planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:15 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4009
flavio81 wrote:
MistaVega23 wrote:
I'm not bashing Vettel but how they can put him above the likes of Alonso, Lauda and Piquet is beyond me.


Number 8 - Sebastian Vettel
Number 9 - Niki Lauda
Number 16 - Nelson Piquet
Number 17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
Number 18 - Jack Brabham
Number 19 - Graham Hill

Not only above Piquet but 8 places above him... absurd. Above Lauda, is also absurd. Vettel first needs to visit death and then come back before outranking Lauda.

And Brabham is far too low.


That's a bit of a flawed argument, don't you think?

There are another 8 drivers that didn't visit death and came back. Are they allowed to be above Lauda?

_________________
ΜΣ...


Last edited by SchumieRules on Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
Balibari wrote:
I always find these lists interesting but I recognise how subjective they are and don't worry about who's above who or who's been left off etc. But Vettel 8th...?


Your posts always make sense; agree completely on this. No Alonso?

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 1113
I'd change the list around a bit to be honest, still can't understand why Vettel's so high up though, I think we've got to judge them once their career is over, not when they're 5 years into it.

_________________
米克尔 科琳娜 吉娜 米克
Keep Fighting Michael!

Forza Jules!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 4009
schumi7 wrote:
I'd change the list around a bit to be honest, still can't understand why Vettel's so high up though, I think we've got to judge them once their career is over, not when they're 5 years into it.


Vettel, Hamilton and arguably Alonso have no place in this list, since they are still racing (not because they don't deserve it). Schumacher is the only exception, his first career is over so he has earned his spot in the list.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:27 am
Posts: 624
Not only do I disagree with Vettel's ranking but also Alonso's and Hamilton's.

I think top 10 should be:(in no order)
Jimmy Clark(What can I say? Awesome driving)
Ayrton Senna(vs Alain Prost vs Nelson Piquet vs Nigel Mansell)
Michael Schumacher(vs D.Hill vs J.Villeneuve vs Kimi vs Alonso vs Juan Pablo)
Alain Prost(4x wdc vs a.senna)
Sir Stirling Moss(won in other series and came close to Fangio)
Alberto Ascari(dude the guy basically built Ferrari!)
Fangio(won 5 wdcs)
Jackie Stewart(The safety guy)
Niki Lauda
Jochen Rindt

Top 15 would be:(in no order)
Gilles Villeneuve
Jack Brabham
Graham Hill
Nigel Mansell
Nelson Piquet
Patrick Depailler?
Tazio Nuvolari?

And then Alonso, Vettel or Lewis (in no order)

_________________
Latest F1 vid I made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4qJXyRLDg&feature=youtu.be


Last edited by Kolby on Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 1113
SchumieRules wrote:
schumi7 wrote:
I'd change the list around a bit to be honest, still can't understand why Vettel's so high up though, I think we've got to judge them once their career is over, not when they're 5 years into it.


Vettel, Hamilton and arguably Alonso have no place in this list, since they are still racing (not because they don't deserve it). Schumacher is the only exception, his first career is over so he has earned his spot in the list.

Exactly. Once their career is over I'm sure they'll be on it, but not just yet.

_________________
米克尔 科琳娜 吉娜 米克
Keep Fighting Michael!

Forza Jules!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:00 am
Posts: 19
Location: Australia
I'm a bit concerned that Sir Jack Brabham has apparently had his Knighthood stripped from him, while Sir Jackie and Sir Stirling have retained theirs.

_________________
Nothing you say really matters until the part that comes after, "But"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Thumpah wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that Sir Jack Brabham has apparently had his Knighthood stripped from him, while Sir Jackie and Sir Stirling have retained theirs.



Is Brabhams not an honorary one like Geldofs?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:59 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Mumbai, India
Senna is a great driver and whatever I have watched of him makes me believe he is one of the greatest, but I have always felt that just because he died on track he is pushed up a couple of places in these all time latest lists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:04 pm
Posts: 115
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
.


Whilst, I'm not saying statistics should be completly disregarded. I feel as if statistics like these are 1, trivial, and two, meaningless without context.

For example. Vettel has averaged 10 points per race. That may seem good. But if you look at it in context, you realise that, a) we've had different points systems so some drivers would consequently have lower averages. If you take the exact same set of results, and put them on different point systems, you get different averages. Does this mean Vettel is worse of a driver? No, it just means that the stat is useless for comparison purposes.

Another stat that you used "Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate"
The key to that stat is in that Alonso has double the starts. That means he would, as a result have a lower ratio of wins to race starts. Also, that doesn't even take into account the type of machinery they have driven in that time. Vettel has undeniably had better machinery in his relatively short career compared to Alonso, which makes his stats look better.


I could go through each and every stat and analyse them individually, but it isn't really worth the time. Before people start accusing me of Vettel bashing. I'm not, I just don't agree with your use of statistics to back up Vettel's inclusion on the list.

For what it's worth. The only current driver I think that should be on the list is Schumacher. That's not to do with talent, it's just that he's been here for long enough for us to have time to judge his career as a whole. Alonso for me, would be just outside, based on the fact his career isn't over yet.


