planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:50 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 218
I agree with this guy, it's likely the only thing Vettel should be famous for
Fat Albert wrote:
The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:35 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???

I don't think it's fair to say that it diminished Schumi's achievements, particularly considering what we now know about Rosberg, and how close Michael had come by 2012. It's very possible that if he had kept at it he would have beaten Rosberg in 2013 and beyond.

However, it did put the only real question mark on a spotless career: without Rosberg, Schumi was never beaten by a teammate, and nobody even really came close. Yes, it's easy to draw a line between his first and second careers, but the fact remains that without his comeback his reputation would be just that little bit more unimpeachable.

Paradoxically, I feel that if he had solidly beaten Rosberg, that would have actually enhanced his legacy significantly, establishing him firmly beyond any doubt as the greatest.

I thought that Schumacher would thrash Rosberg, it's since then that age has become a factor in respect to a driver being past it when he gets to his 40's, Mansell was re-signed by Williams to race as a 38 year old and won the title when he was 39 and was good to go for many years after that or so it seemed.

He left because of the signing of Prost who was only 2 years younger, Prost won the F1 title at 38 Mansell went on and won Indycar aged 40, Fangio won all his titles in his 40's, there was nothing to suggest that Schumacher would fail merely because of age, 41 didn't seem that old at the time?


What a funny post. Mansell in Williams, seriously? That car was enjoying such an advantage that was unreal, Cesaris would have won in it. Unless you think that Mansell actually would have been 2 secs per lap faster than Senna in Monaco...

And Mansell did not stay out of the sport 3 years, he did not have a neck injury nor did he have issues with testing the cars in the simulator, in fact they had no test restrictions as far as I remember. You are comparing apples with oranges, but whatever rocks your boat

I'm comparing how age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then, in 1995 Mansell was signed by McLaren to replace Senna, he was 42 that year, he missed the first 2 races reasons given that he had put on some weight during his 2 years in Indycars and didn't fit inside the car.

They modified the car and he did 2 races but struggled in respect to Hakkinen and then called it a day, no one gave a thought to him being too old.

What happened to Schumacher perhaps served to highlight that there is a drop off in performance something that wasn't so obvious before, the excuses you are making suggests you don't think that age was a factor?


No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7887
If Leclerc were to beat Vettel the effect his legacy would depend on what Leclerc goes on to do surely.

If he beat Vettel but went on to be GOAT material it would have a very different impact than if he beat Vettel and then went on to be considered an average driver over his career.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1057
Location: Kansas
Battle Far wrote:
I agree with this guy, it's likely the only thing Vettel should be famous for
Fat Albert wrote:
The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


That is not without merit. Vettel's success with RBR was certainly aided by their superiority as were a number of other champions. Certainly Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill's championships were partially enabled by the superiority of the Williams cars they were racing. Likewise Lewis Hamilton's efforts in 2013 & 2014 were helped by the caliber of the Mercedes.

Still one does not just stumble into that kind of ride. Both Vettel and Webber were excellent drivers who could make very good use of the very good RBR package. In spec cars they would have probably had more of a challenge from Fernando, Kimi and maybe a few others, but Seb was not just gifted those titles.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 588
Siao7 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
I think people are criticizing vettel too much for 2014. Yes, Ricciardo was new to the car, but the rules changed things so much that year, that the car was effectively nearly as new for Vettel as changing team was for Ricciardo. Vettel had been used to such a different car before. It wasn't a good year, I'll accept that, but I think he's been better every year since. IMO, he looked the best driver on the grid in 2015. He was very quick in the next 3 but did make mistakes. But as on another post i made in the vettel vs Leclerc thread, I think Leclerc has been very over rated given Ericsson was his team mate and the car had improved so much. To begin with, I think even Kimi would be stronger. And over the whole season, he may end up better than Kimi, but I don't think it will be by much. This year, I think it is as likely that leclerc will beat Vettel as Kimi would have if he stayed. I just don't see it happening And I couldn't imagine a poll being created for vettel vs Kimi. I think the car won't have a dramatic change in performance like 2014 either, so it will be Leclerc who will have to be getting used to things.


