planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

You can only hire one
Fernando Alonso 16%  16%  [ 23 ]
Lewis Hamilton 18%  18%  [ 26 ]
Sebastian Vettel 10%  10%  [ 14 ]
Kimi Räikkönen 12%  12%  [ 17 ]
Adrian Newey 34%  34%  [ 50 ]
Rory Byrne 8%  8%  [ 11 ]
Paddy Lowe 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
Ross Brawn 2%  2%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 145
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 7702
Location: London
ashley313 wrote:
lol nobody wants Paddy

Mercedes do.

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

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Well I guess Mercedes isn't voting in this poll.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:50 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: Round the Bend
Newey just barely beat Alonso last year. Therefore I would hire Vettel.

Alonso, you see, took a big knock in 2012 - one from which he may well recover. But can I expect him to replicate the form of his career in his first season at a new team? And he's not getting any younger.

And neither is Newey. And then there's the salary he'd be asking (I could get me a couple of Hulkenberg's for that sort of cash). And then there's the constant stress of never knowing which component the FIA are going ban next. Don't need that. And then there's the weird moods and somehow vacant 'excuse me while I ruminate on this entirely fascinating if wholly incommunicable idea' look. No thanks.

Vettel, on the other hand, brings vitality and zest. He's his whole career still ahead of him (as does everyone else, I admit), and the very presence of this baby-fresh triple champion at our team would provide an immediate fillip in a way that Newey or even Alonso would not. Once I sign Seb, sponsors will be beating a path to our door, and big name technical staff will become that much easier to snare. He's an obnoxious pain in the neck, to be sure - but I wouldn't have to deal with it. It'd be the mechanics and engineers getting it in the neck while I sip an espresso and reflect on how I've effectively delegated half of my job to the brightest prospect in F1.

And as for the other lot - you've go to be kidding.

_________________

WORLD
Image
CHAMPIONS
Once More


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
Good thing I chose Ross Brawn. He gonna be free next year

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3913
Location: Belgium
Guia wrote:
It'd be the mechanics and engineers getting it in the neck while I sip an espresso and reflect on how I've effectively delegated half of my job to the brightest prospect in F1.

And as for the other lot - you've go to be kidding.
Good to see you posting again, though I'm not in the least certain I catch your drift. :?

_________________
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: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:34 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: Round the Bend
Fiki wrote:
Guia wrote:
It'd be the mechanics and engineers getting it in the neck while I sip an espresso and reflect on how I've effectively delegated half of my job to the brightest prospect in F1.

And as for the other lot - you've go to be kidding.
Good to see you posting again, though I'm not in the least certain I catch your drift. :?

Well then we're both stuffed because I was relying on you to explain it to me. All I know is: what Seb wants, Seb gets!

Nice to be posting again too. In due course I'll be back posting regularly I'm sure, but I just had to take a break.

And you know... I do miss you all when I'm not here. :blush:

_________________

WORLD
Image
CHAMPIONS
Once More


Last edited by Guia on Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:35 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: Round the Bend
Race2win wrote:
Good thing I chose Ross Brawn. He gonna be free next year

That could yet prove a very smart move.

_________________

WORLD
Image
CHAMPIONS
Once More


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3965
Guia wrote:
Race2win wrote:
Good thing I chose Ross Brawn. He gonna be free next year

That could yet prove a very smart move.


Hi Guia, welcome back!


I'd chose either Brawn or Byrne. Not sure yet. I think probably Byrne, a foundamentaly good car is essential

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
I voted for Newey. But it is important to note that anyone with hopes of accomplishing great things requires a team and environment suitable for their needs.

I wanted to vote for Flavio, but his name wasn't on the list. ;)

Actually, it would have been interesting to put Todt, Dennis, Flavio and Horner on that list as well, to have Drivers vs Technical vs Team Principals.

Maybe next time.


It sure would be food for thought and create interesting debate...

Ok, well I have an idea. If we take the existing 11 team principals, but add a few more to the list who retired recently - eg Ron Dennis, Jean Todt, Flavio Briatore... Eddie Jordan ;) - and do the same thing with technical directors/designers I'll run a poll like the "Rank the Drivers" one and determine the forum favourites. I'll then rerun this poll with the top 4 drivers, top 4 technical directors/designers and top 4 team principals.

