FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[f1ea]

The Brawn 2009 car and RBR 2010 car had pretty similar advantages over rival teams during the season, the main difference being Button took advantage early on in 2009 with his 6 wins before the rest of the teams caught up on pace compared to 2010 where no one really caught RBR but they couldn't hold a lead due to mistakes during races.

So if you are going to claim Buttons championship was because of his car the exact same can be said for Vettel.

x2

The fact that Webber didn't have any reliability problems last season makes me think that there may be something in the driving styles that causes Vettel to work the car harder...

i was going to say exactly the same thing... so

anyways... dont see the big deal in Horner's comments, except maybe Webber wouldnt like em so much, but i think its kinda openly admitted RB dont care too much about Webber.

Another thing.... i also agree Lewis would beat Vettel. Vettel is reaaly good, but Lew is slightly better so far. Maybe this yr Vettel ends up annihilating everyone, who knows, but so far, Vettel looks a bit more fragile. Problem with Lewis i think he gets under people's skin more easily.

[F1er]

why does it matter? It could easily be said that the RB only got to first place to begin with because it was such a dominant car (apart from the reliability).

Read his post, in response to the post about the Brawn being more reliable, he says because Jenson is better than Vettel..

I'm sorry my bad I didn't know "catastrophic failure" meant only reliability. Stupid me classifying dive bombing your teammate as "catastrophic failure"

[acosmichippo]

ah. Maybe it's just me, but "failure" implies "mechanical failure".

[F1er]

ah. Maybe it's just me, but "failure" implies "mechanical failure".

Really? English isnt my first language but I could swear that failure means not achieving your goals or something,and put catastrophic in front of it,it painted a different picture for me.

[acosmichippo]

ah. Maybe it's just me, but "failure" implies "mechanical failure".

Really? English isnt my first language but I could swear that failure means not achieving your goals or something,and put catastrophic in front of it,it painted a different picture for me.

in a general sense, yes that is true.

Like I said, maybe it's just me, but when talking about racing, i tend to think "failure" to be mechanical - in other words, the fault was not in strategy or skill, but something broke unpredictably. If the fault was on the team or driver, I'd probably say "error" or "mistake".

[Hammer278]

why does it matter? It could easily be said that the RB only got to first place to begin with because it was such a dominant car (apart from the reliability).

Define dominant??

The Redbull was the best car all year, but it was in no way dominant in most races. Fastest yes, but the McLarens/Ferraris were always within touching distance, except for 4 or 5 races the whole year..such as Australia, Valencia, and the last two races I can think of.

The Brawn on the other hand was dominant. For at least half the season, untouchable in qualifying and the race, they were simply racing for formalities sake. Reliability was top notch, and no one could touch them in pace. Only near the end of the season did Brawn fade off and the others catch up. Brawn didn't have the best car for the entire season, but their supreme dominance in qualifying/race was much more worth it than Redbull's strength over the course of the season.

I'd rate Vettel's WDC higher than JB's anyday. Especially considering JB has been in F1 for over a decade and there were still niggling doubts if he'd clinch it as he was finishing in lousy positions in the last quarter of the season. Vettel had breakdowns, team politics, and a very fast teammate to contend with. He was on the backfoot in the last race with not just his teammate, but a 2x WDC leading him in the standings. He ended up pulling it out of the hat. Anyday more impressive than JB's WDC.

[darwin dali]

why does it matter? It could easily be said that the RB only got to first place to begin with because it was such a dominant car (apart from the reliability).

Define dominant??

The Redbull was the best car all year, but it was in no way dominant in most races. Fastest yes, but the McLarens/Ferraris were always within touching distance, except for 4 or 5 races the whole year..such as Australia, Valencia, and the last two races I can think of.

The Brawn on the other hand was dominant. For at least half the season, untouchable in qualifying and the race, they were simply racing for formalities sake. Reliability was top notch, and no one could touch them in pace. Only near the end of the season did Brawn fade off and the others catch up. Brawn didn't have the best car for the entire season, but their supreme dominance in qualifying/race was much more worth it than Redbull's strength over the course of the season.

I'd rate Vettel's WDC higher than JB's anyday. Especially considering JB has been in F1 for over a decade and there were still niggling doubts if he'd clinch it as he was finishing in lousy positions in the last quarter of the season. Vettel had breakdowns, team politics, and a very fast teammate to contend with. He was on the backfoot in the last race with not just his teammate, but a 2x WDC leading him in the standings. He ended up pulling it out of the hat. Anyday more impressive than JB's WDC.

[CarBore]

I think you'll find most of the time the WDC is the guy who had the fastest car over the season. Honestly I don't get why people are so down on JBs WDC. Yeah his car dominated the first half, but he had a clear lead over his team-mate and put in a good showing in the final few races, Brazil especially.

What I said before catastrophic may have been to harsh a word. I was basically trying to convey the fact they they were race ending, so its not like you can try and nurse it and in the case of Korea quite sudden. Also by failure I did mean hardware failure as opposed to driver error like Turkey.

[Hammer278]

I think you'll find most of the time the WDC is the guy who had the fastest car over the season. Honestly I don't get why people are so down on JBs WDC. Yeah his car dominated the first half, but he had a clear lead over his team-mate and put in a good showing in the final few races, Brazil especially.

