How good is Vettel?

[Dave B]

Vettel clearly benefits from a great car, but so does Webber as well as several other drivers in Ferrari, McLaren and to a lesser extent Lotus and Mercedes. He did, however, win a wet race in a POS Toro Rosso, so I don't exactly think he's without talent!

[Garry Walker]

Vettel clearly benefits from a great car, but so does Webber as well as several other drivers in Ferrari, McLaren and to a lesser extent Lotus and Mercedes. He did, however, win a wet race in a POS Toro Rosso, so I don't exactly think he's without talent!

That Toro Rosso was so bad that Sebastian Bourdais, the guy who came from a series known for having wet-weather specialist drivers (LOL) was able to qualify 4th in it in the very same race.
Of course many drivers have great cars, the sad fact is that since 2009 the one that has been in a league of its own, has been Red Bull.

[henners88]

What do you disagree with? That RB has been the car to have since mid 2009? That it has been the fastest car in most races, not to mention qualis since then?
That Hamilton and Alonso have rarely had a car as good as RB? That Alonso was able to take the championship to last race in a car that was far slower than the Red Bull in both 2010 and in 2012?

I personally think both Hamilton and Alonso are slightly better drivers than Vettel, but I can also accept Seb is a very good driver in his own right. He's been lucky with a great car but he deserves credit on top of that too. A bit of a side discussion this and I have nothing more to add on it.

[Ranger]

Vettel clearly benefits from a great car, but so does Webber as well as several other drivers in Ferrari, McLaren and to a lesser extent Lotus and Mercedes. He did, however, win a wet race in a POS Toro Rosso, so I don't exactly think he's without talent!

The rest of your post is true but let's clarify the part in bold.

Bourdais qualified the same car 4th on that Saturday before his clutch packed up at the start of the race.

Come the latter half of 2008 the STR (which was Newey-designed, I'll add) was one of the best cars on the grid.

[dj_bytedisaster]

What do you disagree with? That RB has been the car to have since mid 2009? That it has been the fastest car in most races, not to mention qualis since then?
That Hamilton and Alonso have rarely had a car as good as RB? That Alonso was able to take the championship to last race in a car that was far slower than the Red Bull in both 2010 and in 2012?

The 2010 RB wasn't remotely as good as you make it out to be and not to forget that Mark was in a better position to take the title, but both he and Alonso failed to get past a russian pay driver in a mediocre Lotus. The 2011 RB was head and shoulders above the rest, but so was Villeneuves 1996 Williams, Mansell's 1992 Williams or Senna's 1988 McLaren. It just happens from time to time. For most of the year 2012 the RB was second behind the McLaren, but got the title handed by McLarens ineptitude at pit stops.
And you seem to forget that the only way that Alonso could take the fight to the last race was the foul grid manipulation at Austin and healthy amount of points, which he scored while the RB was mediocre at best in the early stages of the season.

[Garry Walker]

The rest of your post is true but let's clarify the part in bold.

Bourdais qualified the same car 4th on that Saturday before his clutch packed up at the start of the race.

Come the latter half of 2008 the STR (which was Newey-designed, I'll add) was one of the best cars on the grid.

Yep. That win is the most overrated victory of all times.

[jens]

That Alonso was able to take the championship to last race in a car that was far slower than the Red Bull in both 2010 and in 2012?

This is an analysis of situations without context. For starters, Ferrari's reliability has been superior to Red Bull. Also circumstances have to be taken into account. Like Vettel starting from the pitlane through no fault of his own. Team mistakes, which I can't remember Ferrari doing.

Every race and circumstance is different. Häkkinen won the title by two points from Irvine in 1999. Despite Ferrari looking slower rather than faster in most races compared to McLaren. Yet you can hardly find anyone, who considers Irvine a superior driver to Häkkinen. So it was the set of circumstances, which made the championship close.

The best thing that can be done is simply to learn to appreciate the driving skills behind the wheel. Instead of fighting a 'losing battle' year after year.

[Garry Walker]

The 2010 RB wasn't remotely as good as you make it out to be and not to forget that Mark was in a better position to take the title, but both he and Alonso failed to get past a russian pay driver in a mediocre Lotus.

The 2010 RB was clearly the best car on the grid. That Webber (LOL) was in a position to take the title just shows how great a car it was.

The 2011 RB was head and shoulders above the rest, but so was Villeneuves 1996 Williams, Mansell's 1992 Williams or Senna's 1988 McLaren.

Well, both Mansell and Senna were better drivers.

It just happens from time to time. For most of the year 2012 the RB was second behind the McLaren, but got the title handed by McLarens ineptitude at pit stops.
And you seem to forget that the only way that Alonso could take the fight to the last race was the foul grid manipulation at Austin and healthy amount of points, which he scored while the RB was mediocre at best in the early stages of the season.

RB was clearly better than McLaren last year, RB mediocre in the early stages of last season? LOL.
It was at least as fast as McLaren in Australia, faster in both Malaysia and China, actually won in Bahrain. Where does the mediocre part come in?
The only way Alonso fought for the WDC was by being about 10 times better driver and driving an incredible season. The reality is that in 2012 Ferrari was inferior to RB in pretty much every race and still Alonso somehow managed to fight for the title.

[jens]

Felt it was needed to create two separate threads.

The rest of your post is true but let's clarify the part in bold.

Bourdais qualified the same car 4th on that Saturday before his clutch packed up at the start of the race.

Come the latter half of 2008 the STR (which was Newey-designed, I'll add) was one of the best cars on the grid.

STR one of the best cars in late 2008? I think you are blowing things way out of proportion. It was a front-running car only at Monza.'

[Garry Walker]

This is an analysis of situations without context. For starters, Ferrari's reliability has been superior to Red Bull. Also circumstances have to be taken into account. Like Vettel starting from the pitlane through no fault of his own. Team mistakes, which I can't remember Ferrari doing.

Oh yes, Cheap Shot's reliability has been so bad the last few seasons. Imagine, he has had 4 car related failures in 3 years. How awful. Just so awful.
True that Alonso has only had 1 in the same time, but he has also had to deal with a slower car in almost each of those races. I know which one I would prefer.

Every race and circumstance is different. Häkkinen won the title by two points from Irvine in 1999. Despite Ferrari looking slower rather than faster in most races compared to McLaren. Yet you can hardly find anyone, who considers Irvine a superior driver to Häkkinen. So it was the set of circumstances, which made the championship close.

Yes, like Mika making driving errors, DC ramming him and McLaren failing him time and time again.

The best thing that can be done is simply to learn to appreciate the driving skills behind the wheel.:

That is why I like watching Alonso, Hamilton and Kimi.