I agree some of them are fairly trivial. BUT you cant discount 3rd all time for poles after only 100 races, or that he has only 4 less wins than Fernando with half the starts. Yes he had a good car for the last 3 years but he was also in a midfield team in his opening season.

If we dont use statistics for a list of all time great drivers than what are we going to use? Feeling? Thats more subjective than the statistics are.

To those who say Vettel only has good stats because he was in a great car, what about the others on the list ... Fangio had the best car for most if not all of his career, Senna had dominant cars. The cars today are far closer in performance than they ever have been in F1 history so saying the only reason Vettel is doing well is because he is in a dominant car is a load of BS, every top driver gets into a dominant car, the best drivers move into the best cars, the worst move down the grid then exit, but the cars of today are not nearly as dominant as they were in Fangio or Senna's times.


Again I need to point out that I have no problem with including stats, I just do not agree with your use of some to support Vettel here. Vettel has been in F1 for a really short space of time, and yes he has achieved alot, but that could all change when the regs change. For all we know come 2014 on the new regs, Vettel will be nowhere. All great drivers have withstood the test of time. If you want examples. Look at Alonso. He has won races and fought for championships on the V10's, V8's the pre 2009 aero rules, the post 2009 aero rules. He's won races and fought for championships for different teams. Compare that to Vettel. Who has only dominated one set of regulations, in one team.

Vettel's machinery has been unquestionably good yes. That is why I think we should wait until longer before judging him as a true "great". Fangio dominated a different kind of F1 back then. Which makes comparison with him difficult because things were so different.


Agreed... Vettel does have a relatively short career. He's only driven 9 fewer races than Hamilton but he has driven for 3 teams (BMW as test driver in 2006 and 1 race in 2007, Toro Rosso and Red Bull) so he has been through several regulation changes. Is he deserving to be on the list? Well, that's subjective but it's too early to put a specific rank on himself or Hamilton.

Red Bull and Vettel have adopted the approach of qualifying in the front and pull ahead to save their tires, keep DRS a non-factor and control the pace. So far they have done an amazing job of it and it's working for them so until it's more effective to risk a lower qualifying and have 'classic' battles with others, it won't happen very often.

Vettel was the only driver who visited the Pirelli tire factory before the 2011 season (according to Steve Matchett on Formula One Debrief) in order to better understand the technical details behind the tires. If he goes to that extent, what's not to say that he adjusted his driving style to utilize the information he learned? There's an interesting Gary Anderson article about what the Pirelli's can and can't do compared to previous tires. Maybe Vettel isn't one of the greatest drivers but at the moment he might be the most prepared which directly translates into results.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
.


Whilst, I'm not saying statistics should be completly disregarded. I feel as if statistics like these are 1, trivial, and two, meaningless without context.

For example. Vettel has averaged 10 points per race. That may seem good. But if you look at it in context, you realise that, a) we've had different points systems so some drivers would consequently have lower averages. If you take the exact same set of results, and put them on different point systems, you get different averages. Does this mean Vettel is worse of a driver? No, it just means that the stat is useless for comparison purposes.

Another stat that you used "Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate"
The key to that stat is in that Alonso has double the starts. That means he would, as a result have a lower ratio of wins to race starts. Also, that doesn't even take into account the type of machinery they have driven in that time. Vettel has undeniably had better machinery in his relatively short career compared to Alonso, which makes his stats look better.


I could go through each and every stat and analyse them individually, but it isn't really worth the time. Before people start accusing me of Vettel bashing. I'm not, I just don't agree with your use of statistics to back up Vettel's inclusion on the list.

For what it's worth. The only current driver I think that should be on the list is Schumacher. That's not to do with talent, it's just that he's been here for long enough for us to have time to judge his career as a whole. Alonso for me, would be just outside, based on the fact his career isn't over yet.


I agree some of them are fairly trivial. BUT you cant discount 3rd all time for poles after only 100 races, or that he has only 4 less wins than Fernando with half the starts. Yes he had a good car for the last 3 years but he was also in a midfield team in his opening season.

If we dont use statistics for a list of all time great drivers than what are we going to use? Feeling? Thats more subjective than the statistics are.

To those who say Vettel only has good stats because he was in a great car, what about the others on the list ... Fangio had the best car for most if not all of his career, Senna had dominant cars. The cars today are far closer in performance than they ever have been in F1 history so saying the only reason Vettel is doing well is because he is in a dominant car is a load of BS, every top driver gets into a dominant car, the best drivers move into the best cars, the worst move down the grid then exit, but the cars of today are not nearly as dominant as they were in Fangio or Senna's times.


Again I need to point out that I have no problem with including stats, I just do not agree with your use of some to support Vettel here. Vettel has been in F1 for a really short space of time, and yes he has achieved alot, but that could all change when the regs change. For all we know come 2014 on the new regs, Vettel will be nowhere. All great drivers have withstood the test of time. If you want examples. Look at Alonso. He has won races and fought for championships on the V10's, V8's the pre 2009 aero rules, the post 2009 aero rules. He's won races and fought for championships for different teams. Compare that to Vettel. Who has only dominated one set of regulations, in one team.