Yeah 2014 wasn't as bad as some are making it out. Most of his problems resulted in not being able to make the tires work as well as Ricciardo in the races. He still had some very strong races in 2014 and he outshined Ricc in the rain. The qualifying battle went to Ricciardo but it wasn't a drubbing. He should/could have won Canada if he had better luck with his pit stop. Had a memorable tussle with Alonso at Silverstone which he came out on top of. It wasn't an awful season. It's just that he was paired up with a guy who had a better one and that guy has shown to be a strong performer and one of the best on the grid since then. I think he will bounce back strong this year. We shall see...

Wasn't it also the case that if he finished below 3rd by September he would trigger the exit clause that would release him to Ferrari and the mega-$$? It has been well recorded. This is without taking anything from Dan, as we saw Seb fighting in races, but just maybe not fighting as hard as he could?


Are there any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:24 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
aice wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
I think people are criticizing vettel too much for 2014. Yes, Ricciardo was new to the car, but the rules changed things so much that year, that the car was effectively nearly as new for Vettel as changing team was for Ricciardo. Vettel had been used to such a different car before. It wasn't a good year, I'll accept that, but I think he's been better every year since. IMO, he looked the best driver on the grid in 2015. He was very quick in the next 3 but did make mistakes. But as on another post i made in the vettel vs Leclerc thread, I think Leclerc has been very over rated given Ericsson was his team mate and the car had improved so much. To begin with, I think even Kimi would be stronger. And over the whole season, he may end up better than Kimi, but I don't think it will be by much. This year, I think it is as likely that leclerc will beat Vettel as Kimi would have if he stayed. I just don't see it happening And I couldn't imagine a poll being created for vettel vs Kimi. I think the car won't have a dramatic change in performance like 2014 either, so it will be Leclerc who will have to be getting used to things.


Yeah 2014 wasn't as bad as some are making it out. Most of his problems resulted in not being able to make the tires work as well as Ricciardo in the races. He still had some very strong races in 2014 and he outshined Ricc in the rain. The qualifying battle went to Ricciardo but it wasn't a drubbing. He should/could have won Canada if he had better luck with his pit stop. Had a memorable tussle with Alonso at Silverstone which he came out on top of. It wasn't an awful season. It's just that he was paired up with a guy who had a better one and that guy has shown to be a strong performer and one of the best on the grid since then. I think he will bounce back strong this year. We shall see...

Wasn't it also the case that if he finished below 3rd by September he would trigger the exit clause that would release him to Ferrari and the mega-$$? It has been well recorded. This is without taking anything from Dan, as we saw Seb fighting in races, but just maybe not fighting as hard as he could?


Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6


It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7759
Location: Belgium
Mort Canard wrote:
Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???

Image
Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg
I'm not sure why you put it that way. His accomplishments are what they are, and were what they were.
I do think his 3-year second stint changed perceptions of the whole of his career, as the (technical) circumstances of his second stint were rather different, taking away a few of the advantages he enjoyed in the first.

I think Vettel was terrific in his use of the Red Bulls when winning 4 titles. I would love to hear what Adrian Newey's views on his first year following them would be. But the blown diffuser would certainly be high on his list of topics to discuss on the subject of that year.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7141
Location: Michigan, USA
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I thought that Schumacher would thrash Rosberg, it's since then that age has become a factor in respect to a driver being past it when he gets to his 40's, Mansell was re-signed by Williams to race as a 38 year old and won the title when he was 39 and was good to go for many years after that or so it seemed.

He left because of the signing of Prost who was only 2 years younger, Prost won the F1 title at 38 Mansell went on and won Indycar aged 40, Fangio won all his titles in his 40's, there was nothing to suggest that Schumacher would fail merely because of age, 41 didn't seem that old at the time?


What a funny post. Mansell in Williams, seriously? That car was enjoying such an advantage that was unreal, Cesaris would have won in it. Unless you think that Mansell actually would have been 2 secs per lap faster than Senna in Monaco...

