planetf1.com

How was Renault stint 1 the same before he joined? They went from 4th to the double double with him and when he left they went to 3rd . (7th to the double double if you include his year as test driver being the start of his influence).

He's a driver who's moved a lot from big team to big team without having the quickest car (ie he leaves when they are struggling). You're not going to find a lot of times the works support teams he's been in don't eventually come good after that.

Macca should've won the WCC in 07. They didn't in 06.
Ferrari were 4th in 09. With him they were 3rd in 2010.
Renault were 4th in 02. They went on to the double double
Renault(2) were 4th and winless the year before (elevated to 3rd by McLaren expulsion) and 4th when he rejoined and won a race on merit.

McHonda efforts are obviously pretty special circumstances but everywhere else saw improvement with him there. Jumping the ship too early is an obvious criticism you can lay at him but I'm not seeing this negative influence when he arrives at all, quite the opposite.

And that's ignoring the reasons and context of each move or improvement. Like Ferrari's infrastructure when he joined being outdated and not fixed until 2013. Or Marchionne coming in once Alonso leaves and completely overhauling their sim tools with hundreds of millions spent on dynos that Luca refused to do. How are they not going to improve in this scenario?

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

How did Ferrari go backwards. At most you can say they ended up back where they were. 4th in 09 to 3rd,3rd,2nd,3rd and finally 4th with Alonso.

We did have a testing ban that made Fiorano pointless and Luca's decision not to invest in the same quality of sim tools as McLaren and Red Bull a huge burden that Alonso would put up with for almost his entire stretch there though.

And it seems like people have completely forgotten how he started. Renault are 7th when he's hired as test driver. They finish 4th that year and he starts as driver the next and they end up as double world champs.

How is that not taking a team from zero to hero? It's the best example since Schumacher.

And Lewis had the Mercedes in 2012 to the Mercedes now as well.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I compared season prior to him signing to the year he joined the team, same thing when he left.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)

Gives a bit of a false impression though with regards to Renault especially,no? They went from 4th to the double double with him, I'm not seeing a bad influence there tbh. He left them as champs and they fell to 3rd.

Also his year as test driver for Renault and Michelin was important, back in the days your test driver actually hit the track in the current race car, and they went from 7th to 4th.

EDIT: Sorry messed up quotes.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Mercedes were winning nothing before Hamilton joined them, if you can't give any credit to him then you can't for Schumacher either.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Or Alonso with Renault.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Or Vettel with RBR.

Quite. Seems to be half the list.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Then you could say the same with Hamilton at McLaren and Vettel at Red Bull, I was comparing with a world champion going to a poorer performing team and helping to make a difference.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Obvious difference being when they were competitive. Alonso didn't walk into one of the best cars at Renault so I don't think Lewis-McLaren would count anyway. Seb-RB is arguable depending on how you view the 2009 RB I suppose.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

What? Vettel brought RBR from "zero to hero", by that same token as Hamilton brought Mercedes from "zero to hero" and MS brought Ferrari from "zero to hero". Isn't that what is to be looked at here?
Anyway, it is a bit silly contest. Both Ham and Vettel happened to land into the winning car.

Though, in the case of Merc and Ham, it is more clear than in the case of Vet and RBR that, was Hamilton to remain put in McLaren, Merc would still be winning both of the titles without him. So, so much for Ham bringing Merc "from zero to hero".

Right...unlike Michael Schumcher, who actually made a hand-drawn design for each of his cars and engineered the power units as well...

What Schumi "brought" was so much more ... He was the big piece of a culture change. While Luca and Todt got things going in the right direction (signing Schumi was a critical factor), Schumi's commitment to excellence, confidence, work ethic and the ability to make others believe as well were the intangibles that not only resulted in other top talent wanting to join Ferrari, but also high expectations of excellence by all. I don't think any can compare in that respect... Not Lewis, not Seb.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

And what exactly do you base that on? Before Lewis got to Mercedes, they were also-rans. Now they are champions with a pedigree and an edge to them. Before Vettel got to Red Bull they were also-rans. Now they are champions so impatient about winning that they actually screwed up their own works deal with Renault. Before Michael got to Ferrari they were still Ferrari; the most popular and oldest team in F1. All three can say that they brought their teams the biggest patch of success in the team's history. The fact that you choose to give Schumacher more credit is irrelevant.

