The Official Sebastian Vettel Fan Support Group Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

Or may be the opposite was true? Perhaps Vettel pushed the car above and beyond its capabilities in 2010 and 2012 if you happen to judge the car performance by what Webber did with it? People who argued that Alonso drove his Ferraris beyond what they were meant to do often insisted on using as Massa's results as the yardstick of where Ferrari should have really finished. Why can't this same argument be applied to Vettel in order to explain how Vettel drove his RBR car so that he extracted the impossible 110% of its possible performance?

---

First of all, I'm not one of those saying Alonso drove 110% out of any car. In fact, I'm really annoyed by this giving 110% crap generally speaking, so I would never use it. No one's ever driven even 100% of any car so let's just give that a break.

Neither did I see Massa's performance as a yardstick in any way. I've always thought Alonso is much better than Massa so I don't see how Alonso's performance could be evaluated using Massa's as a yardstick (of course, had Alonso finished behind Massa any season then Massa would have been a great yardstick for a sub-par performance).

I didn't rate Webber that high either so I don't see Vettel barely beating him in 2010 as a great performance. If anything I see those years he won the championship easily as him getting closer to his full potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

Just so everyone waiting to bash me can, I rate the most complete drivers currently

1. Alonso - A fair bit clear of the rest in my opinion
2. Hamilton - He is fast in a good car out front, but also battles hard. Not near Alonso, but still second
3. Vettel - He is fast and has a good way of getting the team around him, like Schumi. He cannot outperform a car like Alonso, but I think he is 3rd best.

For those about to tell me Ricciardo is better cause of this season, I will stop you now. 4 titles won and in the bag and some are ready to say Ricciardo is better. Thats laughable really. He is better this season, or in this car, but he didn't win a race in a Toro Rosso and finish top 5 5 or 6 times and hasn't won 30 odd races and 4 titles.

out of interest

4. Raikkonen - easy to mock him, but last season he was winning races
5. Ricciardo - Moved up some places in my eyes this year.
6. Rosberg - After Nico it becomes less clear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

There was no intention on my part to bash anyone, even if we might differ in opinion, which is really at it is.

For the most part I agree with your top six, but right now where Vettel and Kimi fall is somewhat up in the air. I'll be the first to admit I didn't hate Rosberg as well as he has driven early on, but he has proven to be more well rounded than I expected the first year or two. Alonso without doubt is at the top. Kimi is regaining form but still being soundly beaten by Fred, but that is almost expected. Lewis is super fast, but sometimes lets people/things screw with his mental game. On a side on that, I still have hope Lewis will beat Nico this year and overcome his car failures. It may take a little luck as well as his driving skill, but it's still possible.

Right now the Ricciardo/Vettel placements are sort of up in the air. Maybe this car is just more suited to Daniel, but Webber was never really a good gauge IMO for where Vettel was placing. Or maybe it's possible that Daniel is just better, but it will take some time to determine that and see if the current trend continues.


But in any case, unless it's an obvious crazy fanboi with blinders on perspective, I have no intention of bashing anyone if we differ in opinion.

---

And I wasn't trying to suggest anything, other than throw a little anarchy into the thread, ;)

I realize how hard it is to put relative values on drivers, and I never thought that JB was disrespecting Seb. I just wanted to stir the pot a little.

I think Steve and Air' make good points in these posts I've quoted

Two seasons ago NH was considered by many to be in the top 3, and I certainly wouldn't argue against it at the time, but last season like Seb he didn't seem to adapt well to the new reg's, And now Hulk is just driving a total piece of junk.

There are only two ways to get a really objective comparison of all drivers; make all the cars identical, or have the drivers rotate which cars they drive, so everyone will have had an equal chance to drive every car. Neither is going to happen, and even if the latter did it may only prove who is the most adaptable.

I'm pretty sure that the all of these guys could have won the championship in last years Mercedes, and that is not a knock on Hamilton, because he did have to overcome some serious adversity to beat his teammate last year.
I think what it comes down to is; how much do you enjoy F1?

If you want to be entertained by a much more equitable sport watch track, and field.
Myself I'm just going to watch and enjoy, this is shaping up to be a very interesting season.

