planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:16 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:49 am
Posts: 2069
Location: Australia
Another problem with keeping on all the decent drivers (as in, drivers who are not in the top tier but are good/adequate) is that it means that up and coming drivers miss out and those drivers might prove to be equal or better.

I don't agree with giving a driver only one season to prove themselves, unless they're really no good, but all the drivers on this list have had two or more seasons to develop and display their capability. Yes, some of them are equivalent to other drivers who remain in the sport or drivers who had longer careers, but they are not such significant standouts beyond them or showing so much potential that they'll be better than drivers who come through to a significant degree.

To use Renault/Lotus as an example (and I don't necessarily think what I am about to say, but it's a good way to highlight my point): They got rid of Petrov, who did show some decent potential and development, to make way for Grosjean. It's arguable that Petrov is perhaps better than Grosjean, but it's also possible that Grosjean will turn out to be better than Petrov. Either way, Petrov was unlikely to be a WDC so taking the risk to find a better driver was worthwhile from the team's perspective and if it works out then it will be completely accepted.

Drivers like Barrichello and Trulli IMO had careers much longer than justified their capability. But there will always be a couple of drivers like that and they also went through an era with different circumstances, where manufacturers with a lot of money were prepared to pay drivers with experience rather than needing pay drivers to fund their team. That doesn't mean that every driver on a similar level to them is entitled to have a career that spans that long.

_________________
Twitter @Jo_Soucek


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 4:34 pm
Posts: 245
Brundle's a legend and awesome in the commentary box but he certainly knows all about having your "chance to shine" and then getting axed; you could probably argue that he was one of the lucky ones that did get a second chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 106
Martin Brundle would have been right, if the axed drivers had been proven not good enough, but that is not the case.

Heikki Kovalainen, Timo Glock, Kimi Kobayashi etc. all delivered very good results considering the cars they were given. It would have made a lot more sense to dump the two Toro Rosso-drivers, who certainly didn't manage to get anything special out of their car.

But the main flaw in Martin Brundles argument is that the axed drivers were not dumped because of what they did on track. They were replaced because of money and nothing else. Most of them took their chance and got the best out of not very good cars, but were axed anyway because of money. Right now money is replacing talent, and saying that it is partly the drivers own fault because they had their chance is simply not correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:59 pm
Posts: 530
In my opinion, this is a pretty stupid jibe at the drivers that have been axed.

I understand, Formula 1 is a highly competitive environment and the competition is cut throat, but it's not rocket science to figure out the fact that money, politics and relationships play an enormous role in determining the guys that occupy the 22/24 seats than talent alone.

I understand the argument about Kovalainen about him having a genuine shot at it with McLaren for two years but the other blokes simply got trounced on the cash front. I'll just state a few examples:

1) Kamui Kobayashi: Sergio Perez, beat him by a mere 6 points. He ended up with a seat at McLaren, while Kobayashi had to leave F1. People around here say that Kobayashi is brash, but you need to look at the number of crashes Perez was involved in once his McLaren contract was stitched up. If, Perez was staying at Sauber and Kobayashi was shown the door, it was still something one could understand. What has happened, is a clear case of money playing it's part. In 2011, Kobayashi beat Perez by about 15-16 points if I remember correctly, and over all they're more or less the same, if anything, on pure points and stats I think Kobayashi edges it.

2) Jamie Alguersuari: On this forum, people say there's more to life than just F1. Alguersuari is 22. 22! He beat Buemi in 2011 as a 21 year old, and a driver who RedBull rate highly. There wasn't much between them in 2010, though Buemi did look the better driver. It's so obvious that STR and Red Bull don't really treat their young talent in the most generous ways. If you're going to back some young kid, then do it properly. To throw him in the deep end at such a young age, have him even out shine someone you rate highly, and to then give him the boot is just pathetic. Sebastian Vettel, let me remind you, at 22 was just having a brilliant season with Red Bull. It's not like he was WDC when he was 20.