If people want to suggest some names for the Team Principals (other than the current 11) to go on the list, and any candidates for the Technical Director/Designer (other than the 4 already listed on this poll) then once we have some lists I'll set up a thread to determine the favourites for each category.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
Great idea AlienTH.

The team principals and tech. chiefs/engineers are so important.
I'd like to see Pat Symonds included.
And to make your poll hit the bigtime, Alfred Neubauer.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
POBRatings wrote:
Great idea AlienTH.

The team principals and tech. chiefs/engineers are so important.
I'd like to see Pat Symonds included.
And to make your poll hit the bigtime, Alfred Neubauer.

Pat Symonds is a great choice.

As for Alfred Neubauer, obviously a legend but I think for the purposes of the poll I'll limit it to people who have been active in the last 5 seasons for two reasons. Older people rarely get the credit they deserve due to lack of exposure, but also the fact that running a team today is a very different prospect. But I don't think you were necessarily being entirely serious that I put him in ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
I don't think current team principals get the credit/exposure they deserve. come to think about it neither do teh technical directors, designers, engineers, mechanics. Drivers are the pretty faces people get to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: Round the Bend
SchumieRules wrote:
Guia wrote:
Race2win wrote:
Good thing I chose Ross Brawn. He gonna be free next year

That could yet prove a very smart move.


Hi Guia, welcome back!


I'd chose either Brawn or Byrne. Not sure yet. I think probably Byrne, a foundamentaly good car is essential

Hi SchumieRules, thanks for having me! :D

If it's a fundamentally sorted chassis you want, you could do a lot worse than making Rory Byrne technical director. Expect wins at Monaco, Hungary, and just about any rain effected race.

However, if it's a fondmetally good car you want, you couldn't do a lot worse than this:

Image

Pretty though, isn't it. :D

And it might be against the OP's rules, but did anyone ever contemplate the implications of putting Byrne and Newey in the same technical department... 8O

_________________

WORLD
Image
CHAMPIONS
Once More


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Nope and nope. Neither would want to be accused of riding the other's coat tails.

I voted Hamilton.

Vettel did win 3 consecutive titles but the first was greatly in part down to his team making the most unprecedented and ballsy thing I can remember any team EVER doing, which was switch full focus and support to the driver that was furthest from contention in the WDC at the time and just about literally turned their backs on the other driver who was actually towards the top in the chase for the championship. Had it been Mark who wrecked into Vettel he'd have never heard the end of it and may have been terminated at the end of the year.

A driver knowing outright he the team's #1 priority does wonders for their level of confidence, morale and self esteem and the only other driver who's had it that way is Alonso who has also been in contention in 2 of the last 3 years.

Things at McLaren however have been a bit unstable and certainly the team did also make too many costly mistakes that may have otherwise seen Lewis as the Champion for 2012. Despite those blunders, Lewis pressed on and maintained his focus and in 2012 IMHO showed he turned the corner in his focus, mentality and approach to handling himself on the track. Twitter Gate was definitely a not so smart thing to do but I suspect there was a bit of premeditation there.

I love Alonso and his ability to learn what a car has to offer and make the most of it and Vettel's blazing gap opening speed, but Hamilton for me is a mixture of both in terms of his driving style. As quick and sometimes even quicker than Vettel, intelligent and gifted enough to learn what the car has to offer and maximizes its performance, yet he is more aggressive than both and isn't afraid to press the issue and as far as I've seen NEVER backs down from a challenge. Alonso is great in his own right but I don't think Hamilton would have ever accepted that he simply was not faster than Petrov and would have at least tried to pass to seize the title rather than do nothing and gift it to someone else.

For me this poll comes down to a Driver selection over all else because looking back Wherever drivers like Prost Landed, or Schumacher, or Senna, or Mansell later in his career, or Alonso, or now Vettel land, suddenly the car looks that much faster in their hands and for me, that's the biggest difference maker and deciding factor.

One other aspect that might perhaps be considered are 2nd drivers. After all, it is they who help win the Constructor's Title so they also play a significant role. A top lead driver can also help develop such a 2nd driver, again adding a bit more to their importance.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:40 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: Round the Bend
the incubus wrote:
Nope and nope. Neither would want to be accused of riding the other's coat tails.