And Mansell did not stay out of the sport 3 years, he did not have a neck injury nor did he have issues with testing the cars in the simulator, in fact they had no test restrictions as far as I remember. You are comparing apples with oranges, but whatever rocks your boat

I'm comparing how age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then, in 1995 Mansell was signed by McLaren to replace Senna, he was 42 that year, he missed the first 2 races reasons given that he had put on some weight during his 2 years in Indycars and didn't fit inside the car.

They modified the car and he did 2 races but struggled in respect to Hakkinen and then called it a day, no one gave a thought to him being too old.

What happened to Schumacher perhaps served to highlight that there is a drop off in performance something that wasn't so obvious before, the excuses you are making suggests you don't think that age was a factor?


No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?

I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Last edited by pokerman on Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Mort Canard wrote:
Battle Far wrote:
I agree with this guy, it's likely the only thing Vettel should be famous for
Fat Albert wrote:
The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


That is not without merit. Vettel's success with RBR was certainly aided by their superiority as were a number of other champions. Certainly Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill's championships were partially enabled by the superiority of the Williams cars they were racing. Likewise Lewis Hamilton's efforts in 2013 & 2014 were helped by the caliber of the Mercedes.

Still one does not just stumble into that kind of ride. Both Vettel and Webber were excellent drivers who could make very good use of the very good RBR package. In spec cars they would have probably had more of a challenge from Fernando, Kimi and maybe a few others, but Seb was not just gifted those titles.

More of a challenge would have seen Vettel not winning the 2010 and 2012 titles.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
I think people are criticizing vettel too much for 2014. Yes, Ricciardo was new to the car, but the rules changed things so much that year, that the car was effectively nearly as new for Vettel as changing team was for Ricciardo. Vettel had been used to such a different car before. It wasn't a good year, I'll accept that, but I think he's been better every year since. IMO, he looked the best driver on the grid in 2015. He was very quick in the next 3 but did make mistakes. But as on another post i made in the vettel vs Leclerc thread, I think Leclerc has been very over rated given Ericsson was his team mate and the car had improved so much. To begin with, I think even Kimi would be stronger. And over the whole season, he may end up better than Kimi, but I don't think it will be by much. This year, I think it is as likely that leclerc will beat Vettel as Kimi would have if he stayed. I just don't see it happening And I couldn't imagine a poll being created for vettel vs Kimi. I think the car won't have a dramatic change in performance like 2014 either, so it will be Leclerc who will have to be getting used to things.


Yeah 2014 wasn't as bad as some are making it out. Most of his problems resulted in not being able to make the tires work as well as Ricciardo in the races. He still had some very strong races in 2014 and he outshined Ricc in the rain. The qualifying battle went to Ricciardo but it wasn't a drubbing. He should/could have won Canada if he had better luck with his pit stop. Had a memorable tussle with Alonso at Silverstone which he came out on top of. It wasn't an awful season. It's just that he was paired up with a guy who had a better one and that guy has shown to be a strong performer and one of the best on the grid since then. I think he will bounce back strong this year. We shall see...

Wasn't it also the case that if he finished below 3rd by September he would trigger the exit clause that would release him to Ferrari and the mega-$$? It has been well recorded. This is without taking anything from Dan, as we saw Seb fighting in races, but just maybe not fighting as hard as he could?


Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6


It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

Reading the three articles neither stipulate a target position in the WDC, they say if Red Bull fall behind in competitiveness.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:08 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
kleefton wrote:

Yeah 2014 wasn't as bad as some are making it out. Most of his problems resulted in not being able to make the tires work as well as Ricciardo in the races. He still had some very strong races in 2014 and he outshined Ricc in the rain. The qualifying battle went to Ricciardo but it wasn't a drubbing. He should/could have won Canada if he had better luck with his pit stop. Had a memorable tussle with Alonso at Silverstone which he came out on top of. It wasn't an awful season. It's just that he was paired up with a guy who had a better one and that guy has shown to be a strong performer and one of the best on the grid since then. I think he will bounce back strong this year. We shall see...

