FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

A car that has been on pole every race and Sebs taken that car to 1st or 2nd every race thus far bar one is a pretty dominant performance. To say it's all driver because of his team mate is a toughy. would you be saying that if his team mate was Hamilton or Alonso? Who I feel would be doing just as good a job as Seb with the RB7.
But talking about mistakes there is always less chance of mistakes when you start from the front and lead from the front. And I think you'll find the average pole gap to McLaren would be around the 4 to 5 tenths mark. And I don't buy McLarens claims of faster race pace at some races either, unless they won! For Monza their drivers were 1-2 in fastest laps but 2 and 4 in the results. Seb might have had the speed to match or better their times but was so far ahead of P2 he just needed to maintain not push. This can be said for other races this year.
All in all ask any driver on the grid about which car they could drive if they had a choice and it would be the RB7!

Well, choosing not to 'buy' what most (media, other teams and drivers) agree on is of course your own choice, but doesn't explain some of the McLaren's charges from far behind.

I'm not saying it's all driver, what I'm saying is, it's NOT all car. If it was all car, Webber would be well clear of Alonso, Button and Hamilton.
Like the examples I showed, just having a fast car is not enough; it wasn't enough for Villeneuve to dominate in, it wasn't enough for Barichello and Fisischella to dominate in. A dominant car without a dominant driver does not generate dominant results, so saying this year's domination is not to Vettel's credit is just ignorant.

Webber has had problems this year that's for sure, given his form last year to this year being very different. But using the gap from him to Vettel to say the car isn't a dominant one is what I'd call ignorant.

[LewEngBridewell]

" a dominant car without a dominant driver wont get dominant results"


Bollocks. I suggest someone trawls through the 60 year history of F1 before making such statements.

If it werent for having Prost as his teammate, Damon Hill would have wiped the floor with Senna of all people in 93, as a rookie, the car was just that much better.

He was a good champion but not a great one, and he made it look easy.

Every driver that makes it into F1 has a vast career of motor racing, they know braking points lines etc. If their car happens to be dominant, theyll drive it just to its normal lap time and dominate everyone, be it much greater downforce or engine power.

Interesting to note then that Vettel is streets ahead of everyone, while Webber is struggling even to escape from the chasing pack..... I agree with you that the RBR is dominant, I'm just highlighting SV's talent too.

[What's Burning?]

A car that has been on pole every race and Sebs taken that car to 1st or 2nd every race thus far bar one is a pretty dominant performance. To say it's all driver because of his team mate is a toughy. would you be saying that if his team mate was Hamilton or Alonso? Who I feel would be doing just as good a job as Seb with the RB7.
But talking about mistakes there is always less chance of mistakes when you start from the front and lead from the front. And I think you'll find the average pole gap to McLaren would be around the 4 to 5 tenths mark. And I don't buy McLarens claims of faster race pace at some races either, unless they won! For Monza their drivers were 1-2 in fastest laps but 2 and 4 in the results. Seb might have had the speed to match or better their times but was so far ahead of P2 he just needed to maintain not push. This can be said for other races this year.
All in all ask any driver on the grid about which car they could drive if they had a choice and it would be the RB7!

Well, choosing not to 'buy' what most (media, other teams and drivers) agree on is of course your own choice, but doesn't explain some of the McLaren's charges from far behind.

I'm not saying it's all driver, what I'm saying is, it's NOT all car. If it was all car, Webber would be well clear of Alonso, Button and Hamilton.
Like the examples I showed, just having a fast car is not enough; it wasn't enough for Villeneuve to dominate in, it wasn't enough for Barichello and Fisischella to dominate in. A dominant car without a dominant driver does not generate dominant results, so saying this year's domination is not to Vettel's credit is just ignorant.

Then go vote in our poll.... viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8755 there most people argue that the car is 70 to 95% of the outcome.

[FRAFPDD]

I knew someone would say it!!!!!

Three things;


1. See Kimi Raikonnen circa 2008, if your driving style doesnt suit tyres, you wont get anywhere, particularly in qualifying.

2. Mark Webber has had KERS issues and number two status for about half the year.

3. Errrrr, Did you see 2010, Mark Webber started either first or second for about every race, and led the championship for the longest time over Vettel, ALonso, Hamilton, Button. Do we rate him above those, no, but he dominated them in results.

[Hammer278]

The SLK is such a girl's car, so Nico is doing a commercial for it.

[youtube]ZCmOqOeUNJI[/youtube]

Seriously? Another "girl's car"...just like they say for the latest BMW 6 series, and the BMW E92 Coupe. I tell you, if people call me a girl for owning any of these cars, I'd just give them a big smile and the finger, and leave them in my dust!!

[mnmracer]

...trawls through the 60 year history of F1...

My statement refers to, and is correct for, modern formula 1.
Yes, 50 years ago, even 30 years ago, there were cars that would qualify 6 second faster than the next car.
That does not apply to modern formula 1 anymore.

...Damon Hill...dominate...1993

Taking Prost out of the equation in 1993, Senna would have won the championship with 85 points (73 now), to Damon Hill's 80 points (69 now).
Thank you for proving my point, that without a dominant driver, a car will not win the world championship 5 races before the end.

3. Errrrr, Did you see 2010, Mark Webber started either first or second for about every race, and led the championship for the longest time over Vettel, ALonso, Hamilton, Button. Do we rate him above those, no, but he dominated them in results.

If simply being higher equates to dominance in your book, this is a fairly pointless discussion...