You don't know that, although one does wonder how the partnership could work even if both could be persuaded to sign (I'm thinking Marlon Brando in The Godfather). But hey, McLaren made Prost & Senna work... just. And I'll tell you something else: None of us are actually looking to hire, since none of us actually have a Formula 1 team!

So - hypothetically speaking - with aero by Newey, and mechanicals by Byrne, would anything else come close?

_________________

WORLD
Image
CHAMPIONS
Once More


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:53 pm
Posts: 410
Alonso - always will be, ever since I first saw him drive for Minardi I thought there could be something special

why?

Neway has not always produced, his period of unreliability, and it is only because he is able to get those Renault engines exactly the right size and with the cooling not needing more than x amount of space, so many conditions, I would rather have someone who can get the max out of the car and then a little more, and Alonso has proven this time and time again


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1118
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Obviously, the car does count for about 90% of the performance versus 10% for the driver,


You are mistaken. It is 50/50.

I think sometimes people are thinking about something very specific when they call these percentages. Perhaps you are as well. But logically, it can't be anything other than 50/50. One absolutely cannot function without the other. As to whether a driver or car is living up to their full potential (contributing 100% of their possible 50% to the combination) is a different question.

In any case, that is what makes your poll very complex. Which 50% are you going to bank on? Car or Driver?

[color=#570000]On that logic you have a 50/50 chance of winning the jackpot in the lottery, you either win it or you don't. Or the driver, designer and front wheel gun guy have a 33/33/33 share in the performance.

The car does account for a much bigger proportion of the performance than the driver. Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel couldn't get in the Top 10 in a Caterham but Karthikeyan could fight for podiums in a Red Bull.


You presented only part of the argument.

How do you know how good the Red Bull is in any given season?


Last edited by bourbon19 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
Ok Bourbon i would like to give you a situation.

can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?
Can a 95% driver with a 20% F1 car take the tittle?
(percentages are in comparison to competition)

Tell me your theoretical chances of each of the two situation and we will know were each stand on the topic.

There is no such thing as a logic fail in this argument, people believe different things that is all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1118
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
Ok Bourbon i would like to give you a situation.

can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?
Can a 95% driver with a 20% F1 car take the tittle?
(percentages are in comparison to competition)

Tell me your theoretical chances of each of the two situation and we will know were each stand on the topic.

There is no such thing as a logic fail in this argument, people believe different things that is all.



I made it too complex, I know. I changed my response to reflect the crux of the matter. There are not "different things to believe" when it comes to our knowing how good a car is. There is only one way to determine how good it is in any given season. Right?

As for your comparison:

Can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?
Can a 95% driver with a 20% F1 car take the tittle?

If the driver is giving 100% which is equal to only 20% of his peers, he's probably not going to be in F1. But if he is, he won't be in a car that is giving 100% of it's potential - which is 95% better than all the rest. The constructor would not hire that driver - he'd quit the sport first.

The other situation is more likely with the scarcity of cars, but eventually the creme always rises to the top so that both car and driver are generally giving near their potential and thus, the combination generally finds success.

.


Last edited by bourbon19 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
bourbon19 wrote:
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
Ok Bourbon i would like to give you a situation.

can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?
Can a 95% driver with a 20% F1 car take the tittle?
(percentages are in comparison to competition)

Tell me your theoretical chances of each of the two situation and we will know were each stand on the topic.

There is no such thing as a logic fail in this argument, people believe different things that is all.



I made it too complex, I know. I changed my response to reflect the crux of the matter. There are not "different things to believe" when it comes to our knowing how good a car is. There is only one way to determine how good it is in any given season. Right?


Yes, in any given season we can set a limit, but is that the car's full outright potential?

I agree with you that the situation is complicated, but i would say the car plays a bigger role than the driver, much bigger. (this argument can be reversed)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1118
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
M.Nader -DODZ- wrote:
Ok Bourbon i would like to give you a situation.

can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?
Can a 95% driver with a 20% F1 car take the tittle?
(percentages are in comparison to competition)

Tell me your theoretical chances of each of the two situation and we will know were each stand on the topic.

There is no such thing as a logic fail in this argument, people believe different things that is all.



I made it too complex, I know. I changed my response to reflect the crux of the matter. There are not "different things to believe" when it comes to our knowing how good a car is. There is only one way to determine how good it is in any given season. Right?