Wasn't it also the case that if he finished below 3rd by September he would trigger the exit clause that would release him to Ferrari and the mega-$$? It has been well recorded. This is without taking anything from Dan, as we saw Seb fighting in races, but just maybe not fighting as hard as he could?


Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6


It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

Reading the three articles neither stipulate a target position in the WDC, they say if Red Bull fall behind in competitiveness.


"the get-out clause related to the German’s position in the Drivers’ Championship at the end of September".

I remember that position was lower than third, although I can't find it in that article. Vettel was lower than that at that time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:13 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:22 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I thought that Schumacher would thrash Rosberg, it's since then that age has become a factor in respect to a driver being past it when he gets to his 40's, Mansell was re-signed by Williams to race as a 38 year old and won the title when he was 39 and was good to go for many years after that or so it seemed.

He left because of the signing of Prost who was only 2 years younger, Prost won the F1 title at 38 Mansell went on and won Indycar aged 40, Fangio won all his titles in his 40's, there was nothing to suggest that Schumacher would fail merely because of age, 41 didn't seem that old at the time?


What a funny post. Mansell in Williams, seriously? That car was enjoying such an advantage that was unreal, Cesaris would have won in it. Unless you think that Mansell actually would have been 2 secs per lap faster than Senna in Monaco...

And Mansell did not stay out of the sport 3 years, he did not have a neck injury nor did he have issues with testing the cars in the simulator, in fact they had no test restrictions as far as I remember. You are comparing apples with oranges, but whatever rocks your boat

I'm comparing how age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then, in 1995 Mansell was signed by McLaren to replace Senna, he was 42 that year, he missed the first 2 races reasons given that he had put on some weight during his 2 years in Indycars and didn't fit inside the car.

They modified the car and he did 2 races but struggled in respect to Hakkinen and then called it a day, no one gave a thought to him being too old.

What happened to Schumacher perhaps served to highlight that there is a drop off in performance something that wasn't so obvious before, the excuses you are making suggests you don't think that age was a factor?


No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?

I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.


Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 791
You need a different sort of talent to drive:
- at the front(alone)
- in the midfield(back of the grid) and with cars around you

If I had the best car on the grid with perfect setup I woul pick Vettel anytime (for the races) to drive it. NO Hamilton(everyone know I am his biggest fan :D ), NO Alonso, NO RIC/VER/etc...

The guy is just a machine when running in clean air and can drive like Robot like schumacher did before him.

Vettel's place is at the front and he certainly deserves his 4WDC.
Think about it for a moment. A certain young driver is yet to score his first pole position despite his teammate proving the car was there multiple times to grab it. Something I know HAM/VET/ALO would have already done at this point. But yet VET is cr*p to people's eyes.

Athe front there is nowhere to hide unlike the midfield or the back of the grid where people easily forget or miss it when you f*ck up.
He just need to regain his confidence and verything will be good.



If(a big IF) Leclerc proves to be a match(Vettel and his advisors/engineers will see it in the data) he just needs to leave the house ASAP just like Alonso, Rossi(Valentino) did before him to limit the damage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 880
Location: Melbourne Australia
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
I think people are criticizing vettel too much for 2014. Yes, Ricciardo was new to the car, but the rules changed things so much that year, that the car was effectively nearly as new for Vettel as changing team was for Ricciardo. Vettel had been used to such a different car before. It wasn't a good year, I'll accept that, but I think he's been better every year since. IMO, he looked the best driver on the grid in 2015. He was very quick in the next 3 but did make mistakes. But as on another post i made in the vettel vs Leclerc thread, I think Leclerc has been very over rated given Ericsson was his team mate and the car had improved so much. To begin with, I think even Kimi would be stronger. And over the whole season, he may end up better than Kimi, but I don't think it will be by much. This year, I think it is as likely that leclerc will beat Vettel as Kimi would have if he stayed. I just don't see it happening And I couldn't imagine a poll being created for vettel vs Kimi. I think the car won't have a dramatic change in performance like 2014 either, so it will be Leclerc who will have to be getting used to things.


