In the round-up: Felipe Massa reiterates Ferrari have progress to make in qualifying.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
Massa in Warsaw: We know we must improve in qualifying (Ferrari)
“We have seen an all-round improvement this year, from the car to the way the team works and we have shown we are competitive, but clearly we can still improve, especially in qualifying.”
Whitmarsh: you go from hero to zero very quickly (The Telegraph)
“The team are in the midst of a run of 62 consecutive point-scoring finishes, a distinction that Whitmarsh is desperate to protect. ‘You think you’re going to throttle somebody if they’re responsible for ending it. That’s how we’re hardwired.'”
Horner hopes for strong Webber (Sky)
“At the end of the day there is pressure to perform, but that exists for all the drivers. Monaco is a circuit that Mark in particular enjoys and excels at so hopefully he can have a very strong run there.”
Fans remember F1 legend Jim Clark at Duns (The Scotsman)
Jackie Stewart: “He was a class apart as a driver. He was so smooth and unspectacular, but so, so quick. He was one of the few people to drive a Lotus in those early days that didn’t break it, because he was so gentle.”
Snapshots
Felipe Massa driving at a demonstration run for Ferrari in Warsaw.
Tweets
Seven pit-stops for @Felipe1Massa in Warsaw: no one complained, at least here! #FerrariVarsavia pic.twitter.com/gGR9o6XGnN
— Scuderia Ferrari (@ScuderiaFerrari) May 18, 2013
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Did F1 really need to make radical changes to the rules to improve the racing after 2010? Tayyib says no:
Go back to the 2010 season and I still maintain to this day it was the best season I ever saw. Yes we might not have gotten such unpredictability overall but we got a handful of brilliant grands prix.
I don’t understand why there seems to be an attitude among the media and the casual F1 fan that we need to get 20 or 19 amazing races. In the Premier League you get six of seven brilliant matches out of 10 months of playing every weekend.
In 2010 we saw a great Australian Grand Prix, a class Montreal race (and I don’t think that was tyres as much Montreal is always a good race) a dramatic grand prix at Spa, high pressure and intensity at Monza between Alonso and Button, drama at Korea. Don’t forget the dollops of controversy, Turkey, Silverstone and Hockenheim and unbelievable championship battle that went to the wire.
Tayyib (@M0nzaman)
From the forum
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today
If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
The non-championship Rome Grand Prix at the Vallelunga circuit was won by Bob Anderson in a Lola 50 years ago today.
Images © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo
HCA
19th May 2013, 0:25
I agree with COTD, 2010 was a very exciting season.
People look at Bahrain & Abu-Dhabi & then say ‘2010 was boring & there was no overtaking’, Yet you can’t use 1-2 races to say the entire season was good or bad.
2010 featured more overtaking than any season since 1989, A close, exciting championship fight down to the last race & a lot of great racing & overtaking through the year.
2010 was certainly better than anything seen since with DRS producing endless boring highway passes & the tyres falling to bits every race.
Ban DRS, Ban KERS, Bring back Bridgestone & lets get back to some proper & exciting racing again!
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 0:59
Exactly, the 2010 regulations, minus DDDs, EBDs and possibly F-ducts, were fine. If anything, these ridiculous tyres just negate the refuelling ban. Before they stayed out on light fuel when others pitted to overtake. Now they pit earlier (several times a race) and run around on fresh tyres to overtake. Where’s the difference?
If every football game ended 7-3 or 8-2, they wouldn’t be unique. You need to go through the tense goalless draws and 1-0s for the high scores to be remembered. Same for F1 regarding the number of overtakes in races.
ivz (@ivz)
19th May 2013, 1:05
Why ban KERS? There is nothing wrong with it. DRS and the tyres are artificial (DRS more so than the tyres as everyone is on an equal playing ground with tyres), KERS is an evolution of technology, drivers can use it to attack or defend, simple!
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
19th May 2013, 1:41
Yeah, there’s no sense banning KERS. It’s one of the few things that keeps manfacturers interested in the sport, since they can adapt it for use in road cars.
Next year’s regulations might spell an end to DRS, though. KERS will be fully-integrated into the drivetrain, and its role as a supplementary power source will be replaced by TERS, or Thermal Energy Recovery System. Where KERS currently gives an additional 80bhp for six seconds per lap, TERS will give 161bhp for thirty-three seconds per lap.