3) Nick Heidfeld: He's beaten Kimi Raikkonen, Robert Kubica, Felipe Massa, Mark Webber (2005, until he got injured). 3 of the mentioned 4 drivers, drive the top 4 cars in F1 today. Robert Kubica, if not for the accident would have secured a top seat too. Things just didn't work out for Nick. It's luck. I know, someone will come on and say you make your own luck but there isn't any logic as to why Massa ended up at Ferrari or as to why Raikkonen ended up at McLaren. Heidfeld, was always quick and consistent. All the drivers he beat, also had tough times and tough years. Ability, is not the reason why he couldn't cut it. If, ability is a criteria then Felipe Massa should have been replaced prior to 2012, let alone be driving a Ferrari even for 2013.

P:S : I don't have anything against the guys who did cut it, or who had the ability and the luck on their side. But, to brush aside these guys on the basis that they 'didn't have it' is pure naive and juvenile. Journalists and presenters today are more of that category.

_________________
#1

"You know the score.. Alright that's enough.. You're not going to get any points for that.."

"But Satisfaction!"

Sebastian Vettel
World Driver's Champion
2010,2011,2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 4615
Thing is I think some of the drivers who have been axed are proven. Proven to be good enough to still be driving in the sport. Ok none of them are going to be world champions but I feel that we will go into this season with a weaker field of drivers than which we started 2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 1806
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thing is I think some of the drivers who have been axed are proven. Proven to be good enough to still be driving in the sport. Ok none of them are going to be world champions but I feel that we will go into this season with a weaker field of drivers than which we started 2012.


Weaker and also pretty inexperienced.

Button is most experienced with 13 seasons, than it's Alonso and Webber with 12 seasons each, Massa has 11 and a half seasons, Raikkonen 10
than there is a few years gap with Rosberg 7, Hamilton 6 and Vettel 5 and a half
If Sutil with his 5 seasons experience won't be picked there will be 14 drivers (!) with 2 seasons or less on the grid.

2 seasons: Hulkenberg, Di Resta, Perez, Maldonado
1,5 seasons: Grosjean, Ricciardo
1 season: Vergne, Pic
rookies: Bottas, Gutierrez, Chilton, Razia, Van der Garde (and maybe Bianchi)

From the axed drivers Schumacher had approximately 18 seasons of experience (91 and 99 were not full seasons)
The others had less than 7 seasons experience
De La Rosa: around 6 (so many stand-in drives)
Kovalainen: 6 full seasons
Glock: 5 full seasons and a few races in 2004
Kobayashi: 3 full seasons and 2 races in 2009
Petrov: 3 full seasons
Senna and Karthikeyan: 2 and half seasons
I haven't included D'Ambrosio as he was not really part of the 2012 drivers line-up

I don't think anyone was able to become WDC (yes Schumacher is a 7 times WDC but the come back Schumi would not have fought for WDC IMO). Kovalainen is the only other one winning a GP but also the only one having a car being able to win races with when he was at Macca (2 seasons). None of them would have been world beaters in a top car I think. Kova and De La rosa have shown that when they drove for Macca. Glock wasn't that convincing versus passed peak Trulli nor versus his rookie teammates at Marussia. Kobayashi so exciting at times, so invisible a lot of other times. Petrov rarely impressed, Senna impressed even less than Petrov. Karthikeyan bar his first few races at Jordan long ago always was a waste of space.
Looking at the guys losing their seat at the end of 2011:
Heidfeld, Barrichello and Trulli had their best time and should stay retired
Liuzzi just couldn't impress with a fairly competitive Force India despite showing some promise with Red Bull and STR
Buemi and Alguersuari: are they worse than the rookies and less exprerienced guys, time will tell, STR was never really good enough to show their true potential I think
Chandhok: well he drove like a half a season with the slowest team, some guys say he was better than Senna but I dunno, his record in lower series wasn't all that impressive to warrant a place in F1 IMO
Sutil: the only guy being able to make a comeback, 5 seasons with Force India, Half of it the car was rubbish, the other half it was very decent. One 4th place and hardly any stand out drive, could he impress more than Kovalainen and Glock, I don't think so

The only one who I think could make a meaningful comeback if he fully recovers is Kubica. Klien would be my second choice but I don't think he eyes an F1 return any more. I wouldn't mind if Di Grassi would be given another shot in a better car either.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:20 am
Posts: 2706
Location: Herts, UK
Beleriand_K wrote:
Martin Brundle would have been right, if the axed drivers had been proven not good enough, but that is not the case.