One interesting tidbit, Ricciardo secured his Red Bull drive in the 2013 test at Silverstone in July.
Apparently he was quicker than Vettel on similar fuel/conditions in the car that Vettel won his most dominat WDC in.
(Red Bull were considering Kimi as well until that test)

I think Vettel is a good driver that gets rattled easily when there is extreme pressure.
I am expecting he will never win another WDC and that Le Clerc will easily beat him in 2019.

_________________
Dan the man!



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 10:54 am
Posts: 880
Location: Melbourne Australia
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day


I remember seeing a interview with Horner on Sky.
He said something like that he would never hold a driver whose heart wasn’t 100% wanting to race for the team. He made out like they let him out of the contract because they knew they wouldn’t get the best out of him.
They also knew Ricciardo was quicker at the time.

_________________
Dan the man!



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
Randine wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day


I remember seeing a interview with Horner on Sky.
He said something like that he would never hold a driver whose heart wasn’t 100% wanting to race for the team. He made out like they let him out of the contract because they knew they wouldn’t get the best out of him.
They also knew Ricciardo was quicker at the time.

He had no option though. The clause released Vettel, nothing Horner could do really. So to act like they let him go ahead sounds a bit like RB trying to save face.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Wasn't it also the case that if he finished below 3rd by September he would trigger the exit clause that would release him to Ferrari and the mega-$$? It has been well recorded. This is without taking anything from Dan, as we saw Seb fighting in races, but just maybe not fighting as hard as he could?


Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6


It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

Reading the three articles neither stipulate a target position in the WDC, they say if Red Bull fall behind in competitiveness.


"the get-out clause related to the German’s position in the Drivers’ Championship at the end of September".

I remember that position was lower than third, although I can't find it in that article. Vettel was lower than that at that time

Neither article states which position that was so that has to be seen as speculation.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What a funny post. Mansell in Williams, seriously? That car was enjoying such an advantage that was unreal, Cesaris would have won in it. Unless you think that Mansell actually would have been 2 secs per lap faster than Senna in Monaco...

And Mansell did not stay out of the sport 3 years, he did not have a neck injury nor did he have issues with testing the cars in the simulator, in fact they had no test restrictions as far as I remember. You are comparing apples with oranges, but whatever rocks your boat

I'm comparing how age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then, in 1995 Mansell was signed by McLaren to replace Senna, he was 42 that year, he missed the first 2 races reasons given that he had put on some weight during his 2 years in Indycars and didn't fit inside the car.

They modified the car and he did 2 races but struggled in respect to Hakkinen and then called it a day, no one gave a thought to him being too old.

What happened to Schumacher perhaps served to highlight that there is a drop off in performance something that wasn't so obvious before, the excuses you are making suggests you don't think that age was a factor?


No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?

I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.


Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?

Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Pullrod wrote:
You need a different sort of talent to drive:
- at the front(alone)
- in the midfield(back of the grid) and with cars around you

If I had the best car on the grid with perfect setup I woul pick Vettel anytime (for the races) to drive it. NO Hamilton(everyone know I am his biggest fan :D ), NO Alonso, NO RIC/VER/etc...

The guy is just a machine when running in clean air and can drive like Robot like schumacher did before him.

Vettel's place is at the front and he certainly deserves his 4WDC.
Think about it for a moment. A certain young driver is yet to score his first pole position despite his teammate proving the car was there multiple times to grab it. Something I know HAM/VET/ALO would have already done at this point. But yet VET is cr*p to people's eyes.

Athe front there is nowhere to hide unlike the midfield or the back of the grid where people easily forget or miss it when you f*ck up.
He just need to regain his confidence and verything will be good.



If(a big IF) Leclerc proves to be a match(Vettel and his advisors/engineers will see it in the data) he just needs to leave the house ASAP just like Alonso, Rossi(Valentino) did before him to limit the damage.

That being the case were would Vettel go?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:

Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6


It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

Reading the three articles neither stipulate a target position in the WDC, they say if Red Bull fall behind in competitiveness.


"the get-out clause related to the German’s position in the Drivers’ Championship at the end of September".

I remember that position was lower than third, although I can't find it in that article. Vettel was lower than that at that time

Neither article states which position that was so that has to be seen as speculation.


