, and if I remember correctly not a single one was his own fault. This is why people were calling him the unluckiest driver on the grid around that time. Qualifying on the other hand went relatively smoothly for RBR where Webber outqualified Coulthard a massive 15-2.
edit: In fact this kind of follows on from the discussion above because the interteam battle at RBR in 2007 & 2008 is one of those times where looking at other statistics than just the points table can give you a much better idea of what was happening that season, in circumstances where luck was a heavy influence in points such as when you've got an abysmally unreliable car. That said, I'm much more sceptical about the case between schumacher and rosberg as there just isn't as good a reason to look beyond the points.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
I'd rather see vettles 3rd than teflons one. A very good mclaren from the start i would like.
On a personal note, I don't like to see drivers winning 3 titles in a row, as this puts them as one of the all-time greats...all within the space of 3 years.
Going from zero to an all time great in 3 years doesn't sit well with me.
You wonder why I think youre a computer with comments like that? Youre just ones and zeros arent you Daryl? Ones and Zeroes...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
Why does he need three titles to be an all-time great? And by the same token, why would he be an all-time great just because he won three titles?
This over-focus that many F1 fans have on statistics....it's worse than listening to baseball fans!
I know I've used this example with you before, but like many of my posts you seemed to completely miss it so it'll stand repeating. Raw numbers will tell you that Damon Hill and Ronnie Peterson entered about the same number of races. Damon won more than twice as many races, won a title where Ronnie could only manage a couple of 2nds and a 3rd place over the years. What they don't tell you, is stuff like this:
[SIZE=-1]- Pete Lyons, 3rd May 1993, Autoweek.
Look at Ronnie Peterson's career just on raw numbers - points scored, podium finishes, wins, fastest laps etc and you see a guy who was okay. Never a title winner, and pretty inconsistent - his championship results go unclassified, 2nd, 9th, 3rd, 5th, 13th, 11th, 14th, 2nd. Look beyond numbers, and you see a driver who was so fast, and so exciting, that even fifteen years after his death people were still writing prose about him like that Pete Lyons quote.
There aren't many people on the grid now who you could say with any certainty that if they died, then fifteen years later people would still write gushing praise about how awesome they were. And that's with five champions, sharing twelve titles, on this grid!
Numbers don't lie. But they don't always tell you what you need to know. Blindly trust them, and you start saying silly things like "Jenson Button will never win the championship"
[/SIZE]
If a driver wins 3 titles, what this tells us is that this guy, across those seasons, was very consistent and beat his team-mate. It also tells us that the guy handled the pressure of winning a title (or 3). To win 3 titles takes a very special driver.
If a driver wins 3 titles, you cannot ignore him and say that "he is an ok driver"...but not a great.
These are drivers in the last few decades who have won at least 3 titles:
MSc
Fangio
Prost
Brabham
Stewart
Senna
Lauda
Piquet, Nelson Snr
For me, all the above names are greats. Period. I would love for any of you guys to tell me they are not greats. Go on JRS...I dare you.
So, assuming that all drivers thus far, who have won 3 titles are "greats", if Vettel wins a third title, his name shall be added to the list above. How will anybody dare say that Vettel is the only name on the list who is not a great?
In saying this...I don't like the idea of a driver being classed as a great, just because of 3 great seasons (in Vettel's case, zero to "great", in 3 seasons).
With regards to Ronnie Peterson...he was a little before my time, so I don't want to comment on him. But, I'm assuming he was very fast...though perhaps lacked consistency. Part of winning a title is not just being fast or having balls. The driver has to work the political angle, he needs a little luck, he needs the team to support his cause (over his team-mate's), he needs to be able to handle the pressure, etc. There are so many variables that make a WDC. For this reason, although Hill may not be as fast as Perterson, but given that Hill was consistent in his performances and went up against MSc (the greatest driver of all time) and was for a few years his main opposition...Hill, IMO, is the better driver.
1 or 2 seasons does not a great driver make.
If a driver wins 3 titles, you cannot ignore him and say that "he is an ok driver"...but not a great.
These are drivers in the last few decades who have won at least 3 titles:
MSc
Fangio
Prost
Brabham
Stewart
Senna
Lauda
Piquet, Nelson Snr
For me, all the above names are greats. Period. I would love for any of you guys to tell me they are not greats. Go on JRS...I dare you.
So, assuming that all drivers thus far, who have won 3 titles are "greats", if Vettel wins a third title, his name shall be added to the list above. How will anybody dare say that Vettel is the only name on the list who is not a great?
In saying this...I don't like the idea of a driver being classed as a great, just because of 3 great seasons (in Vettel's case, zero to "great", in 3 seasons).
With regards to Ronnie Peterson...he was a little before my time, so I don't want to comment on him. But, I'm assuming he was very fast...though perhaps lacked consistency. Part of winning a title is not just being fast or having balls. The driver has to work the political angle, he needs a little luck, he needs the team to support his cause (over his team-mate's), he needs to be able to handle the pressure, etc. There are so many variables that make a WDC. For this reason, although Hill may not be as fast as Perterson, but given that Hill was consistent in his performances and went up against MSc (the greatest driver of all time) and was for a few years his main opposition...Hill, IMO, is the better driver.
1 or 2 seasons does not a great driver make.
Fair enough, and a very good point.
For me, all the above names are greats. Period. I would love for any of you guys to tell me they are not greats. Go on JRS...I dare you.
Way to miss what I was actually saying. Go you!
I still want to know exactly why three titles has to be the barometer of 'greatness'. I mean - look at the list of drivers with 'only' two titles to their name:
Clark
G. Hill
Ascari
Hakkinen
Fittipaldi
The Daddy™
And by the end of the weekend, Vettel
Now, you're not going to seriously suggest that Jim Clark of all people is not an all-time great, are you? Oh wait....you already did that before, playing down Fangio's achievements in the same post! Why didn't you try and denigrate Moss at the same time, go for the holy trifecta?