BTW I think JB is NR's equal, but that is just like all the rest of this, speculation. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

Or may be the opposite was true?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

Perhaps Vettel pushed the car above and beyond its capabilities in 2010 and 2012

---

It's impossible to push a car beyond it's capabilities. Physics dictates it can't be so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

But if you say that the glass is half empty, why stop at Vettel? Let's also throw Button under the bus, as well as Mansell, with his Newey designed 1992 car, at least a couple of Schumacher's titles, Prost's 1993 title, and who knows what else.

---

While the Brawn had the dominant car, Button was comprehensive in the first half of 09. Mansell's career deserved a title under any circumstance. He had the single most dominant season in F1. He got the most out of it, so his season/career is valid. Prost in 93 doesn't matter since he was an all time great after winning one title.

Schumacher? Well, that a whole other thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

I admit that it certainly MAY have been possible that Vettel's RBR was a better car than Alonso's Ferrari, but only in the second half of season,

---

Not "MAY have" (attempting to put doubt in one's mind). "Definitely", for the whole season.

I feel that people are lumping some things together here. And discussion has lost sight on what "dominance" means. Why are we talking about 2012 in the context of 1992, 2014 or also 2013? If you remember, then we had 7 (!) different winners in the first 7 races of 2012. Yes, 7, among them Maldonado! I mean that season was nowhere near 1992 or 2014 or 2002 or the second half of 2013, when in almost every single race the dominant team disappeared into the distance with both cars.

Red Bull emerged above others only in the last third of the season for a handful of races. Other than that 2012 was one of the most closely contested seasons for many years. Even Lotus, Williams and Sauber were fighting for race wins.

I agree that Seb is a force to be reckoned with ,
But he was also in a dominant car too
The car was deemed illegal on about 6 events ,and most were corrected without being brought to out attention .Adrian Newey is a master at "Tricks" ,some he got away with for quite a while others were found out quite quickly .
So yes Seb is quick and a good clean racer ,and good with tyres too ,probably he uses less downforce on his car so he can look after his tyres more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

Not "MAY have" (attempting to put doubt in one's mind). "Definitely", for the whole season.

---

No way in 2012. Let's look at the facts.

1. Vettel won only five out of twenty races in the whole 2012 season, and both Red Bulls won seven out of twenty. Does this strike you as a truly dominant car, specially through the whole season?

2. The first seven races were won by seven different drivers. Moreover, Vettel hasn't won his second race of season until the race 14 of season. By then Alonso had racked up three wins. Vettel didn't get his third win until the fifteenth round.

3. The last two races were won by McLarens in a fairly dominant fashion. People were starting to argue that McLaren was the fastest car at the end of year.

4. McLarens won seven races in the season, the same number as Red Bulls.


These points make it pretty obvious that Red Bull was not the most dominant car of the season for sure. We can allow the possibility that Red Bull had gotten better than Ferrari towards the end of season only, as Vettel's Red Bull hasn't caught up with Alonso's Ferrari until the last one quart of the season.

I think ALO is the best current driver and i will defend my position til the end!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

No way in 2012. Let's look at the facts.

1. Vettel won only five out of twenty races in the whole 2012 season, and both Red Bulls won seven out of twenty. Does this strike you as a truly dominant car, specially through the whole season?

2. The first seven races were won by seven different drivers. Moreover, Vettel hasn't won his second race of season until the race 14 of season. By then Alonso had racked up three wins. Vettel didn't get his third win until the fifteenth round.

3. The last two races were won by McLarens in a fairly dominant fashion. People were starting to argue that McLaren was the fastest car at the end of year.

4. McLarens won seven races in the season, the same number as Red Bulls.


These points make it pretty obvious that Red Bull was not the most dominant car of the season for sure. We can allow the possibility that Red Bull had gotten better than Ferrari towards the end of season only, as Vettel's Red Bull hasn't caught up with Alonso's Ferrari until the last one quart of the season.

---

This post is a classic case of having a prejudiced opinion, then skewing what happened to suit that view.

The rules, particularly regarding the use of tyres in 12 and 13, were primarily designed to knobble the RB. The way the tech regs have evolved over the last 10-20 years, has often meant the greatest determining factor on performance has been aero. Which has been the strength of the RB throughout 10-13. The rules are so tight, that it's hard to overcome a deficiency of performance, particularly a black art like aero. Even over a few years.