Heikki Kovalainen, Timo Glock, Kimi Kobayashi etc. all delivered very good results considering the cars they were given. It would have made a lot more sense to dump the two Toro Rosso-drivers, who certainly didn't manage to get anything special out of their car.

But the main flaw in Martin Brundles argument is that the axed drivers were not dumped because of what they did on track. They were replaced because of money and nothing else. Most of them took their chance and got the best out of not very good cars, but were axed anyway because of money. Right now money is replacing talent, and saying that it is partly the drivers own fault because they had their chance is simply not correct.


- Heikki had a chance in a McLaren.
- Kamui had 3 very mediocre seasons (only beating his teammate in the first due to reliability, and the second due to mid-season driver changes)
- Glock's highest championship position in 7 years of F1 (and between 3 different teams) was 10th.
- Senna had a horrible first season with Hispania, scoring 23rd. His second season with Lotus was 18th (Petrov 10th) - granted this was a half season for him though. He certainly got better at Williams, but didn't shine at all really.

As I said before, it sucks that they are gone, and it sucks even more that they were replaced by pay drivers, but if we had the same 18 mediocre drivers and only 6 great drivers every year, F1 would never move forwards. Replacing mediocre drivers is the only, and the right way to move forwards. Sure, in some cases (most cases) the replacements are no better, but as Martin rightly said, you could look at the lineup and think "oh Senna, he'll have 1 or two flashes of greatness, then be forgotten about for the rest of the season", or alternatively think "ok, we've got 5/6 new drivers on the grid - lets see which ones are good and bad".

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have pay drivers, and the new drivers on the grid would be graduates from GP2, but that wont happen.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:51 am
Posts: 1049
Sevenfest wrote:
phyz wrote:

That's why Petrov has a drive but Kovalainen doesn't.


Did I miss something?


Apologies. But the point is still that money plays too big a role in deciding the middle and lower part of the grid. And that is why many drivers are expressing their frustration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7328
Location: London
Money has always played a role in the mid to lower end of the grid.

Michael Schumacher got his F1 chance purely because of money and a little white lie about driving round Spa before. Hill had money to take to Brabham I believe. Alonso had/has Spanish sponsors helping him. Hakkinen had small sponsors that opened the Lotus door to him in 1991. Irvine got his break with Jordan because he was Irish. Barrichello had sponsors from Brazil. Webber had sponsors when he went to Minardi in 2002. Vettel had Red Bull backing him, Hamilton had McLaren.

Of the top drivers only Button and Raikkonen didn't bring sponsor money to their first F1 team. The rest all did or had the financial clout of another big team paving the way for them. Money has always been the dominant factor in F1.

The only reason we don't feel any ill feeling towards the above drivers is because they made it to the top of the sport, they won races. If Perez or RoGro win regularly in the coming years we'll forget all about them being "pay drivers" to begging with. They will just be the top drivers. Same with Maldonado if he can sort his act out.

You have to get rid of the mediocrity fast to give others a chance to shine. If they don't shine they get the boot fast too. It's better to evaluate 10 drivers over three/four years and find two or three new stars than keep the same average drivers for three or four years and see the sport stagnate.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:53 am
Posts: 588
Location: York, United Kingdom.
If all drivers were axed after having their chances and looking mediocre, fact is Jenson Button, Nigel Mansell, Mark Webber to name just a few would have been long gone before they started winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:53 am
Posts: 588
Location: York, United Kingdom.
RickM wrote:


- Kamui had 3 very mediocre seasons (only beating his teammate in the first due to reliability, and the second due to mid-season driver changes)




To be fair to him the first two Sauber's were mediocre cars but he still managed to have two notable races (Valencia and Japan) wheras his teammates had none . De la Rosa didn't look very good at all and I dont remember him or Heidfeld losing many points through unreliability. And I find it highly unlikley Perez would have beaten Kobayashi's fifth place in Monaco if he hadn't crashed as it always seems his bogey track.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7328
Location: London
TakumaSatoforthewin wrote:
If all drivers were axed after having their chances and looking mediocre, fact is Jenson Button, Nigel Mansell, Mark Webber to name just a few would have been long gone before they started winning.