Just a few of them:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula- ... ll-4375842

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other- ... -1.1952415

http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/39003.html

The last one talks about a specific amount of races that they have to win per year too, albeit this was for 2011-2012. I am not sure if he changed anything between contracts, but I think he did not; he just signed extensions to his current contracts rather than new deals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
aice wrote:
Are their any links/quotes directly from Marko/Horner/RB - specifically stating Vettel needed to finish below P3? I was always of the impression the main trigger was linked to the competitiveness of the car, as oppposed to Vettel's performance e.g.https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport ... 8e0fe38ea6

It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

Reading the three articles neither stipulate a target position in the WDC, they say if Red Bull fall behind in competitiveness.


"the get-out clause related to the German’s position in the Drivers’ Championship at the end of September".

I remember that position was lower than third, although I can't find it in that article. Vettel was lower than that at that time

Neither article states which position that was so that has to be seen as speculation.


Just a few of them:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/formula- ... ll-4375842

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other- ... -1.1952415

http://en.espn.co.uk/f1/motorsport/story/39003.html

The last one talks about a specific amount of races that they have to win per year too, albeit this was for 2011-2012. I am not sure if he changed anything between contracts, but I think he did not; he just signed extensions to his current contracts rather than new deals.

Fair enough.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
It was widely reported, that gave the exact date as well (30th of Sept I believe). I could find these, but I can't do a proper search from work:

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24182/9502143

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/180313/1/ ... re-in-2014

It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday

From the start of the season?

Alonso was actually offered an extended contract in September by Ferrari which he turned down, nobody knew that Alonso was going to leave Ferrari until he actually left.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm comparing how age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then, in 1995 Mansell was signed by McLaren to replace Senna, he was 42 that year, he missed the first 2 races reasons given that he had put on some weight during his 2 years in Indycars and didn't fit inside the car.

They modified the car and he did 2 races but struggled in respect to Hakkinen and then called it a day, no one gave a thought to him being too old.

What happened to Schumacher perhaps served to highlight that there is a drop off in performance something that wasn't so obvious before, the excuses you are making suggests you don't think that age was a factor?


No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?

I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.


Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?

Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:44 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7616
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday

From the start of the season?

Alonso was actually offered an extended contract in September by Ferrari which he turned down, nobody knew that Alonso was going to leave Ferrari until he actually left.


We will not know what happened 100%, so I am not going to pretend that it is certain that Vettel did or did not know the happenings at Ferrari. But he had been linked to Ferrari since '12 and it seems that "a window opened there"...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:58 pm 
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
It was widely reported, indeed, but I have always regarded it as a crock. If Vettel wanted out - especially after being beaten by Ricciardo, and losing some of his shine - why wouldn't Red Bull let him go? You can't force a driver who doesn't want to drive for you to stay, and expect good results. They knew he wanted to drive for Ferrari some day, and I've never heard the sort of acrimony out of them you'd expect if Vettel lawyer'd out of his contract through a performance clause.

Personally, I think the WDC performance clause argument was invented by Vettel apologists who wanted to create the idea that he lost on purpose, and it has no merit.


You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday

From the start of the season?

Alonso was actually offered an extended contract in September by Ferrari which he turned down, nobody knew that Alonso was going to leave Ferrari until he actually left.

And nobody knows whether Ferrari would have taken Vettel and stuck him in the other Ferrari next to Alonso except for Ferrari, if they were in any doubt they could resign Alonso and wanted Vettel there incase he did leave it's a possibility...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
No, you were comparing different things, a Newey car that was the most technologically advanced of all time, with every driver help that you could think, which had a huge advantage compared to the rest. Yeah, anyone could have won in that car.

And Mansell's return at 42 was a gimmick, Marlboro wanted an ex-F1 champ to get the seat at McLaren and he was available. He called it quits as he was old and fat.

I did not make up excuses for Schumacher, these are things well documented and I'm surprised that you are not aware of them.