Yes, in any given season we can set a limit, but is that the car's full outright potential?


You only know what the driver shows you. We have no idea if the full potential is being shown in any of the cars on the grid.

Quote:
I agree with you that the situation is complicated, but i would say the car plays a bigger role than the driver, much bigger. (this argument can be reversed)


In what way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:00 pm
Posts: 2986
Quote:
You only know what the driver shows you. We have no idea if the full potential is being shown in any of the cars on the grid.


Yes, that is what i know. but i can guess what it is in the hands of other drivers, this however would be a complete waste time as it is neither accurate, precise nor backed by any credible evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
I agree with you that the situation is complicated, but i would say the car plays a bigger role than the driver, much bigger. (this argument can be reversed)

In what way?


Here is the dilemma, I believe that given a very competitive car an average driver can win the WDC against better drivers with lesser machinery.
"can a 95% car with a 20% F1 driver take the tittle?" my answer to that is yes while in the opposite case i would say no.

However, a competitive car is no standard and can be anything and you may give the best car in the field to the best driver and he can be a second or more off the pace despite them being the theoretical best combo. That would be because of vehicle characteristics, take the 1992 season for example where Nigel and Patrese had the best car however Patrese was nowhere to be found near Nigel despite being very close to him the previous season. so in that case Nigel was the one to adapt to the machinery and give it its strength and one can suspect that only him could have done that and maybe even the likes of Senna and Prost wouldn't have been able to at the time.

2011 the same can be said between Vettel and Webber, Maybe if Hamilton was Vettel's teammate at the time he would have done worse than Webber as he wouldn't be able to adapt to the machinery and the RBR would look lost for pace.


So yes the driver can add a substantial amount to the car's strength, BUT take Nigel away from the 1992 season and replace him with a lesser driver and Patrese would have been WDC (despite not getting the best out of the car), a similar claim can be made for Webber during 2010-2012.

That is my take on things anyway, We have stranded waaaay offtopic btw :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:53 am
Posts: 184
ashley313 wrote:
Well I guess Mercedes isn't voting in this poll.

seems like they do, he got a vote:d:p


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:49 pm
Posts: 1791
Simple answer - Vettel

Before Vettel came along - Newey with all his genius and trickery couldnt land any driver titles. even in Mclaren with Kimi - who I rate as quite fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
F1yer wrote:
Simple answer - Vettel

Before Vettel came along - Newey with all his genius and trickery couldnt land any driver titles. even in Mclaren with Kimi - who I rate as quite fast.

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999.

Vettel joined Red Bull following a major regulation change which reset the running order. Were we still running to the 2008 regulations it is almost certain that Vettel would not be a 3 times WDC.

I'm not saying that your choice of Vettel is not a valid choice, overwise I would not have included him in the poll, but your statement justifying it is complete nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:49 pm
Posts: 1791
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
F1yer wrote:
Simple answer - Vettel

Before Vettel came along - Newey with all his genius and trickery couldnt land any driver titles. even in Mclaren with Kimi - who I rate as quite fast.

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999.

Vettel joined Red Bull following a major regulation change which reset the running order. Were we still running to the 2008 regulations it is almost certain that Vettel would not be a 3 times WDC.

I'm not saying that your choice of Vettel is not a valid choice, overwise I would not have included him in the poll, but your statement justifying it is complete nonsense.


Ok - I should have made it clear. Newey's recent success has a big contributing factor in the name of Vettel.

92 93 were different times with too much variation in cars which is not allowed today so I hardly think I will hire Newey based on his record 20 years back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3965
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
F1yer wrote:
Simple answer - Vettel

Before Vettel came along - Newey with all his genius and trickery couldnt land any driver titles. even in Mclaren with Kimi - who I rate as quite fast.

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999.

Vettel joined Red Bull following a major regulation change which reset the running order. Were we still running to the 2008 regulations it is almost certain that Vettel would not be a 3 times WDC.

I'm not saying that your choice of Vettel is not a valid choice, overwise I would not have included him in the poll, but your statement justifying it is complete nonsense.


You don't know that

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
SchumieRules wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
F1yer wrote:
Simple answer - Vettel

Before Vettel came along - Newey with all his genius and trickery couldnt land any driver titles. even in Mclaren with Kimi - who I rate as quite fast.

1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999.