Vettel's machinery has been unquestionably good yes. That is why I think we should wait until longer before judging him as a true "great". Fangio dominated a different kind of F1 back then. Which makes comparison with him difficult because things were so different.


The only way you can judge a current driver would be by their accomplishments up to now. If they retired today how would they be judged?

How can you say Vettel has not gone through reg changes? He has driven with 2 different tire manufacturers, refueling, DRS, KERS, off throttle blown diffusers (which require a completely different way of driving than standard F1 cars). If Vettel only won 4 more races in his next 97 he would have the same number of wins/starts as Alonso.

Everyone on the list has had very good machinery. People are too quick to dismiss modern F1 drivers by saying they are in the best car but thats how it is and thats how its been. If you include people like Fangio who had an absolutley dominant car and Michael who for a good portion of his career had a dominant car, or Senna (yes he had a dominant car too), you cant turn around and apply a double standard to modern drivers whose cars are far less dominant than in the past. Modern F1 racing is the closest its been ever, cars matter the less now than they have at any point in the past.

I can understand people saying no current F1 driver should be on the list until they retire. I would actually agree with that. BUT if we are saying Alonso is ok to be on there but SV is way out of place ... that just doesnt make sense if you look at what has been accomplished in how long and compare that to history. All 3 (LH, SV and FA) deserve a spot on the list. Depending on your thoughts on it either all of them deserve it now or all of them will deserve it when they retire. If Vettel wins his 3rd WDC this weekend he will be top 5 when he retires, even if he doesnt do much more in his career. Agree with me or not, but just wait 30 years and we will have a virtual forum post on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am
Posts: 1042
I actually found these three quotes of yours interesting for different aspects.

RunningMan wrote:
I disagree with the part about youngest stats. If anything, those are some of the most trivial. For example. Take Button and hamilton. Hamilton won his WDC when he was relatively young. In fact, he took the record from Alonso. Whereas Button won it when he was relatively old. But as we have seen in the last 3 seasons. They're very close in terms of actual skill and on track performance and abilities. Showing that age, once again, isn't really that telling.

All age statistics tell you is how old you were when you got into a fast car.


You'd make a fair point about age if you had put it in context of different periods, for example showing that Vettel's young age achievements mean nothing if compared to Fangio for example who started racing in F1 in his forties. However, nowadays age is very telling because all drivers start racing professionally very early so the fact that Hamilton won the championship in his second year while Button took almost a decade is very significant. Sure, we need to factor in the cars but we also need to factor in the experience and maturity which was basically the only reason why Button beat Hamilton last year or more exactly why Hamilton beat himself with his poor decisions. That's why I consider Hamilton a clear winner over Alonso in their year together despite scoring the exact same points. Alonso had a lot of experience over Hamilton about strategies, running the race, the workings of F1 and the team, calculating the risks and so on and yet his talent and his experience combined were barely enough to match Hamilton's talent. It's for the same reason that I consider Schumacher better than Senna because he gave him a great challenge in 92-93 despite the discrepancy in experience.

So going back to Vettel, while I agree that young age success isn't the most amazing achievement, it is very significant because of the implied lack of experience and maturity. Think of Hamilton's signs of maturity this year (even though I have to remark that strangely he has a very slow maturity process) and ask yourself: "Would 2012 Hamilton win in 2007?". Now ask yourself again: "Would 2012 Vettel beat Button in 2009?"

RunningMan wrote:
Whilst, I'm not saying statistics should be completly disregarded. I feel as if statistics like these are 1, trivial, and two, meaningless without context.

For example. Vettel has averaged 10 points per race. That may seem good. But if you look at it in context, you realise that, a) we've had different points systems so some drivers would consequently have lower averages. If you take the exact same set of results, and put them on different point systems, you get different averages. Does this mean Vettel is worse of a driver? No, it just means that the stat is useless for comparison purposes.

Another stat that you used "Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate"
The key to that stat is in that Alonso has double the starts. That means he would, as a result have a lower ratio of wins to race starts. Also, that doesn't even take into account the type of machinery they have driven in that time. Vettel has undeniably had better machinery in his relatively short career compared to Alonso, which makes his stats look better.

I could go through each and every stat and analyse them individually, but it isn't really worth the time. Before people start accusing me of Vettel bashing. I'm not, I just don't agree with your use of statistics to back up Vettel's inclusion on the list.

For what it's worth. The only current driver I think that should be on the list is Schumacher. That's not to do with talent, it's just that he's been here for long enough for us to have time to judge his career as a whole. Alonso for me, would be just outside, based on the fact his career isn't over yet.


I fully agree with your point about length of career, but this only affects the percentages, in other words, Schumacher still has 7 titles and 91 wins, despite his return but he doesn't have basically a title every other year of his career anymore, he's now down to about a title every three years.