So let's ask you that question differently. Where is the abundance of 40+ year olds driving today if age is not an issue? Why is the age going dangerously low, teenagers joining, instead of old-timers? Why isn't Hakkinen driving? Or DC?

I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.


Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?

Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday

From the start of the season?

Alonso was actually offered an extended contract in September by Ferrari which he turned down, nobody knew that Alonso was going to leave Ferrari until he actually left.


We will not know what happened 100%, so I am not going to pretend that it is certain that Vettel did or did not know the happenings at Ferrari. But he had been linked to Ferrari since '12 and it seems that "a window opened there"...

The window opened when Alonso announced he was leaving Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
dompclarke wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
You have a point. But it was all about timing if I remember right. Alonso was going and the opportunity for the mega-bucks was there for Vettel. He would be stupid not to go for it. Regarding RB letting him go or not, I'm not sure. They have shown their ruthless side time and again, axing drivers mid season, etc. It does not take long for a life long relationship like that to sour; indeed, there are parallels with Hamilton and McLaren there. Both supported by the team since they were young, Hamilton fell out with Ron. Maybe this is far fetched, but we wouldn't know.

For all we know, the timing was right and he probably couldn't afford to bet on RB's good will to release him. I do hope we get the story out on his book one day

The timing was right but then we are kind of speculating that Vettel knew Alonso was leaving from the start of the season if we are looking to make the excuse that Vettel deliberately allowed Ricciardo to beat him?


I think he did know. This is from Horner:

"Horner added that it was fully understandable that Vettel, having raced his entire career for Red Bull-backed teams, wanted fresh motivation elsewhere.

"I think the lure of Ferrari, a window has opened there with whatever is going on and he has decided the timing is right for him. That is his choice, and he has been around long enough to know his own mind."

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11615 ... -on-friday

From the start of the season?

Alonso was actually offered an extended contract in September by Ferrari which he turned down, nobody knew that Alonso was going to leave Ferrari until he actually left.

And nobody knows whether Ferrari would have taken Vettel and stuck him in the other Ferrari next to Alonso except for Ferrari, if they were in any doubt they could resign Alonso and wanted Vettel there incase he did leave it's a possibility...

There might have been a problem with Kimi's contract?

But anyway Vettel was never going to join Ferrari until Alonso left.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4768
Battle Far wrote:
I agree with this guy, it's likely the only thing Vettel should be famous for
Fat Albert wrote:
The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years

Else, this 4 times world champion is a trash, he? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:08 pm
Posts: 10
Vettel had one bad year vs Ric. We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is, so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability). Vettel proved himself a tick better than Raikkonen, a driver who smashed JPM (who tested to have the quickest reflexes of all F1 drivers) so bad he quit F1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7141
Location: Michigan, USA
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

We know that? I thought we just knew that RIC was about 1.5 tenths slower than Max in qualifying. That's not quite the same thing as being 'nowhere near'.

That aside, the obvious possibility is that Max is even more better than Vettel.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1960
Location: Far side of Koozebane
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
Vettel had one bad year vs Ric.

How do you know it was a "bad year"? They only had 1 year together.

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

Evidence?

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
, so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability).

Vettel had 3 retirements in 2014, Ricciardo 2 & a DQ. According to this website, Ricciardo suffered 6 penalties in 2014 while Vetel had 4.
https://www.racefans.net/statistics/2014-f1-statistics/retirements-penalties/

I will admit though that without going race by race, i'm unsure the exact nature of the penalties & the nature of the punishment imposed.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Hungary- 19) - 130 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 336 trophies available, 24 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 588
Jezza13 wrote:
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
Vettel had one bad year vs Ric.

How do you know it was a "bad year"? They only had 1 year together.

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

Evidence?

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
, so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability).

Vettel had 3 retirements in 2014, Ricciardo 2 & a DQ. According to this website, Ricciardo suffered 6 penalties in 2014 while Vetel had 4.
https://www.racefans.net/statistics/2014-f1-statistics/retirements-penalties/

I will admit though that without going race by race, i'm unsure the exact nature of the penalties & the nature of the punishment imposed.