Then go vote in our poll.... viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8755 there most people argue that the car is 70 to 95% of the outcome.

There is a difference between the two discussions.
The car is 70 to 95% of the outcome, in that Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel can't win in a HRT either.
However, once you've got a good car, there is a great difference between a top driver who takes the championship with 5 wins points difference (Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel), and just a good driver who struggles for second place in the championship (Barichello, Fisischella, Webber).

[bud]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

[What's Burning?]

Then go vote in our poll.... viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8755 there most people argue that the car is 70 to 95% of the outcome.

There is a difference between the two discussions.
The car is 70 to 95% of the outcome, in that Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel can't win in a HRT either.
However, once you've got a good car, there is a great difference between a top driver who takes the championship with 5 wins points difference (Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel), and just a good driver who struggles for second place in the championship (Barichello, Fisischella, Webber).

There's no disagreement, BTW, did you vote? We don't have the luxury in the sport to compare apples to apples so we're left with suppositions, opinions and projections rather than facts. The reality is that there's 5 or 6 people on the grid today that would be getting the results Vettel is getting with the RB7. Obviously Webber isn't one of them.

[mnmracer]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

If you consider that Vettel lost 73 points to technical problems and he would have beaten Webber by (from the top of my head) 60 points (taking Webber's problems into account) were it not for all the technical trouble, yes.
A dominant car that falls apart (ie, can not generate dominant results) is hardly a dominant car, now is it? Dominance is in results.
"To finish first, first you need to finish."

[mnmracer]

Then go vote in our poll.... viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8755 there most people argue that the car is 70 to 95% of the outcome.

There is a difference between the two discussions.
The car is 70 to 95% of the outcome, in that Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel can't win in a HRT either.
However, once you've got a good car, there is a great difference between a top driver who takes the championship with 5 wins points difference (Schumacher, Alonso, Vettel), and just a good driver who struggles for second place in the championship (Barichello, Fisischella, Webber).

There's no disagreement, BTW, did you vote? We don't have the luxury in the sport to compare apples to apples so we're left with suppositions, opinions and projections rather than facts. The reality is that there's 5 or 6 people on the grid today that would be getting the results Vettel is getting with the RB7. Obviously Webber isn't one of them.

There's 3 people that would generate Vettel's results: Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton
There's 3 people that would lead ahead of the pack, but not nearly as dominant: Button, Rosberg, Schumacher

[LewEngBridewell]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

If you consider that Vettel lost 73 points to technical problems and he would have beaten Webber by (from the top of my head) 60 points (taking Webber's problems into account) were it not for all the technical trouble, yes.
A dominant car that falls apart (ie, can not generate dominant results) is hardly a dominant car, now is it? Dominance is in results.
"To finish first, first you need to finish."

Which is why Renault won in 2005, despite having a slower car than McLaren

There's 3 people that would generate Vettel's results: Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton
There's 3 people that would lead ahead of the pack, but not nearly as dominant: Button, Rosberg, Schumacher

Mind you, we all saw what Button and Schumacher were like in dominant cars didn't we? Unbeatable! And Rosberg is no slouch behind the wheel.

[bud]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

If you consider that Vettel lost 73 points to technical problems and he would have beaten Webber by (from the top of my head) 60 points (taking Webber's problems into account) were it not for all the technical trouble, yes.
A dominant car that falls apart (ie, can not generate dominant results) is hardly a dominant car, now is it? Dominance is in results.
"To finish first, first you need to finish."

So poles and wins by Mark were due to mech problems for Vettel? Ok no worries.

[mnmracer]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

If you consider that Vettel lost 73 points to technical problems and he would have beaten Webber by (from the top of my head) 60 points (taking Webber's problems into account) were it not for all the technical trouble, yes.
A dominant car that falls apart (ie, can not generate dominant results) is hardly a dominant car, now is it? Dominance is in results.
"To finish first, first you need to finish."

So poles and wins by Mark were due to mech problems for Vettel? Ok no worries.

Since you're so keen on twisting my words, would you please remind me who came second in the championship? And how far ahead was Webber of Hamilton behind him?

[bud]

Was webber just a good driver struggling in 2010?

If you consider that Vettel lost 73 points to technical problems and he would have beaten Webber by (from the top of my head) 60 points (taking Webber's problems into account) were it not for all the technical trouble, yes.
A dominant car that falls apart (ie, can not generate dominant results) is hardly a dominant car, now is it? Dominance is in results.
"To finish first, first you need to finish."

So poles and wins by Mark were due to mech problems for Vettel? Ok no worries.

Since you're so keen on twisting my words, would you please remind me who came second in the championship? And how far ahead was Webber of Hamilton behind him?

I twisted nothing, I'm not playing your game.

[FRAFPDD]

I dont get mnmracers point, im assuming hes yet another one of those countless Vettel dans that keep appearing who post entire essays, in the hope that in light of the sheer amount of wording and diction they use, people wont notice the actual point, which can be narrowed to simply;

"Wow look how amazing Vettel is"

It actually makes me queasy with the slyness of them all and how they do it.

We get your point, you think Senna isnt worthy of noshing Vettels sausage, nobody cares.

Any driver that can drive F1 cars, can be dominant in a dominant car. Any of them.

Dominating is consistently finishing ahead aswell as the margin in which you finish ahead.

F1 is all about small, small margins. So when Webber was qualifying .4 ahead of Alonsos Ferrari and Hamiltons Mclaren, thats dominating.

Lets look back at pre-Monza, Webbers had a terrible year, terrible, where is he in the standings, second.