So back to Vettel and Alonso, I find it significant that they have very close numbers, not percentages but the numbers themselves. Sure Alonso has had some lousy machinery more often than Vettel but it's not like he posted those numbers with that kind of machinery though, is it? He did it when he had great machinery and to be fair he's had that more often than Vettel. And this is what makes Vettel's achievements significant compared to Alonso.

RunningMan wrote:
Again I need to point out that I have no problem with including stats, I just do not agree with your use of some to support Vettel here. Vettel has been in F1 for a really short space of time, and yes he has achieved alot, but that could all change when the regs change. For all we know come 2014 on the new regs, Vettel will be nowhere. All great drivers have withstood the test of time. If you want examples. Look at Alonso. He has won races and fought for championships on the V10's, V8's the pre 2009 aero rules, the post 2009 aero rules. He's won races and fought for championships for different teams. Compare that to Vettel. Who has only dominated one set of regulations, in one team.

Vettel's machinery has been unquestionably good yes. That is why I think we should wait until longer before judging him as a true "great". Fangio dominated a different kind of F1 back then. Which makes comparison with him difficult because things were so different.


Again, I agree that length of careers should play a large role but what should play an even larger role is the winning rate over winning chances because this way we can discount the low quality years. In other words, to date Vettel has had 4 championship chances (2009-2012), he was a runner up once, won twice and is leading currently. Meanwhile Alonso has had 5 championship chances (2005-2007, 2010 and 2012), he won twice, finished third once, a runner up next and is currently a runner up again. If Vettel wins this year he'll be 3 wins and a second out of 4 chances while Alonso will be 2 wins, 2 seconds and a third out of 5. In this case it'll be hard to argue against Vettel. However, if Alonso somehow wins this year (3 out of 5), he will definitely leapfrog Vettel (2 out of 4). It's not exact science but I find it very significant because after all, the best we can ask of drivers is to seize their opportunities.

As for changes in regulations and teams, you still have a good point but let's not forget too that many changes target the winners and Schumacher before and Vettel now have suffered more that Alonso in this aspect. Also the different teams thing should be taken with some consideration because Alonso's career was panned to be Renault - McLaren - Ferrari, three of the 4 best teams of the last decade. It was Alonso's own fault that he cut his stint at McLaren short. Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong, just not completely right but other than that I fully agree and that's why I consider Schumacher to be the best driver when you look at his first career and the consistently great results he achieved each year (controversies aside).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8950
Bakerking31 wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
.


Whilst, I'm not saying statistics should be completly disregarded. I feel as if statistics like these are 1, trivial, and two, meaningless without context.

For example. Vettel has averaged 10 points per race. That may seem good. But if you look at it in context, you realise that, a) we've had different points systems so some drivers would consequently have lower averages. If you take the exact same set of results, and put them on different point systems, you get different averages. Does this mean Vettel is worse of a driver? No, it just means that the stat is useless for comparison purposes.

Another stat that you used "Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate"
The key to that stat is in that Alonso has double the starts. That means he would, as a result have a lower ratio of wins to race starts. Also, that doesn't even take into account the type of machinery they have driven in that time. Vettel has undeniably had better machinery in his relatively short career compared to Alonso, which makes his stats look better.


I could go through each and every stat and analyse them individually, but it isn't really worth the time. Before people start accusing me of Vettel bashing. I'm not, I just don't agree with your use of statistics to back up Vettel's inclusion on the list.

For what it's worth. The only current driver I think that should be on the list is Schumacher. That's not to do with talent, it's just that he's been here for long enough for us to have time to judge his career as a whole. Alonso for me, would be just outside, based on the fact his career isn't over yet.


I agree some of them are fairly trivial. BUT you cant discount 3rd all time for poles after only 100 races, or that he has only 4 less wins than Fernando with half the starts. Yes he had a good car for the last 3 years but he was also in a midfield team in his opening season.

If we dont use statistics for a list of all time great drivers than what are we going to use? Feeling? Thats more subjective than the statistics are.

To those who say Vettel only has good stats because he was in a great car, what about the others on the list ... Fangio had the best car for most if not all of his career, Senna had dominant cars. The cars today are far closer in performance than they ever have been in F1 history so saying the only reason Vettel is doing well is because he is in a dominant car is a load of BS, every top driver gets into a dominant car, the best drivers move into the best cars, the worst move down the grid then exit, but the cars of today are not nearly as dominant as they were in Fangio or Senna's times.


Again I need to point out that I have no problem with including stats, I just do not agree with your use of some to support Vettel here. Vettel has been in F1 for a really short space of time, and yes he has achieved alot, but that could all change when the regs change. For all we know come 2014 on the new regs, Vettel will be nowhere. All great drivers have withstood the test of time. If you want examples. Look at Alonso. He has won races and fought for championships on the V10's, V8's the pre 2009 aero rules, the post 2009 aero rules. He's won races and fought for championships for different teams. Compare that to Vettel. Who has only dominated one set of regulations, in one team.

Vettel's machinery has been unquestionably good yes. That is why I think we should wait until longer before judging him as a true "great". Fangio dominated a different kind of F1 back then. Which makes comparison with him difficult because things were so different.


The only way you can judge a current driver would be by their accomplishments up to now. If they retired today how would they be judged?