They were three of the lucky ones.

Button had an alright 1st season, he earned his Benetton seat for 2001. He had a terrible 2001, like really awful. He was on the brink of being booted out of Renault for 2002 but Briatore didn't think Alonso was ready for a top seat just yet and ordered him into testing for a year, so Button got one more chance and he did indeed have a far better 2002 than 2001 meaning BAR wanted him to replace the dwindling Panis. After that it is history.

Webber had a good 2002. He earned his Jag seat for 2003. In 2003 he beat his team mates handily, there was no reason to replace him for 04. In 04 he put his Jag on the front row in Sepang, he had a spark, something special was there just waiting to be unlocked. Renault and Williams came calling bu he didn't want to race alongside Alonso so chose Williams. Bad idea since Williams were on a bad downward spiral. In 2005 he had a few podiums, his first in F1 and he made a few excellent overtaking moves, he had earned his 2006 Williams seat. It's here he started perhaps getting lucky. Rosberg was close to him speed wise in 2006, Webber was fed up with Williams by the and Red Bull were not much better at that point despite having Newey on board now. But they wanted a consistent driver for development and Webber was consistent. He got his lucky break. He got RB's only podium of 2007 and was on his way to another, possibly a win in Japan before Vettel's brain fart. He earned his 2008 ride. In 2008 he thumped Coulthard despite DC getting on the podium and of course by 2009 he was winning races finally and there was no need to replace him since he was and still is the perfect No2 driver for Vettel in the right circumstances.

Mansell I'm a but hazy about tbh. But back in the 80s F1 was a slightly different beast.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:04 am
Posts: 633
phyz wrote:
Sevenfest wrote:
phyz wrote:

That's why Petrov has a drive but Kovalainen doesn't.


Did I miss something?


Apologies. But the point is still that money plays too big a role in deciding the middle and lower part of the grid. And that is why many drivers are expressing their frustration.


No need to apologise, I just thought I had missed him getting a reserve role or something :lol:
I've mixed feelings on this all really - On the one hand, I liked Heikki, Kamui, Vitaly and Bruno and wanted them all to get a seat. But as has been said, they've had their chance. And as seen with Maldonado and Perez so far, you can have a 'pay driver' who also comes with speed. The closer the field comes together, the better the competition is.

Basically, bring on Melbourne. If the newbies aren't good enough, they'll be turfed out soon enough too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7328
Location: London
TakumaSatoforthewin wrote:
RickM wrote:


- Kamui had 3 very mediocre seasons (only beating his teammate in the first due to reliability, and the second due to mid-season driver changes)




To be fair to him the first two Sauber's were mediocre cars but he still managed to have two notable races (Valencia and Japan) wheras his teammates had none . De la Rosa didn't look very good at all and I dont remember him or Heidfeld losing many points through unreliability. And I find it highly unlikley Perez would have beaten Kobayashi's fifth place in Monaco if he hadn't crashed as it always seems his bogey track.

Perez was super fast in 2011 and 2012 at Monaco before both his crashes. He finished FP1 3rd in 2012, was ahead of his team mate him FP3 as well. In 2011 he was less than a tenth behind his team mate in his first ever F1 FP session at Monaco, by FP2 he was ahead by over a tenth and in FP3 the gap was 6 tenths.

We all know Monaco was hard on tyres in 2011 and that Perez is the tyre saving king. He could have had a podium that year.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:53 am
Posts: 588
Location: York, United Kingdom.
Laura23 wrote:
TakumaSatoforthewin wrote:
RickM wrote:


- Kamui had 3 very mediocre seasons (only beating his teammate in the first due to reliability, and the second due to mid-season driver changes)




To be fair to him the first two Sauber's were mediocre cars but he still managed to have two notable races (Valencia and Japan) wheras his teammates had none . De la Rosa didn't look very good at all and I dont remember him or Heidfeld losing many points through unreliability. And I find it highly unlikley Perez would have beaten Kobayashi's fifth place in Monaco if he hadn't crashed as it always seems his bogey track.