No more irrelevant than your opinion, sandman. I suspect that my opinion on the matter is much more in line with recent sources as well as F1 historians.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

One opinion is no more valid than another. On that we agree. The difference is that Schumacher fans seem to think that this narrative is more than just opinion.

Michael went to Ferrari and brought with him his whole technical team from Benetton which he had just won back to back titles with. Despite this and despite the fact that Ferrari spent more money than any other team, had their own private testing facility in which they could do unlimited testing year round and had such a cozy relationship with Bridgestone that the tires essentially were designed for their car; it still took 4 years to become champions. Schumacher fans like to talk about this as though it was a rag-tag bunch of rebels trying to win against the odds...

I think that Schumacher gets a lot of credit for turning Ferrari around for two reasons:

1. He left a winning team at Benetton.

2. It took him 5 years to win his first title, after two defeats in the final race of the season.

Vettel and Hamilton both won with RBR and Merc right away (in their second season) so there isn’t as much of a “journey” to their story.

Exactly. Merc went from 5th to 2he in Hamilton's first year and to 1st in his second (by virtue of getting the new engines very right). I don't mean this as a put down of Lewis, only to say that in such a short period of time I don't see how he could have made that much difference within the team structure. The same with Seb.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

With your own words here, aren't you making the case for Schumi? I know that is not what you intended to do, but IF Schumi brought all that talent with him, and that is what made the difference at Ferrari, then he would certainly deserve a great deal of credit, would he not? What did Lewis do to make such a quick difference at Mercedes or what did Seb do to turn around RB's fortunes so quickly?

I don't know if you were including me with your "Schumacher fans" paint brush, but I think the last 16 years in here have shown that I give Luca and Jean a great bit of the credit, as well as Schumi and the people that followed him to the team.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

No no, it wasn't meant as a dig at you in particular. I've not seen you make some of the more outlandish comments about Michael during that time. It's just that people seem to make a blanket association with Schumacher that they don't with others. Like, why would Schumacher get credit for what other people from the Benetton team did? Does Hamilton get credit for Paddy Lowe?

Alonso didn't leave a better situation to go to a poorer one, likewise Vettel when he left STR, I'm talking about a driver leaving a title capable car and going into a worse car like when Schumacher left Benetton and when Hamilton left McLaren, that's were the comparisons are very similar.

You could say the likes of Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel all lucked into title winning cars, they were all junior drivers for the teams come whether the car was going to be good or bad.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Hamilton did not leave a title capable car to go to Mercedes - he left McLaren precisley because he had decided they weren't title capable. Very different from what Schumi did - he didn't quit Benetton in disgust and just take the best offer available, which is what Hamilton basically did. Similar idea for Seb going to Ferrari: he didn't leave a title capable car, he decided that the RBR no longer was one.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)

I've just answered the first sentence.

For the second sentence it goes along with things I heard said in 2012 like Schumacher said he retired because he was burnt out but he also said that Mercedes didn't have the budget to win titles. Then Mercedes were complaining about the poor contract being offered by Bernie in the new Concorde agreement and Bernie told them if you want more money then stop playing in F1, start spending serious money and hire a top driver like Hamilton who's looking to leave McLaren, win some titles then you get a better deal, or words to that affect.

So I believe it became important to sign Hamilton so that Mercedes would bring forward more commitment to F1, afterall why did Mercedes badger Hamilton so much to sign for them and had the need to convince him it was the right thing to do, it wasn't Hamilton that approached Mercedes.

Another thing I read so much is that it was so obvious that Mercedes were going to dominate in the Hybrid era, if it was so obvious then surely Mercedes had to know that as well so why the need with foresight did they need to sign Hamilton and on a massive salary at that, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

We are all responding to the same post that doesn't mention all these caveats as to why Alonso-Renault doesn't count.

They were 7th when Alonso joined as a test driver. 4th when he joined as a driver. 4th in his first year. 3rd in his second year and then back to back champions. That's nothing like lucking into title capable cars in your first year with the team.