How can you say Vettel has not gone through reg changes? He has driven with 2 different tire manufacturers, refueling, DRS, KERS, off throttle blown diffusers (which require a completely different way of driving than standard F1 cars). If Vettel only won 4 more races in his next 97 he would have the same number of wins/starts as Alonso.

Everyone on the list has had very good machinery. People are too quick to dismiss modern F1 drivers by saying they are in the best car but thats how it is and thats how its been. If you include people like Fangio who had an absolutley dominant car and Michael who for a good portion of his career had a dominant car, or Senna (yes he had a dominant car too), you cant turn around and apply a double standard to modern drivers whose cars are far less dominant than in the past. Modern F1 racing is the closest its been ever, cars matter the less now than they have at any point in the past.

I can understand people saying no current F1 driver should be on the list until they retire. I would actually agree with that. BUT if we are saying Alonso is ok to be on there but SV is way out of place ... that just doesnt make sense if you look at what has been accomplished in how long and compare that to history. All 3 (LH, SV and FA) deserve a spot on the list. Depending on your thoughts on it either all of them deserve it now or all of them will deserve it when they retire. If Vettel wins his 3rd WDC this weekend he will be top 5 when he retires, even if he doesnt do much more in his career. Agree with me or not, but just wait 30 years and we will have a virtual forum post on it.

Senna already caught people's eyes in his Toleman and Lotus days, which were by no means dominant cars. He managed several podiums in the Toleman (when it didn't suffer from some mechanical problem) which was a feat in itself, and almost knocked McLaren off 2nd place in the WCC in 2007 virtually single-handedly in a Lotus which was not superior to the McLaren. By the time he joined McLaren he was already recognised as a top driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
Zoue wrote:
Senna already caught people's eyes in his Toleman and Lotus days, which were by no means dominant cars. He managed several podiums in the Toleman (when it didn't suffer from some mechanical problem) which was a feat in itself, and almost knocked McLaren off 2nd place in the WCC in 2007 virtually single-handedly in a Lotus which was not superior to the McLaren. By the time he joined McLaren he was already recognised as a top driver.


You could say the same for Vettel, He got a point in his first race with BMW, he got fastest lap in practice with BMW his first time testing with them. Then in the Torro Rosso a team averaging 14th place until he joined he did quite well in 2007 considering how bad the Torro Rosso was and he was only there for 7 of 17 races. He outscored both his team mate and the person he was replacing combined (in all fairness Scott Speed who he replaced had 0 points). He should have had a podium in 2007 but for Hamilton's erratic driving under safety car. 2008 was his first full season in F1. He got his first win and outscored his team mate 35-4 in the process beating Webber and DC in the Red Bull cars. To add to that his first 4 races, 3 times he was crashed into taking him out of the race on lap 1 and once had a engine failure and still managed to put a beating on everyone around him in similar cars.

It seems people tend for forget the history of Seb and Torro Rosso, quick to dismiss him that he can only drive a dominant car. The TR was horrible yet he managed to win and outscore his team mates, a Renault, and both Red Bulls. He is in a dominant car now because he got there through proving his worth in lower F1 teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8950
Bakerking31 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Senna already caught people's eyes in his Toleman and Lotus days, which were by no means dominant cars. He managed several podiums in the Toleman (when it didn't suffer from some mechanical problem) which was a feat in itself, and almost knocked McLaren off 2nd place in the WCC in 2007 virtually single-handedly in a Lotus which was not superior to the McLaren. By the time he joined McLaren he was already recognised as a top driver.


You could say the same for Vettel, He got a point in his first race with BMW, he got fastest lap in practice with BMW his first time testing with them. Then in the Torro Rosso a team averaging 14th place until he joined he did quite well in 2007 considering how bad the Torro Rosso was and he was only there for 7 of 17 races. He outscored both his team mate and the person he was replacing combined (in all fairness Scott Speed who he replaced had 0 points). He should have had a podium in 2007 but for Hamilton's erratic driving under safety car. 2008 was his first full season in F1. He got his first win and outscored his team mate 35-4 in the process beating Webber and DC in the Red Bull cars. To add to that his first 4 races, 3 times he was crashed into taking him out of the race on lap 1 and once had a engine failure and still managed to put a beating on everyone around him in similar cars.

It seems people tend for forget the history of Seb and Torro Rosso, quick to dismiss him that he can only drive a dominant car. The TR was horrible yet he managed to win and outscore his team mates, a Renault, and both Red Bulls. He is in a dominant car now because he got there through proving his worth in lower F1 teams.