Iirc, in relation to each other, neither Vettel or Ricciardo suffered disproportionately in terms of poor reliability/penalties.

Using Mark Hughes' figures (his computations exclude sessions where direct comparisons can't be made e.g. due to reliability, penalties etc):

Race head-to-head: Vettel 3-8 Ricciardo
Qualifying: -0.298% (Ricciardo quicker)

Another interesting observation from Hughes (re Vettel deliberately underperforming):

"I have heard that conspiracy theory. But I don't buy it. I watched trackside through 2014 and saw with my own eyes how hard Vettel was trying. In fact probably too hard. I also spoke with the engineers who knew the data. He was driving out of his skin but Ricciardo was simply usually faster in that car at that time
"

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
Exediron wrote:
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

We know that? I thought we just knew that RIC was about 1.5 tenths slower than Max in qualifying. That's not quite the same thing as being 'nowhere near'.

That aside, the obvious possibility is that Max is even more better than Vettel.

In F1 terms it's reasonably big, we are going to get some answers this year when Ricciardo goes up against the Hulk.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 32136
aice wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
Vettel had one bad year vs Ric.

How do you know it was a "bad year"? They only had 1 year together.

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

Evidence?

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
, so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability).

Vettel had 3 retirements in 2014, Ricciardo 2 & a DQ. According to this website, Ricciardo suffered 6 penalties in 2014 while Vetel had 4.
https://www.racefans.net/statistics/2014-f1-statistics/retirements-penalties/

I will admit though that without going race by race, i'm unsure the exact nature of the penalties & the nature of the punishment imposed.


Iirc, in relation to each other, neither Vettel or Ricciardo suffered disproportionately in terms of poor reliability/penalties.

Using Mark Hughes' figures (his computations exclude sessions where direct comparisons can't be made e.g. due to reliability, penalties etc):

Race head-to-head: Vettel 3-8 Ricciardo
Qualifying: -0.298% (Ricciardo quicker)

Another interesting observation from Hughes (re Vettel deliberately underperforming):

"I have heard that conspiracy theory. But I don't buy it. I watched trackside through 2014 and saw with my own eyes how hard Vettel was trying. In fact probably too hard. I also spoke with the engineers who knew the data. He was driving out of his skin but Ricciardo was simply usually faster in that car at that time
"

I don't understand these figures that Hughes comes up with they always seem to be over inflated and thus all over the place year on year, I had Ricciardo 0.17s quicker.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 23rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7141
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
aice wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
SlipstreamF1 wrote:
Vettel had one bad year vs Ric.

How do you know it was a "bad year"? They only had 1 year together.

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

Evidence?

SlipstreamF1 wrote:
, so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability).

Vettel had 3 retirements in 2014, Ricciardo 2 & a DQ. According to this website, Ricciardo suffered 6 penalties in 2014 while Vetel had 4.
https://www.racefans.net/statistics/2014-f1-statistics/retirements-penalties/

I will admit though that without going race by race, i'm unsure the exact nature of the penalties & the nature of the punishment imposed.


Iirc, in relation to each other, neither Vettel or Ricciardo suffered disproportionately in terms of poor reliability/penalties.

Using Mark Hughes' figures (his computations exclude sessions where direct comparisons can't be made e.g. due to reliability, penalties etc):

Race head-to-head: Vettel 3-8 Ricciardo
Qualifying: -0.298% (Ricciardo quicker)

Another interesting observation from Hughes (re Vettel deliberately underperforming):

"I have heard that conspiracy theory. But I don't buy it. I watched trackside through 2014 and saw with my own eyes how hard Vettel was trying. In fact probably too hard. I also spoke with the engineers who knew the data. He was driving out of his skin but Ricciardo was simply usually faster in that car at that time
"

I don't understand these figures that Hughes comes up with they always seem to be over inflated and thus all over the place year on year, I had Ricciardo 0.17s quicker.

I think you're forgetting that Hughes uses percentage, not tenths of a second. It's more accurate because it's consistent across vastly different lap times (1 tenth at Austria is not the same thing as 1 tenth at Spa).

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DOLOMITE, K.F., Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group