That said, I don’t think DRS will be phased out. I can’t see the FIA getting rid of it until they can find a way to drastically slash downforce. DRS works best when the advantage it offers equals the disadvantage a car would have from trailing another. The problem is that the teams relentlessly pursue downforce, and while it makes them go faster, it also creates dirty air in their wake that compromises the aerodynamics of the car running behind them and slows them down. We’ve seen countless occasions where a driver has been fast enough to catch and pass the car in front, only to get stuck when they close to within a second of the other car. DRS works best when it nullifies this effect, allowing a driver who is faster to actally be faster.
I don’t think the system is entirely without merit. It’s just a case of fine-tuning it at easch circuit so that it is not too powerful.
What do you mean “proper and exciting racing”? If you get rid of DRS and KERS and let Bridgestone prodce their ultra-durable tyres again, all we’re going to get is processional racing where drivers cannot pass one another. That is neither proper, nor exciting racing. Racing puritans might want it, but all you’re going to do is create races where the outcome is decided at the first corner.
Nick.UK (@)
19th May 2013, 12:45
@prisoner-monkeys
Can you provide a link to where you heard this. This is the first I’ve heard of it myself, but it sounds awesome!
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 17:06
@nick-uk I thought that was common knowledge by now! Here you go.
Nick.UK (@)
19th May 2013, 18:14
@vettel1 Thanks for the link.
BasCB (@bascb)
19th May 2013, 18:44
Its in the rules actually @nick-uk!
Dave1
19th May 2013, 14:18
but drs is now in its 3rd season & despite a lot of fine tuning in that time its still nowhere near been right.
when it created a lot of easy passes in 2011 the ‘its work in progress’ line had merit, but when the use the data gathered & change things yet it still produces a lot of easy passes in 2012 & now 2013 i think it shows that drs is never going to work right.
also consider that there making drs more effective in 2014 by allowing it to open 15mm wider, this will see it drop more drag & create a larger speed gain.
considering drs is making passes far too easy now, what do they think making it generate a bigger speed gain is going to do?
but as hca pointed out, 2010 without drs/kers & with bridgestone’s very durable tires generated a lot of overtaking & a very exciting championship scrap.
the only thing that ever made the racing in f1 processional was refueling, overtaking declined as soon as it was reintroduced & went back up as soon as it was banned again.
i say ban drs & tell pirelli to be ‘slightly’ more conservative on the tires (maybe more like what we had in 2011) & the racing overall would be a lot better than its been since 2011.
McGregski (@mcgregski)
19th May 2013, 23:47
I think they should keep DRS but reverse the rules – you can use DRS until you are within 1 second of the car in front. Then we’d still get the close field but no stupid motorway passes. That plus bringing back refuelling might actually make this seasons tyres look good
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 1:05
I agree, but Formula 1 cars need to become less aero dependent and more reliant on mechanical grip. I’d take traction control and ABS over double diffuser and blown exhaust any day, because this will allow closer racing. If that could change along with bringing back the 2010 season regulations, I’m all for it.
However, they should not change the regulations mid-season. That is unfair and makes a championship tainted. Wait until 2014, make the aero and reg changes, and then scrap DRS, and bring back Bridgestone.
ivz (@ivz)
19th May 2013, 1:15
No need to bring back Bridgestone, just allow Pirelli to make a more ‘standard’ tyre.
R.J. O'Connell (@rjoconnell)
19th May 2013, 4:52
TCS and ABS would never be welcomed back into F1 because of the stigma that a monkey could drive an F1 car with those aids allowed.
@HoHum (@hohum)
19th May 2013, 1:58
Right 0n HCA!
mantresx (@mantresx)
19th May 2013, 2:39
The problem is, 2010 was the first year without refuelling and teams were still adapting the strategies and cars to make the most of it, if you want another season like that you would need another radical change like in the rules.
US_Peter (@us_peter)
19th May 2013, 3:18
I don’t know if you need a radical change in the rules, but there certainly seems to be a lack of understanding from many fans at just how quickly F1 teams adapt to regulations. If new restrictions weren’t put in place year in year out, the cars would get faster every year, and eventually the runoffs and safety elements of the classic circuits would no longer be sufficient. The racing would also become increasingly processional as the teams started to line up on the grid like Noah’s Ark.
wsrgo (@wsrgo)
19th May 2013, 3:19
+1
Michael Brown (@)
19th May 2013, 3:23
I’m actually rewatching the 2010 season at this time. I find it better than 2012 and even 2011. There is still talk of preserving the tires, but when there is a driver behind another I can feel the tension building inside of me, which this year doesn’t do.