Vettel joined Red Bull following a major regulation change which reset the running order. Were we still running to the 2008 regulations it is almost certain that Vettel would not be a 3 times WDC.

I'm not saying that your choice of Vettel is not a valid choice, overwise I would not have included him in the poll, but your statement justifying it is complete nonsense.


You don't know that

Yes, I can be almost certain of that. Vettel won two of his Championships by a very, very small margin. With a car that was slightly slower this means he would not have been in contention. While Vettel did not drive the 2008 Red Bull, Webber did and his average qualifying position increased by 3.25 places and his average finishing position increased by 4.25 places. In 2008 he finished 11th in the WDC, in 2009 he finished 4th. That is a measure of how much the Red Bull improved between 2008 and 2009 courtesy of the rule changes allowing them to move from the mid field to the front runners. The 2010, 2011 and 2012 cars are evolutions of this design. While I don't doubt that if we were still running on the 2008 regulations the Red Bull would probably be a front running team, probably even by 2010, it would not be as competitive relative to Ferrari and McLaren. Given that Alonso lost by a handful of points in 2010 and 2012, with a car that was significantly more competitive relative to the Red Bull he would have scored better relative to Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3965
Alien, had the 2008 regulations been running still, Newey could have still produced a great car for 2010, 2011 & 2012. There is not way of knowing what would happen, we can only speculate. The "almost certain he wouldn't" is very different to "maybe he wouldn't". You leave no room for the alternative is all I'm saying.

The big step that you mention in 2009 is partly magnified due to their disappointing later part of 2008, where they scored only 5 points and even TR looked better. No wonder 2009 looked magically improved!

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
SchumieRules wrote:
Alien, had the 2008 regulations been running still, Newey could have still produced a great car for 2010, 2011 & 2012. There is not way of knowing what would happen, we can only speculate. The "almost certain he wouldn't" is very different to "maybe he wouldn't". You leave no room for the alternative is all I'm saying.

The big step that you mention in 2009 is partly magnified due to their disappointing later part of 2008, where they scored only 5 points and even TR looked better. No wonder 2009 looked magically improved!

I did leave room. I said I was almost certain.

The drop off in performance at the end of 2008 is due to their switch of resources to concentrate on 2009. McLaren and Ferrari's awful '09 seasons were of a consequence of them devoting 100% of their spare resources to the 2008 championship battle all the way to the final race. Had the regs stated the same that development would have counted towards 2009.

I have no doubt that Adrian Newey would have got the Red Bull to the front by 2010. However Ferrari and McLaren would have been much much closer, and probably still ahead. Vettel's win in 2010 and 2012 was tiny (4 points and 3 points) - it is certain the McLaren and Ferrari would have been more significantly competitive relative to Red Bull if we were still operating on 2008 regulations, which would have almost certainly wiped out Vettel's 4 and 3 point leads in at least one of those seasons.

This is not to discredit Vettel, or Newey, this is to emphasize the technical advantage McLaren and Ferrari had during the 2007/2008 seasons, and the technical advantage Red Bull started off with during 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3965
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Alien, had the 2008 regulations been running still, Newey could have still produced a great car for 2010, 2011 & 2012. There is not way of knowing what would happen, we can only speculate. The "almost certain he wouldn't" is very different to "maybe he wouldn't". You leave no room for the alternative is all I'm saying.

The big step that you mention in 2009 is partly magnified due to their disappointing later part of 2008, where they scored only 5 points and even TR looked better. No wonder 2009 looked magically improved!

I did leave room. I said I was almost certain.

The drop off in performance at the end of 2008 is due to their switch of resources to concentrate on 2009. McLaren and Ferrari's awful '09 seasons were of a consequence of them devoting 100% of their spare resources to the 2008 championship battle all the way to the final race. Had the regs stated the same that development would have counted towards 2009.

I have no doubt that Adrian Newey would have got the Red Bull to the front by 2010. However Ferrari and McLaren would have been much much closer, and probably still ahead. Vettel's win in 2010 and 2012 was tiny (4 points and 3 points) - it is certain the McLaren and Ferrari would have been more significantly competitive relative to Red Bull if we were still operating on 2008 regulations, which would have almost certainly wiped out Vettel's 4 and 3 point leads in at least one of those seasons.