I was responding to the claim that Senna was always in dominant cars, which is incorrect. By the time he started for McLaren he had already cemented his reputation as one of the top drivers and had already challenged for honours in a clearly inferior car. No disrespect to Vettel but that's not the case with him. He did drive well before, absolutely no doubt, but few would have put him as one of the top drivers before he started dominating with Red Bull.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 215
You forgot one

The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years
Bakerking31 wrote:
For those who say Vettel doesn't deserve to be on the list ... I bring you some facts

Vettel was the youngest driver ever to win a race.
Vettel is youngest to be on pole.
Vettel is youngest to set a fastest lap at a grand prix session. (includes practice, not race only, hes 4th in races for youngest)
Vettel is youngest to be on the podium
Vettel was the youngest to score points.
Vettel is the youngest world champion and double world champion
Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate.
Vettel is 8th on career % wins compared to starts. Although 2 people above him dont belong there because they have less than 10 starts
Vettel is tied with Schumacher for second most wins in a season (MS also has the #1 spot)
Twice in his career he has 4 wins in a row, Fernando has once, Lewis has never (Button had 4 in 2009 and MS several times)
With just 100 GP's Vettel is already 3rd on the list of all time most pole positions.
Vettel is 5th on % pole positions with Senna being the only driver above him with more starts.
Vettel has the record for the most pole positions in a season.
Vettel is 5th on highest % pole positions for a season, a list dominated by late 80's early 90's cars that had much bigger differences than todays cars
Vettel is tied with Schumacher for most podiums in a season
Vettel is 3rd in career points with only 100 starts (this one is a bit skewed because of points system changes over the years)
Vettel has averaged just over 10 points a race in his career. Lewis with 9 more starts has averaged 8
Vettel is second in Highest percentage of total possible points in a season with 82%
Vettel is seventh on the list of most laps led and most distance led
Vettel has won from pole 19 times, the only drivers with more are #1 and 4 on that list



You get the idea ... what makes all these records even more unbelievable is he has only had 100 starts and is only 25. I cannot think of another driver who has done more in a shorter amount of time than Vettel. If he retired today (and lost the championship) he would still deserve to be on the list just due to the amount of records in such a short time.

_________________
Sebastien Vettel, the youngest driver ever to have the fastest car in F1 for four consecutive years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 5102
Fat Albert wrote:
You forgot one
The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


That's open to debate. The Mclaren has been equally fast this year on average, I'm sure. A pity it was that unreliable.
And 2009? Come on... That Brawn was massive for the first half of the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
I hope Vettel goes to Ferrari in 2014.

Just so we can see how good he is when he has Alonso as his teamate.

I think Alonso will show him up

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:41 pm
Posts: 735
Location: Worthing England.
sennafan24 wrote:
I hope Vettel goes to Ferrari in 2014.

Just so we can see how good he is when he has Alonso as his teamate.

I think Alonso will show him up
Well just imagine what Hamilton would do then ;)

_________________
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
I would love that even more :thumbup:

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm
Posts: 3685
I think they've got it right at the very top but I've never understood what people's problem is with Prost. What is it that stops him being nearer the top poistion?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:55 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Tampere, F1nland
flyboy10 wrote:
I think they've got it right at the very top but I've never understood what people's problem is with Prost. What is it that stops him being nearer the top poistion?


His timidity in rain seems to be mentioned now and then. That's probably one.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
Fat Albert wrote:
You forgot one

The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


I assume you are talking 2009-2012? Your memory must not be very good

lets see

2009 Button won 6 of the first 7 races and finished 3rd in the other ... a VERY dominant Brawn car, Seb started to reel him in near the end of the season but Brawn was heads and shoulders above the RB that year.

2010 Vettel didnt even lead the championship once during the season. Hard to say he had the fastest car. Vettel had 5 wins, Fernando had 5. What won him the championship was consistency. He was much better at staying in the top 4 than Fernando was even though he had more retirements.

2011 RB was the fastest car

2012 McLaren have been faster just about all season (although prone to failure), Ferrari are faster in race trim than the RB and the first half of the season was wide open with no cars showing dominance. I dont think you could say the RB is the fastest car this season if you take the whole season into account that would go to McLaren, they have been fastest but least reliable.

I think you are focusing on only the ends of the season and not the entire season.

If you want to talk about a driver who lucked into a good seat right from the start of their career and have been there ever since you need to , take a look at LH. Now that he is going to Merc we will see how good a driver he really is. On a side note, I happen to think he IS quite good, I think he would make a great teammate for Seb one day since their styles are very similar (focus on qualy more than race pace).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
Zoue wrote:
I was responding to the claim that Senna was always in dominant cars, which is incorrect. By the time he started for McLaren he had already cemented his reputation as one of the top drivers and had already challenged for honours in a clearly inferior car. No disrespect to Vettel but that's not the case with him. He did drive well before, absolutely no doubt, but few would have put him as one of the top drivers before he started dominating with Red Bull.


Sorry I didnt mean to sound like I was saying Senna always had a dominant car, simply he was in one for his championships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:58 pm
Posts: 973
Bakerking31 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I was responding to the claim that Senna was always in dominant cars, which is incorrect. By the time he started for McLaren he had already cemented his reputation as one of the top drivers and had already challenged for honours in a clearly inferior car. No disrespect to Vettel but that's not the case with him. He did drive well before, absolutely no doubt, but few would have put him as one of the top drivers before he started dominating with Red Bull.


Sorry I didnt mean to sound like I was saying Senna always had a dominant car, simply he was in one for his championships.

1991 his car was not dominant, more reliable than the Williams, but not quicker.