Perez was super fast in 2011 and 2012 at Monaco before both his crashes. He finished FP1 3rd in 2012, was ahead of his team mate him FP3 as well. In 2011 he was less than a tenth behind his team mate in his first ever F1 FP session at Monaco, by FP2 he was ahead by over a tenth and in FP3 the gap was 6 tenths.

We all know Monaco was hard on tyres in 2011 and that Perez is the tyre saving king. He could have had a podium that year.


I know one was a steering failure but its all very well being super fast but its no use if you put yourself in hospital. He has still yet to score there and his fight from the back this year was scrappy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 1386
Laura23 wrote:
Perez was super fast in 2011 and 2012 at Monaco before both his crashes. He finished FP1 3rd in 2012, was ahead of his team mate him FP3 as well. In 2011 he was less than a tenth behind his team mate in his first ever F1 FP session at Monaco, by FP2 he was ahead by over a tenth and in FP3 the gap was 6 tenths.

We all know Monaco was hard on tyres in 2011 and that Perez is the tyre saving king. He could have had a podium that year.


Sorry but you really are stretching your credibility when comparing drivers free practice sessions. All sorts of things could be happening. Drivers are on different tyres, different fuel loads, trying out development parts, ironing out technical gremlins, trying different set ups. It really does bare very little resemblance to drivers actual performance.

I doubt Perez would have beaten Button, Alonso or Vettel to a podium but I guess we will never know. I do however find it some what contrived to respond to an excellent drive by saying, 'yeah well his team mate would have done much better'.

The fact is Perez crashed. It seems to be largely glossed over by the fact that he was injured but it was a crash and it was completely his own fault. Saying Perez should have had a load of points or a podium in Monaco would be like saying Grosjean should have had a podium in Spa last year.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7328
Location: London
For such an average driver Kobayashi doesn't half have super fans...

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:05 pm
Posts: 2973
Axed drivers may have had their chance, but it doesn't mean they should be replaced by inferior pay drivers.

As to Kobayashi, F1 can be a boring enough sport at the best of times, he was one of the drivers that made it interesting to watch so he will be missed imo.

_________________
We want heroes, but there are few, mainly it's cars - Pedro De La Rosa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:21 am
Posts: 369
OutKast wrote:
I'm going to be honest right now... I think Koboyashi should have recieved one more shot at least.

It was a seven point difference and a couple of podiums can really make a difference with finacial backing which is why Perez retained a seat at Mclaren? Really right? It was a seven point difference between them and even after the damn podiums and with contract talks made Perez look EXTREMELY freaking average for the rest of 2012. I'm not saying because I do not have a bias for Kamui, but being beaten by his teammate for the first time, well 2011 is sort of a wash considering Sergio was out for a couple of races. Still, he was still beaten like everyone else and then because of the lack of funding it makes it impossible for him to get a competitive seat.


Firstly, Perez didn't retain McLaren seat, unless you think he was one of their drivers in 2012.

Secondly, it wasn't about difference in points or podiums. It was about difference in talent, which was big. You can see it on your very own eyes during weekends like Singapore, when Sauber was dog of a car due to unsolvable problem, yet Perez outqualified Kobayashi by 1 second and was lapping over 1 second per lap faster during the race. One driver was fighting with Hulkenberg's Force India (top car that weekend), while the other one was struggling to overtake Caterham and Marussia and only fought with cars from old teams due to SC and strategy. Just because they qualified 14th and 18th and finished 10th and 13th, which was overlooked by 99% of fans, doesn't mean teams didn't notice huge disparity in talents during weekends like these.