This is not to discredit Vettel, or Newey, this is to emphasize the technical advantage McLaren and Ferrari had during the 2007/2008 seasons, and the technical advantage Red Bull started off with during 2009.


Well, I find the word "certain" quite strong for my taste, but I respect your opinion.

What made me think the opposite of what you are saying is that the blown diffuser concept that RB utilised and was it's greatest benefactor, would still be present in 2010 and 2011, if I'm not mistaken. So they would still reap the results from that. I don't think they would be in such bad state anyway, had the rules stayed the same.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
SchumieRules wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Alien, had the 2008 regulations been running still, Newey could have still produced a great car for 2010, 2011 & 2012. There is not way of knowing what would happen, we can only speculate. The "almost certain he wouldn't" is very different to "maybe he wouldn't". You leave no room for the alternative is all I'm saying.

The big step that you mention in 2009 is partly magnified due to their disappointing later part of 2008, where they scored only 5 points and even TR looked better. No wonder 2009 looked magically improved!

I did leave room. I said I was almost certain.

The drop off in performance at the end of 2008 is due to their switch of resources to concentrate on 2009. McLaren and Ferrari's awful '09 seasons were of a consequence of them devoting 100% of their spare resources to the 2008 championship battle all the way to the final race. Had the regs stated the same that development would have counted towards 2009.

I have no doubt that Adrian Newey would have got the Red Bull to the front by 2010. However Ferrari and McLaren would have been much much closer, and probably still ahead. Vettel's win in 2010 and 2012 was tiny (4 points and 3 points) - it is certain the McLaren and Ferrari would have been more significantly competitive relative to Red Bull if we were still operating on 2008 regulations, which would have almost certainly wiped out Vettel's 4 and 3 point leads in at least one of those seasons.

This is not to discredit Vettel, or Newey, this is to emphasize the technical advantage McLaren and Ferrari had during the 2007/2008 seasons, and the technical advantage Red Bull started off with during 2009.


Well, I find the word "certain" quite strong for my taste, but I respect your opinion.

What made me think the opposite of what you are saying is that the blown diffuser concept that RB utilised and was it's greatest benefactor, would still be present in 2010 and 2011, if I'm not mistaken. So they would still reap the results from that. I don't think they would be in such bad state anyway, had the rules stayed the same.

I think this discussion is a worthwhile one, but it warrants its own thread. So I'll start one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3965
Good idea, sorry for the off topic...

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 2075
SchumieRules wrote:
Good idea, sorry for the off topic...

No worries, I would not say that it was off topic, it was relevant to the discussion, it was just a little too focused.

Thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6250


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Guia wrote:
the incubus wrote:
Nope and nope. Neither would want to be accused of riding the other's coat tails.

You don't know that, although one does wonder how the partnership could work even if both could be persuaded to sign (I'm thinking Marlon Brando in The Godfather). But hey, McLaren made Prost & Senna work... just. And I'll tell you something else: None of us are actually looking to hire, since none of us actually have a Formula 1 team!

So - hypothetically speaking - with aero by Newey, and mechanicals by Byrne, would anything else come close?

Actually, I find Prost & Senna did not work. I think it was more the case of McLaren having the 2 best drivers in F1 together whilst also producing one of the top 3 cars, if not the top car for them to drive. Both being supremely elite drivers is what allowed the whole thing to be a success but the entire time they were together tensions throughout the team were volatile. So much so the 88 & 89 seasons most memorable moments were not of the good kind. You could see in Prost's face and hear it in his voice that things were not all peachy even though they were dominating. Senna on the other hand was quite content because he knew the team was ushering Prost out the door in favor of him and as well Honda's dollars and sponsorship was all in his favor as well.

Newey and Byrne might work well together initially but with each of them having considerable accolades to their credit, eventually heads will but and tempers will flare and the honeymoon would then be over, effective immediately. These guys are nice guys but when it comes to competition all bets are off and they could coexist in their Alpha alter ego states for only so long. On top of that, those types of situations can prove to be counter active as it is possible that in their bickering and battle to out do one another could prove detrimental in the development of car.

As you said though, this is all of course hypothetical and this is all opinion, but I personally don't think it will happen in real life because of the amount of money such a team would spend on just their two salaries alone. It would possibly be more than HRT's entire annual budget!

Yikes!!! LOL

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


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: bitmonx, Covalent, Guia, Mr-E 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group