1990 as well, the Ferrari was just as good, Prost himself said he thought his car was quicker.

1988 is fair enough, but he had Prost to deal with. He never had it as easy as Vettel has.

_________________
http://top-people.starmedia.com/tmp/swotti/cacheYXLYDG9UIHNLBM5HUGVVCGXLLVBLB3BSZQ==/imgAyrton%20Senna2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:30 pm
Posts: 42
flyboy10 wrote:
I think they've got it right at the very top but I've never understood what people's problem is with Prost. What is it that stops him being nearer the top poistion?


I have no idea.

The only real way to get some sort of a grip on 'true' relative ability of drivers is comparing them as team-mates.

In that respect Prost is unsurpassed by any F1 driver in history; he raced in F1 for 13 seasons, 7 of them with WDC calibre team-mates. His team-mates either had or went on to win NINE wdcs between them; rosberg, hill and mansell one a piece, senna and lauda 3 a piece.

Only of them ever beat prost on points in the same car over an entire season; Lauda by 0.5 points in 84. Senna beat him once based on the WDC counting rules of the time - 11 best scores only, but not on points over the whole season. Prost nonetheless won 4 WDCs which very easily could have been 6! No-one before or since faced any thing like the sheer quality of competition from a team-mate(s) relentlessly, year after year as he did.

To my mind he is at least the equal of MS and eclipses senna too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:00 am
Posts: 19
Location: Australia
Johnston wrote:
Thumpah wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that Sir Jack Brabham has apparently had his Knighthood stripped from him, while Sir Jackie and Sir Stirling have retained theirs.



Is Brabhams not an honorary one like Geldofs?

I hope your tongue in cheek disclaimer was in play here but, Yes; Sir Jack's Knighthood is a real one awarded 16 years before Sir Jackies for "Services to British Motorsport" (1985)

_________________
Nothing you say really matters until the part that comes after, "But"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8950
Bakerking31 wrote:
Fat Albert wrote:
You forgot one

The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years


I assume you are talking 2009-2012? Your memory must not be very good

lets see

2009 Button won 6 of the first 7 races and finished 3rd in the other ... a VERY dominant Brawn car, Seb started to reel him in near the end of the season but Brawn was heads and shoulders above the RB that year.

2010 Vettel didnt even lead the championship once during the season. Hard to say he had the fastest car. Vettel had 5 wins, Fernando had 5. What won him the championship was consistency. He was much better at staying in the top 4 than Fernando was even though he had more retirements.

2011 RB was the fastest car

2012 McLaren have been faster just about all season (although prone to failure), Ferrari are faster in race trim than the RB and the first half of the season was wide open with no cars showing dominance. I dont think you could say the RB is the fastest car this season if you take the whole season into account that would go to McLaren, they have been fastest but least reliable.

I think you are focusing on only the ends of the season and not the entire season.

If you want to talk about a driver who lucked into a good seat right from the start of their career and have been there ever since you need to , take a look at LH. Now that he is going to Merc we will see how good a driver he really is. On a side note, I happen to think he IS quite good, I think he would make a great teammate for Seb one day since their styles are very similar (focus on qualy more than race pace).

I think 2010 you could safely say the Red Bull was the fastest car. They had pole at every race bar three and they won half the races over the season. It's just that Mark actually gave Seb a challenge that year so the gap between them and the other cars didn't look so big in the points.

I agree with you about 2009 and 2011, although I would say that this year the Red Bull has edged it for the most part - the opening races were pretty much a lottery while all the teams found their way with the tyres, but the Red Bull was always near the top. For me the difference comes down to when the Red Bull unlocked the secret of more downforce in the car that Seb managed to raise his game significantly above Mark's and got into his winning ways. When he gets that high downforce car he's a demon. Abu Dhabi would probably have been a very different story if it hadn't been for Seb's penalty, and I think the last race was simply down to the fact that Lewis drove superbly, although it's debatable whether he would have been able to pass Seb without the NK incident. Overall, though, the Red Bull has been the car to beat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:25 pm
Posts: 1201
Location: Croatia
Bakerking31 wrote:

If you want to talk about a driver who lucked into a good seat right from the start of their career and have been there ever since you need to , take a look at LH. Now that he is going to Merc we will see how good a driver he really is. On a side note, I happen to think he IS quite good, I think he would make a great teammate for Seb one day since their styles are very similar (focus on qualy more than race pace).


He didn't luck into his seat

_________________
H&H


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8950
tmzxaar wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:

If you want to talk about a driver who lucked into a good seat right from the start of their career and have been there ever since you need to , take a look at LH. Now that he is going to Merc we will see how good a driver he really is. On a side note, I happen to think he IS quite good, I think he would make a great teammate for Seb one day since their styles are very similar (focus on qualy more than race pace).