Thirdly, only Perez's lack of points after signing with McLaren can be described as awful, not even extremely freaking average. His pace was excellent, as usual, but he was trying too hard to get achievement he wanted to get with Sauber - win or another podium. Hence errors like in Japan, India and Abu Dhabi. Add to that being eliminated by Senna-Vettel collision in Brazil, driving 80% of US GP with malfunctioning brakes and being screwed by his own team in Korea (driving 9th in the first stint, right behind Hulkenberg and Grosjean, only to leave pits after first stop in 14th position, with any kind of race for points over) and you get the picture of last 6 races. The most important thing is the pace was there, which is very promising sing for the future.


I won't miss any of mentioned by Brundle drivers, but also I wouldn't like to see them replaced by any of new faces, like van der Garde, Razia or Chilton, because they are truly modern pay drivers, with little talent but a lot of money. There are real talents waiting, like da Costa or Frijns, who should be getting the gig and I'm very sure they would still shine in crapboxes like Caterham or Marussia, but we all know what these teams want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:08 am
Posts: 453
Armchair Expert wrote:
OutKast wrote:
I'm going to be honest right now... I think Koboyashi should have recieved one more shot at least.

It was a seven point difference and a couple of podiums can really make a difference with finacial backing which is why Perez retained a seat at Mclaren? Really right? It was a seven point difference between them and even after the damn podiums and with contract talks made Perez look EXTREMELY freaking average for the rest of 2012. I'm not saying because I do not have a bias for Kamui, but being beaten by his teammate for the first time, well 2011 is sort of a wash considering Sergio was out for a couple of races. Still, he was still beaten like everyone else and then because of the lack of funding it makes it impossible for him to get a competitive seat.


Firstly, Perez didn't retain McLaren seat, unless you think he was one of their drivers in 2012.

Secondly, it wasn't about difference in points or podiums. It was about difference in talent, which was big. You can see it on your very own eyes during weekends like Singapore, when Sauber was dog of a car due to unsolvable problem, yet Perez outqualified Kobayashi by 1 second and was lapping over 1 second per lap faster during the race. One driver was fighting with Hulkenberg's Force India (top car that weekend), while the other one was struggling to overtake Caterham and Marussia and only fought with cars from old teams due to SC and strategy. Just because they qualified 14th and 18th and finished 10th and 13th, which was overlooked by 99% of fans, doesn't mean teams didn't notice huge disparity in talents during weekends like these.

Thirdly, only Perez's lack of points after signing with McLaren can be described as awful, not even extremely freaking average. His pace was excellent, as usual, but he was trying too hard to get achievement he wanted to get with Sauber - win or another podium. Hence errors like in Japan, India and Abu Dhabi. Add to that being eliminated by Senna-Vettel collision in Brazil, driving 80% of US GP with malfunctioning brakes and being screwed by his own team in Korea (driving 9th in the first stint, right behind Hulkenberg and Grosjean, only to leave pits after first stop in 14th position, with any kind of race for points over) and you get the picture of last 6 races. The most important thing is the pace was there, which is very promising sing for the future.


I won't miss any of mentioned by Brundle drivers, but also I wouldn't like to see them replaced by any of new faces, like van der Garde, Razia or Chilton, because they are truly modern pay drivers, with little talent but a lot of money. There are real talents waiting, like da Costa or Frijns, who should be getting the gig and I'm very sure they would still shine in crapboxes like Caterham or Marussia, but we all know what these teams want.


Agree on that, anyone who actually FOLLOWED both Sauber drivers can notice the 6 points doesn´t justice the HUGE difference in talent, I can´t recall a race in 2012 where Koba had better race pace than Checo, unless there was some car failure. There should be one of two, but really I can´t recall any.
The same happens at Williams, the points difference between Maldo and Senna wasn´t that hughe was it? But everyone rates Maldo much higher than Senna
What happens is that forum memory lasts 2 or 3 races and Perez didn´t score many points at the end of the season because he was pushing the boundaries too hard trying to impress and polish his overtaking skills


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:21 am
Posts: 369
Banana Man wrote:
I'd have KK down as a better racer than Perez. When that Sauber was fast, he was the one delivering the results. Germany, Spa, Japan, Barcelona, Valencia. He was the one looking capable of top 5 and podium finishes.