It worked in the first half of 12. But once RB overcame this obstacle strategically, Vettel/RB won four on the trot. The season was too long for Ferrari, and was too much for Alonso to overcome his disadvantages.

In 13, the rules went even further, where Pirelli were asked to produce tyres that actually ****** up. But once RB successfully sooked to get the rules their own way, by producing harder tyres and not allowing the rotation of them (Which MB were doing to good effect), status quo resumed. The fundamental advantage RB had in aero came to effect and Vettel won 9 on the trot. The cars from 10-13 were in effect the same. RB always had that advantage, even if the degree varied slightly.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to see this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

This post is a classic case of having a prejudiced opinion, then skewing what happened to suit that view.

The rules, particularly regarding the use of tyres in 12 and 13, were primarily designed to knobble the RB. The way the tech regs have evolved over the last 10-20 years, has often meant the greatest determining factor on performance has been aero. Which has been the strength of the RB throughout 10-13. The rules are so tight, that it's hard to overcome a deficiency of performance, particularly a black art like aero. Even over a few years.

It worked in the first half of 12. But once RB overcame this obstacle strategically, Vettel/RB won four on the trot. The season was too long for Ferrari, and was too much for Alonso to overcome his disadvantages.

In 13, the rules went even further, where Pirelli were asked to produce tyres that actually ****** up. But once RB successfully sooked to get the rules their own way, by producing harder tyres and not allowing the rotation of them (Which MB were doing to good effect), status quo resumed. The fundamental advantage RB had in aero came to effect and Vettel won 9 on the trot. The cars from 10-13 were in effect the same. RB always had that advantage, even if the degree varied slightly.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to see this.

---

I can see, what you are trying to say, but I'd look at it from a wider angle.

Aerodynamics is only part of the package. I mean, yes, definitely Red Bull had the best aerodynamics throughout the era. But if the car was bad at managing tyres, it doesn't mean it was the best car in a given weekend. Just a random example - if a car has the most powerful engine, it doesn't mean it is overall the best car if it has rubbish aerodynamics. It is all part of the package.

In late 2012 there were only three race weekends in which Red Bull genuinely performed above others - Japan, Korea, India. Other than that it was a close year all around. Vettel was battling with McLarens in Singapore and won after Hamilton's DNF. Just two weekends before that McLaren was dominating the Belgian and Italian Grands Prix. Only Pérez with his inspired tyre strategy got close in the race.

In terms of speed it was overall very close between the packages of McLaren and Red Bull in 2012, tyres, aerodynamics, or whatnot. McLaren's problem was that they were let down by race operations and reliability, that's why they ended nowhere near titles.

Quick re-cap of 2012.

There were only 3 race weekends, where Red Bull was genuinely above others (JPN, KOR, IND). Plus Valencia, where Vettel retired with a car problem, which made it academic. Vettel also won Bahrain, but it wasn't a domination, but a close fight with Lotus.

There were also weekends in which McLaren dominated (Australia, Italy, Belgium). Hamilton also won Hungary, this time after a close fight with Lotus again. Hamilton took pole in Abu Dhabi, but retired. Räikkönen won. Hamilton and Vettel had a straight fight in USA. McLaren locked out front row in Brazil and proceeded to compete for the win with Hülkenberg.

There were also races in which Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel - all three together - were fighting for a win. Like Canada. Germany was the same, but replace Hamilton with Button.

Webber won at Monaco, but it was a straight fight with Mercedes. Schumacher was on pole, but penalized. Webber won in UK, but it was a straight fight with Ferrari once Alonso got its final stint tyre strategy gamble wrong. Ferrari was genuinely fast that weekend, Massa finished fourth not far behind.

You can talk about aerodynamics and tyres, how you like, but the balance of powers was swinging around all year.

Each race was different, each scenario was different. That's what made the season incredible, truly incredible! You even had Grosjean, Pérez, Maldonado, Räikkönen, Hülkenberg, Rosberg, Schumacher going for odd race wins in different weekends. But somebody is trying to tell us it was a boring Red Bull wipe-out.

2012 was an interesting season, and if Felipe would have driven in the first half of it as he did in the second half Ferrari could very well have won the WCC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

I can see, what you are trying to say, but I'd look at it from a wider angle.