And that's before you get to the guys with 'only' one title:
Farina
Hawthorn
P. Hill
Surtees
Hulme
Rindt
Hunt
Andretti
Scheckter
Jones
Rosberg
Mansell
D. Hill
Villeneuve
Raikkonen
Hamilton
Button
And Vettel until the end of the weekend
Some legendary names on that list....And then you get into the guys who didn't win a title but are still giants of the sport. Moss, Bellof, Peterson, Cevert, Gilles Villeneuve....
Question still remains - why does he need to win a third title before he can be considered a great?
Hardly 'zero'. He was impressive from the get-go - scored in his first ever race (youngest driver ever to score in fact) in 2007, lifted Torro Rosso into regular points-scorers, second in the '09 title race with his first season for Red Bull....
What I stated (and I have stated this many times), is that if a driver wins 3 titles or more, he must be considered a "great".
At no point have I ever said that a driver who won only 1 or 2 titles is not a great.
And for what its worth, I do not consider Alonso as a "great".
With regards to me stating that Fangio is not a "great"? I have never ever said that. In fact, in my post above, I stated clearly that every driver on that list is a "great".
In this post,
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=17928943&postcount=170
...at no stage did I play down Fangio's achievements. Certainly the competition at the time was less, as it was a different era...some 5 decades ago. How can you compare a sportsman of 1950 with a sportsman in 2010? It's not easy. However...we are getting side tracked. In that post, I stated that the daddy, currently in F1, is Alonso. That's basically all I said. And I still stand by that statement.
I shall say it again...all drivers in the following list are greats...not least because they won 3 titles:
MSc
Fangio
Prost
Brabham
Stewart
Senna
Lauda
Piquet, Nelson Snr
I shall also say the following...again...there are some drivers not in the above list, who are also greats.
JRS, you are trying to side track me, but it won't work...lets concentrate on the 3 time+ WDC and Vettel's inclusion in that list.
And now, lets get back to my original comment, which I 100% stand by:
Notice, how I did not mention anything about 1 time winners or 2 time winners. Notice also that I did not play down 1 or 2 time WDC's achievements...I have no idea where you got this from.
At no point have I ever said that a driver who won only 1 or 2 titles is not a great.
And for what its worth, I do not consider Alonso as a "great".
With regards to me stating that Fangio is not a "great"? I have never ever said that. In fact, in my post above, I stated clearly that every driver on that list is a "great".
In this post,
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=17928943&postcount=170
...at no stage did I play down Fangio's achievements. Certainly the competition at the time was less, as it was a different era...some 5 decades ago. How can you compare a sportsman of 1950 with a sportsman in 2010? It's not easy. However...we are getting side tracked. In that post, I stated that the daddy, currently in F1, is Alonso. That's basically all I said. And I still stand by that statement.
I shall say it again...all drivers in the following list are greats...not least because they won 3 titles:
MSc
Fangio
Prost
Brabham
Stewart
Senna
Lauda
Piquet, Nelson Snr
I shall also say the following...again...there are some drivers not in the above list, who are also greats.
JRS, you are trying to side track me, but it won't work...lets concentrate on the 3 time+ WDC and Vettel's inclusion in that list.
And now, lets get back to my original comment, which I 100% stand by:
Notice, how I did not mention anything about 1 time winners or 2 time winners. Notice also that I did not play down 1 or 2 time WDC's achievements...I have no idea where you got this from.
Its more the fact your use of logic is wayward to be polite and lots of people have picked you up on this and you tend to just shy away from it.
At one point your logic dictates that winning 3 championships makes you an all-time great; yet on the other hand you then decide actually, if it happens in one go it might not mean youre an all-time great.
You maintain everything should be black and white (which is why you can only deal with tangible stats as your crux), but a lot of the time you digress back to greys when it suits your argument and when it doesnt you are the first to pick it up and make it a point to contest. Its this backtracking and selective amnesia that in particular people dont like...
You would make a brillant teflon coated politican - are you sure you arent the Iraqi Information Minister?
EDIT: It may seem Im having a go, but it does feel apparent that you sometimes havent a clue how you come across...
ps3ud0
Last edited:
No, I'm trying to get you to clarify your position, which you've now done
Remember me telling you:
Hmm?
You then replied to that post with:
Just to remind you
I honestly think he's the only multiple-championship winner who I wouldn't consider a great yet. I don't know why that should be, really. Just the way it is. Vettel is already in my 'greats' list, by the way - youngest ever to score points, youngest winner, youngest driver to get on pole position, youngest driver to get pole, fastest lap and race win, youngest champion. Those records will be beaten one day, but not for a while I think.
For me, although Alonso has been the best in the business for a while, I feel that he needs to rack up more wins and titles.
What I rate highly about Vettel is firstly (as a stats man), those records. Whatever record he can break...he is breaking. I like that. Also he is proving fantastically consistent (unlike Hamilton who is blowing hot and cold).
It seems that we are the few who rate Vettel so highly. On this board, Vettel seems to come under unfair criticism and I haven't a clue why this is.
I wasn't impressed with Vettel last year...but his year...wow!
What I rate highly about Vettel is firstly (as a stats man), those records. Whatever record he can break...he is breaking. I like that. Also he is proving fantastically consistent (unlike Hamilton who is blowing hot and cold).
It seems that we are the few who rate Vettel so highly. On this board, Vettel seems to come under unfair criticism and I haven't a clue why this is.
I wasn't impressed with Vettel last year...but his year...wow!