He didn't luck into his seat

He was lucky to get into a top team straight away, without having to serve any form of apprenticeship elsewhere. Being good in the lower formulas is no guarantee of success in F1 - look at the myriad other junior formulae champions who haven't cut the mustard. Even Lewis acknowledged this in the beginning. McLaren took a gamble which paid off better than anyone would have expected, but if everyone is being honest they probably would not have done so if another top driver had been available. The choice was pretty much PDLR or Lewis, if I recall. F1 is the richer for it now, but fortune was smiling on Lewis at the beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Thumpah wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Thumpah wrote:
I'm a bit concerned that Sir Jack Brabham has apparently had his Knighthood stripped from him, while Sir Jackie and Sir Stirling have retained theirs.



Is Brabhams not an honorary one like Geldofs?

I hope your tongue in cheek disclaimer was in play here but, Yes; Sir Jack's Knighthood is a real one awarded 16 years before Sir Jackies for "Services to British Motorsport" (1985)



No it wasn't tongue in cheek. Honest question. If you are born outside the UK or not British or something it's usually an honorary title because only the Queens subjects can carry the title or something. It's a symbolic gesture to "Foreigners" . However with commonwealth countries I'm not sure on the rules.

I used Geldof because Geldof is knighted is allowed to use the KBE letters but is not a "Sir" even though he gets called it. It's honorary because he's not/wasn't a British subject being Irish. However Old Wogan despite being Irish is a genuine Knight and allowed to use the Sir moniker legitimately because he was born whilst Ireland was still British. So because someone has been Knighted it's not always clear cut if they are actually a Sir.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:58 am
Posts: 364
no doubt.. he's the best..

but sometimes i feel his death has made him a bigger legend than he should've been.

imo, Schumacher is the greatest ever, but Senna is the most popular driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:20 am
Posts: 2706
Location: Herts, UK
Fat Albert wrote:
You forgot one

The Youngest Driver Ever To Have The Fastest Car In F1 For Four Consecutive Years
Bakerking31 wrote:
For those who say Vettel doesn't deserve to be on the list ... I bring you some facts

Vettel was the youngest driver ever to win a race.
Vettel is youngest to be on pole.
Vettel is youngest to set a fastest lap at a grand prix session. (includes practice, not race only, hes 4th in races for youngest)
Vettel is youngest to be on the podium
Vettel was the youngest to score points.
Vettel is the youngest world champion and double world champion
Vettel is 7th in career wins with a 27% win rate. Alonso is 5th with double the starts and only 15% win rate.
Vettel is 8th on career % wins compared to starts. Although 2 people above him dont belong there because they have less than 10 starts
Vettel is tied with Schumacher for second most wins in a season (MS also has the #1 spot)
Twice in his career he has 4 wins in a row, Fernando has once, Lewis has never (Button had 4 in 2009 and MS several times)
With just 100 GP's Vettel is already 3rd on the list of all time most pole positions.
Vettel is 5th on % pole positions with Senna being the only driver above him with more starts.
Vettel has the record for the most pole positions in a season.
Vettel is 5th on highest % pole positions for a season, a list dominated by late 80's early 90's cars that had much bigger differences than todays cars
Vettel is tied with Schumacher for most podiums in a season
Vettel is 3rd in career points with only 100 starts (this one is a bit skewed because of points system changes over the years)
Vettel has averaged just over 10 points a race in his career. Lewis with 9 more starts has averaged 8
Vettel is second in Highest percentage of total possible points in a season with 82%
Vettel is seventh on the list of most laps led and most distance led
Vettel has won from pole 19 times, the only drivers with more are #1 and 4 on that list



You get the idea ... what makes all these records even more unbelievable is he has only had 100 starts and is only 25. I cannot think of another driver who has done more in a shorter amount of time than Vettel. If he retired today (and lost the championship) he would still deserve to be on the list just due to the amount of records in such a short time.


You forgot another :-P

The youngest driver to be driving the highest downforce car in Formula 1.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:20 am
Posts: 2706
Location: Herts, UK
sivapc wrote:
but sometimes i feel his death has made him a bigger legend than he should've been.


I have to agree. Had he not died I dont think he'd be ranked as #1. He'd still be up there in the top 3, but would potentially be considered in a similar light to how prost is seen.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 614
Number 1 - Juan Manuel Fangio
Number 2 - Ayrton Senna
Number 3 - Jim Clark
Number 4 - Alain Prost
Number 5 - Michael Schumacher
Number 6 - Sir Jackie Stewart
Number 7 - Niki Lauda
Number 8 - Nelson Piquet
Number 9 - Sir Stirling Moss
Number 10 - Graham Hill
Number 11 - Gilles Villeneuve
Number 12 - Nigel Mansell
Number 13 - Mika Hakkinen
Number 14 - Lewis Hamilton
Number 15 - Fernando Alonso
Number 16 - Sebastian Vettel
Number 17 - Alberto Ascari
Number 18 - Emerson Fittipaldi
Number 19 - Jack Brabham
Number 20 - Kimi Raikkonen

My personal biased list, but having seen most of these drivers during seasons (Often in real life) thats my view.

Alonso ,Vettel & Hamilton will possibly shoot up the list in the future, Schumacher much higher than them obviously because of his titles and been there and done it.

_________________
RSR Racing


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: jiminwatford, Schumacher forever#1 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