Aerodynamics is only part of the package. I mean, yes, definitely Red Bull had the best aerodynamics throughout the era. But if the car was bad at managing tyres, it doesn't mean it was the best car in a given weekend. Just a random example - if a car has the most powerful engine, it doesn't mean it is overall the best car if it has rubbish aerodynamics. It is all part of the package.

In late 2012 there were only three race weekends in which Red Bull genuinely performed above others - Japan, Korea, India. Other than that it was a close year all around. Vettel was battling with McLarens in Singapore and won after Hamilton's DNF. Just two weekends before that McLaren was dominating the Belgian and Italian Grands Prix. Only Pérez with his inspired tyre strategy got close in the race.

In terms of speed it was overall very close between the packages of McLaren and Red Bull in 2012, tyres, aerodynamics, or whatnot. McLaren's problem was that they were let down by race operations and reliability, that's why they ended nowhere near titles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Quick re-cap of 2012.

There were only 3 race weekends, where Red Bull was genuinely above others (JPN, KOR, IND). Plus Valencia, where Vettel retired with a car problem, which made it academic. Vettel also won Bahrain, but it wasn't a domination, but a close fight with Lotus.

There were also weekends in which McLaren dominated (Australia, Italy, Belgium). Hamilton also won Hungary, this time after a close fight with Lotus again. Hamilton took pole in Abu Dhabi, but retired. Räikkönen won. Hamilton and Vettel had a straight fight in USA. McLaren locked out front row in Brazil and proceeded to compete for the win with Hülkenberg.

There were also races in which Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel - all three together - were fighting for a win. Like Canada. Germany was the same, but replace Hamilton with Button.

Webber won at Monaco, but it was a straight fight with Mercedes. Schumacher was on pole, but penalized. Webber won in UK, but it was a straight fight with Ferrari once Alonso got its final stint tyre strategy gamble wrong. Ferrari was genuinely fast that weekend, Massa finished fourth not far behind.

You can talk about aerodynamics and tyres, how you like, but the balance of powers was swinging around all year.

Each race was different, each scenario was different. That's what made the season incredible, truly incredible! You even had Grosjean, Pérez, Maldonado, Räikkönen, Hülkenberg, Rosberg, Schumacher going for odd race wins in different weekends. But somebody is trying to tell us it was a boring Red Bull wipe-out.

---

You can go all day about specific moments to enhance your views, and further validate Vettel. I'm not going to spend my time having to justifying why certain drivers/cars were quicker/better at specific races or practice sessions. The FIA introduced some variables which worked. Even though it affected the integrity of F1 as a motorsport competition . You can give me specific circumstances, but they're meaningless.

Overall, the RB was the best car throughout 10-13 seasons. It may've had some relative weaknesses, but relative weaknesses is all they were. You could point at the Renault and say it wasn't the most powerful engine, therefore the RB couldn't have been the best car. It was using the same tyres as the other. The rules are so tight you couldn't experiment strategically with them. Aero provides the greatest degree of performance, and only weight distribution has any meaningful effect

With the same tyres and a lower powered engine, it still set a lot more poles, won a lot more races than anybody else! Along with winning both driver's and constructor's c'ship for each of those 4 seasons! Yet you're going to give me specific moments when the car wasn't comprehensively dominating?

I mean, come on, please, spare me..

I don't think anyone is arguing that over the whole of 2010-2013 Red Bull was the best car.

However, when we are going into the specifics of 2012, do you really disagree McLaren wasn't as fast as Red Bull? I mean we are not talking about the exception of one or two races, where Red Bull was struggling. We are talking about average performance over a whole year. And there were lots of races, where McLaren was really fast. Not just 1 or 2 races.

I can understand the argument about 2013, when there were about 2-3-4 races, where Ferrari was above Red Bull due to superior tyre management early in the season. But over a full year they were nowhere near Red Bull, who pulled a big gap in the second half of the season. Now this is exactly, what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

This post is a classic case of having a prejudiced opinion, then skewing what happened to suit that view.

The rules, particularly regarding the use of tyres in 12 and 13, were primarily designed to knobble the RB. The way the tech regs have evolved over the last 10-20 years, has often meant the greatest determining factor on performance has been aero. Which has been the strength of the RB throughout 10-13. The rules are so tight, that it's hard to overcome a deficiency of performance, particularly a black art like aero. Even over a few years.