Perez is quick and I like him but there was a large element of good fortune in his 3 podiums. 2 were in races where he had an extra set of fresh tyres from not making it into Q3 and Malaysia was a wet dry race where he happened to end up on the right tyres at the right time.


Germany - 5th on track, whooping 6 second ahead of Perez
Spa - yep, 13th place (I know he had massive damage from collision, but how can you tell what would happen without it?)
Japan - you can say he delivered, although I'm pretty much sure Sauber was faster than Ferrari that weekend
Barcelona - is this the same race when Perez was out of it in first corner, when Grosjean punctured his tyre from 4th place?
Valencia - again, the same race when Perez and Kobayashi were separated by 2 seconds before Kobayashi collided with Senna?

And I love when people are saying his podiums were achieved due to having fresh tyres and perfect strategy:

Canada - Perez from 15th to 3rd, from new softs to new supersofts
Italy - Perez from 12th to 2nd, from new hards to new mediums

If it's that simple, why Kobayashi couldn't not only repeat it, but also score any points if it's so easy?

India - Kobayashi from 17th to 14th from new hards to new mediums

Do you really think McLaren is stupid and chose Perez just looking at his podiums, ignoring all the rest? :lol: And looking at how there is zero Mexican sponsors on McLaren this year, if Perez flops, then most likely he will be fired and the team would look like idiots, because they could get anyone, be it Hulkenberg or Kobayashi. So no, it seems teams like McLaren and Mercedes, both very interested in Perez, know better than fans thinking it's all about 3 podiums. It's not, it's about massive talent, shown in races like famous GP2 race in Abu Dhabi in 2010, when he trashed the field by 20 seconds, lapping 1 second per lap faster than the rest. He had brilliant pace all 2012 long, which often didn't materialised into results due to circumstances outside his control and his own mistakes.

All teams ignored Kobayashi for 3 years (except Sauber of course!), while Perez, only at 22 in his second season, could drive in 2013 for Ferrari or Mercedes, but was finally snatched by McLaren. I guess they were naive enough to only look at 3 podiums and partly ignored the rest or they needed Mexican money (while in reality owners 2 of them just got record sales and profits). Makes sense x(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:39 pm
Posts: 30
Location: Canada
F1 is a money sport, there is usually an open seat if you bring the right amount of sponsor $$$.
Unfortunately for those drivers, their luck run out with their sponsor support not their team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 4507
Location: u.k
Banana Man wrote:
Laura23 wrote:
Perez was super fast in 2011 and 2012 at Monaco before both his crashes. He finished FP1 3rd in 2012, was ahead of his team mate him FP3 as well. In 2011 he was less than a tenth behind his team mate in his first ever F1 FP session at Monaco, by FP2 he was ahead by over a tenth and in FP3 the gap was 6 tenths.

We all know Monaco was hard on tyres in 2011 and that Perez is the tyre saving king. He could have had a podium that year.


Sorry but you really are stretching your credibility when comparing drivers free practice sessions. All sorts of things could be happening. Drivers are on different tyres, different fuel loads, trying out development parts, ironing out technical gremlins, trying different set ups. It really does bare very little resemblance to drivers actual performance.

I doubt Perez would have beaten Button, Alonso or Vettel to a podium but I guess we will never know. I do however find it some what contrived to respond to an excellent drive by saying, 'yeah well his team mate would have done much better'.

The fact is Perez crashed. It seems to be largely glossed over by the fact that he was injured but it was a crash and it was completely his own fault. Saying Perez should have had a load of points or a podium in Monaco would be like saying Grosjean should have had a podium in Spa last year.


It really wasn't though. If you remember, Rosberg crashed in the exact same place earlier in FP3, and in years gone by, drivers have crashed in that exact same position, in that exact same barrier. Button hit it once and it's very well known and well documented there is a bump at the exit of the tunnel as they start to break.

_________________
Formula Mercedes

Forza Alonso


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: AngusWolfe, Google Adsense [Bot], owenmahamilton, Pedrosa_4_Ever, Robbo-92, simonr23, VDV23 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