It's the very definition of zero to hero team wise and you can keep adding all the caveats you want, he has to be champ, has to be leaving a championship car, etc..but pole2win mentioned none of them.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Whereas Eddie Irvine that was actually there at the beginning said that Schumacher actually didn't do that much, it was Jean Todt who brought all the pieces together, what Schumacher brought was that of being the best driver in F1.

True that Schumacher being there might entice the top engineers, or the big wage packets did, but then again this is little different to what Bernie told Mercedes, sign Hamilton and you will get the top engineers wanting to work with him.

Hamilton himself said he wanted to emulate what Schumacher did at Ferrari, obviously you can't say it was like for like exactly the same, but why the need to say the two things were not the same at all?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

What Alonso did at Renault was outstanding but I think the failed ventures since that point perhaps put a different spin on things.

The reality though is that giving the driver credit to the extent that some try to with Schumi for a team's or car's excellence is patently absurd.

1. Hamilton left McLaren who had the fastest car to join Mercedes who were a midfield team struggling to get into Q3.

2. How can you win right away in your second season?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Ferrari went from 3rd to 2nd, Schumacher was actually joining a better team, I miss your point?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Ferrari were able to do that because of the money they were spending, more than any other team.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

And it was rather di Montezemolo and Todt buying out the winning Benetton team to Ferrari than Schumacher compiling things. That is a myth, really.

Hamilton had the fastest car in F1 when he left McLaren, Button the supposed more cerebral driver thought Hamilton was an idiot and the 2013 title was going to be open season for him, I say more praise to Hamilton to see the writing on the wall for McLaren.

Schumacher left Benetton for the massive retainer offered by Ferrari, also there were suggestions that he was keen to get away from the cheating rumours that surrounded Benetton.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Schumacher did exactly what Alonso did at Benetton but he didn't mention Benetton, so I took that onboard as the leaving to join another team when he mentioned Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

That's a stretch. The car was certainly quick in 2012 but to call it the fastest outright isn't accurate. Red Bull certainly had a car with at least equivalent pace and arguably Lotus and Ferrari were right there as well. There was maybe 2-3 tenths between those 4 teams most of the year with fluctuations as to where they stood relative to each other. When you combine that with the car's shotty reliability, I don't think saying he had the fastest car is an accurate representation of the 2012 season at all.

But yeah, I get your point. He had won races every year with McLaren and had at least an outside shot at the title in most of those years. Leaving for Mercedes was well off the beaten path.

The failed ventures highlight how indebted to their engineers a driver is. It's an engineers game here. If you get the best tools then you can win. He hasn't had the best tools since Renault and he hasn't won, it's that simple. When he had the tyre supplier in his back pocket and his engineers were the ones coming up with the best idea, he won. When neither happened, he couldn't.

The drivers themselves are by far the least important bit so I agree with your second sentence yeah.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

In 2012 Hamilton had the most poles 7, 8 if I include Barcelona were his mechanic underfueled him and would have had the most wins, 7 if not for unreliability and again Barcelona if not for the faceplam in qualifying, Button himself won 3 races.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 12th

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015

Alonso did join from another team as well though, he wasn't a Renault jnr, he joined from Minardi to be Renault's test driver.

Pole2Win can clarify though but I don't see why it doesn't count just because he was at his 2nd team and a young un'.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I swear I'll never understand this notion that pole is purely down to the car but race results are not. Did Senna have the best car in 85'? He had the most poles. You really think that Hamilton must have a better car to have 7 poles to Vettel's 6?

Button outqualified Webber 10 out of 20 times in 2012, and Button had a pretty horrible season in 2012.

Also, Vettel was never closer than 0.302 sec to Hamilton on any of the occasions Hamilton took pole. Lewis usually had a comfortable cushion to Vettel every time he took pole in 2012.

McLaren was easily as fast as Red Bull in 2012.

McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus all had competitive cars that year. Pokerman made the claim that McLaren had the quickest car; which I disagreed with. Never suggested the Mclaren wasn't up there in terms of speed with the Red Bull so we are not in disagreement.

I think that McLaren and Red Bull were a step above Lotus and Ferrari in 2012. They took poles regularly while Lotus and Ferrari struggled to compete in qualifying.