What I said before catastrophic may have been to harsh a word. I was basically trying to convey the fact they they were race ending, so its not like you can try and nurse it and in the case of Korea quite sudden. Also by failure I did mean hardware failure as opposed to driver error like Turkey.

Do you work in the IT sector?

[Peng]

why does it matter? It could easily be said that the RB only got to first place to begin with because it was such a dominant car (apart from the reliability).

Define dominant??

The Redbull was the best car all year, but it was in no way dominant in most races. Fastest yes, but the McLarens/Ferraris were always within touching distance, except for 4 or 5 races the whole year..such as Australia, Valencia, and the last two races I can think of.

The Brawn on the other hand was dominant. For at least half the season, untouchable in qualifying and the race, they were simply racing for formalities sake. Reliability was top notch, and no one could touch them in pace. Only near the end of the season did Brawn fade off and the others catch up. Brawn didn't have the best car for the entire season, but their supreme dominance in qualifying/race was much more worth it than Redbull's strength over the course of the season.

I'd rate Vettel's WDC higher than JB's anyday. Especially considering JB has been in F1 for over a decade and there were still niggling doubts if he'd clinch it as he was finishing in lousy positions in the last quarter of the season. Vettel had breakdowns, team politics, and a very fast teammate to contend with. He was on the backfoot in the last race with not just his teammate, but a 2x WDC leading him in the standings. He ended up pulling it out of the hat. Anyday more impressive than JB's WDC.

You know RBR were far more untouchable during Qualifying than Brawn were right? :p poles in 15/19 races and 2nd in 3 more so 18/19 races they were on the front row compared to Brawns 5 poles 3 2nd's so a total of 8/17 races, reliability was better for Button than Vettel sure but in terms of reliability for the car itself they weren't exactly that different since Webbers car never really had any problems.

The only real huge advantage Brawn had was race pace and that involved overtaking in most races due to the fact they weren't on pole for 85% of the races something both Button and Rubens did very well compared to Webber and Vettel who had serious trouble with it.

Its personal opinion on which you think is more impressive i think both had similar seasons JB driving amazingly early on and than falling off the wagon at the end of the season and Vettel playing destruction derby for the first part of the season and than pulling out some great wins at the end, both were impressive and both drivers had huge advantages during parts of their season.

But my point still stands either way if you are going to imply Buttons season was all down to his car the exact same can be said for Vettel, we all know if it wasn't for poor tactical decisions early on and poor decisions by the drivers themselves RBR could have dominated the season but it was a hell of alot more fun the way it turned out.

[Denthúl]

You know RBR were far more untouchable during Qualifying than Brawn were right? :p poles in 15/19 races and 2nd in 3 more so 18/19 races they were on the front row compared to Brawns 5 poles 3 2nd's so a total of 8/17 races

Not a fair comparison, in my opinion. Qualifying in 2009 saw varied fuel loads between the different cars, 2010 saw all cars running on fumes in Q3.

[Jabberwocky]

A drivers skill is not only based on track, I am sure there is some skill in making sure you are in a car that could win a championship in? This is something Button has done since the start of his career (he just kept getting moved on when the car became good) apart from when he was at Honda/Brawn.

If you think about this skill, greats like Moss never had it.

Rubens has got this skill, think how many WDC/WCC cars he has driven in... admitidly not driven quick enough.

[Robert12010]

i think imo that any driver that wins the world championship is as good anyone, now dont get me wrong here, im not comparing any driver vs driver or era vs era, but button is worthy world champion as anyone else is, if they have been the best in that year....

[vlad]

Button was really good that year, although he was in the best car. He was way better than Rubens. In the same car.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

The Brawn 2009 car and RBR 2010 car had pretty similar advantages over rival teams during the season, the main difference being Button took advantage early on in 2009 with his 6 wins before the rest of the teams caught up on pace compared to 2010 where no one really caught RBR but they couldn't hold a lead due to mistakes during races.

So if you are going to claim Buttons championship was because of his car the exact same can be said for Vettel.

That is so confused -- and wrong -- I hardly know where to begin. Except to point out the obvious.

Button had the one glory season and apart that he is a perpetual mid-field driver. He has averaged one win for every 27 starts and raced more than six seasons before his first victory. Excluding his rookie season, his average WDC result is 9. Three seasons he was outside the top 10.

Vettel began winning in his first full season, on the occasion of his 22nd start. He has averaged one win for every 6.2 starts. Excluding his rookie half-season, his average WDC result is 3.7.

Even in his rookie season, when he contested just eight of 17 races, Vettel still came ahead of Button in WDC, and Button started all 17 races. It bears noting Vettel then was driving for Toro Rosso, not Red Bull. Button has taken pole an average of once each 24 starts. Vettel averages taking pole every fourth race.

Brawn's dominance in 2009 stemmed from the fact that the FIA made a dramatic change to tyre spec too soon to the beginning of the season, which gave all the other cars unbalanced grip biased to the front. Brawn's shadow diffuser gave them substantially better balance ...until the other teams managed to copy Brawn's design. That marked the end of Brawn's dominance, and the end of Button's winning ways.

Vettel clearly is a world-class talent who finds himself in a competitive car. Button is an also-ran who ran the luck of one season in a world-beating car. Barring such extraordinary luck, Button never would have won a single WDC. Even if he is cursed with the luck of Job, Vettel will win more.