It worked in the first half of 12. But once RB overcame this obstacle strategically, Vettel/RB won four on the trot. The season was too long for Ferrari, and was too much for Alonso to overcome his disadvantages.

---

Even your own comments contradict yourself. Go back to my post you were replying to and see the first sentence. What I was saying is that the RBR car certainly did not dominate over Ferrari the whole of 2012 season, as the poster I was replying to said. In the first half of 2012, while all the teams were struggling to figure out how to the tires worked, RBR did not seem to have any advantage. Things got so weird that even Williams and Sauber had a fair shot at winning a race.

So I don't see how anything you have written exposes me as being biased. And by the way, since when winning four races in a row (in a season with 20 races), somehow proves that Red Bull was either the dominant car overall or just dominant over Ferrari the WHOLE SEASON? Moreover, you still fail to see that even though Vettel had four wins in the second half of season, both McLaren cars combined had five wins in the second half of season, and in fact if Hamilton's McLaren did not have a gear box failure while he was leading the race in Singapore, the McLaren would have claimed six race wins in the last 10 races of the season to Red Bulls 3. So all these FACTS about the 2012 season make me really doubtful about the Red Bull dominance in that season. At best, Red Bull clearly dominated Ferrari here and there in the second half of the season, but at the same time McLarens frequently showed amazing performance as well. When I think about why Vettel won in 2012, I think not only about his and RBR's work, but I also recall how many times the other teams screwed up or had a very bad luck. McLaren had an amazingly fast car, but they screwed up the pit work, strategy or reliability so many times that Hamilton dumped this teams after working for so many years with them.

Either of you tell me where McLaren made their gains in 12? What rules changed so that McLaren increased their performance relative to RB?

They had a more powerful engine. But they had that previously, and were clearly inferior to the RB. They're using the same tyres. An already more powerful engine and the same wheels/tyres. The two fundamental components on a car to require it to move (aero isn't a necessary component). The two fundamental components on a car to be classified as a car.

The RB strength was their aero. The tyre rules in 12 were designed to hinder RB. With softer tyres, as an outsider, it's plausible to say RB turned up the downforce a bit more, and this gave McLaren the sporting chance. It's possible. Are you blokes saying McLaren improved their aero in 12?

Since aero is a such a black art. You can't just replicate another competitor and get the same results. Whatever gain you make, you keep. So how did McLaren go from supposedly being the best/fastest car in 12, to flopping in 13?

You tell me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

So how did McLaren go from supposedly being the best/fastest car in 12, to flopping in 13?

You tell me.

---

Very simple. While everyone built his 2013 car as an evolution of their 2012 car, because it was the last year of the 'old rules', McLaren scrapped the design and started from scratch. And they mucked it up spectacularly.

2012 saw the ban of EBD - Exhaust Blown Diffuser. So there was a regulation change. At the start of the season it was a big talking point. It took the edge away from Red Bull, who all of a sudden qualified only 5th and 6th in Australia season opener.

As for McLaren - they were already pretty good in 2011. Not quite a match to Red Bull, but still good, clear second. Remember, Button got lots of second place race finishes that year, ahead of Webber. So it is not like McLaren's aerodynamics sucked at the time, they were a good team. Then when Red Bull struggled to adapt to 2012 EBD ban, McLaren capitalized, and designed a car as fast or faster depending on circuit and circumstances.

Red Bull somewhat overcame this temporary loss of aerodynamic performance only late in the 2012 season, when Vettel got his string of wins. And Red Bull further perfected their design for the 2013 season, when they were aerodynamically clearly superior again.

As for the sudden drop of McLaren's performance in 2013. Probably to do with loss of key personnel - chief designer Paddy Lowe left in mid 2012. You can also ask, why did Williams suck so heavily in 2013 after a genuinely strong 2012. Or what about Sauber, who got lots of podiums in 2012.

Each season is different, so are team performances. Depending on the depth of the team and how can they adapt to new season regulations. Or even if there are no big regulation changes, performances can still shift around. Look at Red Bull. Recently praised for their chassis superiority, can now barely beat Toro Rosso! So changes, even big changes in performance quality, do happen, if teams themselves change (designers, engineers, etc).

I was going to respond to dj. But jens has just posted a fair amount to text. So I'll need some time to go through all that.