KERS should stay because I find it doesn’t ruin the racing like DRS does.
Wil-Liam (@wil-liam)
19th May 2013, 17:41
@lite992 where can i download it?
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
19th May 2013, 4:03
Racing wise the best year of the last decade and a half must be 2009. 2010 had a great fight for the title but all was seen in the scoreboard or in mechanical failures that’s drama and gimmicks in my opinion, simply I can’t remember a season that featured good racing and a good championship.
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 6:13
@peartree
I disagree, 2003 was better than 2009, both racing-wise and championship wise. Although that’s mostly subjective.
@rjoconnell
And a monkey can’t drive an F1 car with EDB, DD, and all those other ridiculous gimmicks that give modern F1 cars about 150 tons of downforce through fast corners?
Guilherme (@guilherme)
19th May 2013, 6:46
Put quite simply, no. In fact what makes F1 cars physically demanding is the excessive downforce they generate. That was the weakest rebuttal ever.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 11:27
@kingshark that’s quite a ridiculous comment: downforce doesn’t help the car’s stability until the car is actually travelling at speed i.e. through high speed corners, where traction control is irrelevant. Traction control helps with surprise surprise traction during acceleration at low speeds, where downforce barely makes a difference.
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 11:43
@vettel1
That’s exactly my point. Make F1 cars faster through slow corners and slower through the fast corners, if that makes any sense, lol.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 11:52
@kingshark this is exactly my point though: aerodynamics don’t make the cars easier to drive as such, they just make them able to go faster through corners! The only instances where it really does help is in places where it’d be impossible to go flat out without aerodynamic influence!
What I’d like to see is that we get rid of these ridiculously complex front wings entirely, mandate only single plane rear wings and re-introduce ground effects (which I believe was the original plan) then also increase mechanical grip by widening the tyres. That way F1 cars will be faster, we won’t need silly gimmicks to enhance the racing (DRS in particular), there will still be room for development (I’d also free up engine development) and then if we can find an effective way of policing spending essentially you have the perfect formula, as everyone can play to their own strengths.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
19th May 2013, 23:26
I knew you were going to mention 2003, as much as I love that era I’m not a fan of the tyre dichotomy nor the actual capacity of cars running in close proximity.
colin grayson (@lebesset)
19th May 2013, 13:31
bridgestone tyres , no kers , no DRS was the most boring period of F1 ever !!
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 14:03
@lebesset
Seriously? There were more overtakes in 2010 than there were in any year since 1993, without refueling, mostly without undercutting with tyres, and without highway DRS passes.
Todfod (@todfod)
20th May 2013, 6:53
i think he means 2009. Which was one of the dullest seasons I remember watching
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 1:22
I’m losing a bit of faith in Ferrari. The car has been slow in qualifying ever since DRS and Pirelli were introduced in 2011, and no matter how hard they have tried to fix this issue, it’s not working.
Lack of qualifying pace has become the nature of the team, it’s like Mercedes and eating their rear tyres; and until the next major rule change, which is next year, I can’t see anything changing about that.
@HoHum (@hohum)
19th May 2013, 2:02
If they improve their qualifying pace their Pirellis will not last in the race.
Mike (@mike)
19th May 2013, 4:50
@hohum
The challenge is to do both of course….
@HoHum (@hohum)
19th May 2013, 13:10
But they can’t do both on these tyres, if they get up to temperature quickly enough for pole position they overheat after several (fast) laps, this is Mercedes and to a slightly lesser degree RBRs problem, Jenson suffers from the opposite effect.@mike.
Todfod (@todfod)
20th May 2013, 7:53
@mike
Yep, that is the challenge currently. But its only a matter of time before the teams get to grips with the current tyres, and then what differentiates the cars are their outright qualifying pace and race pace.
Its similar to last year.. where Ferrari capitalised when teams were still understanding the tyres, but when teams understood the tyres, Ferrari struggled to battle the frontrunners.
Yaya Ishaq (@ferrari_412t)
19th May 2013, 3:25
This is what cost Alonso the championship last year. Fair enough their car had great race pace but if your always qualifying between P5 and P10 then there’s always the looming danger of being involved in a race ending collision; which is what happened in Japan.
Ferrari have only had 4 pole positions since the beginning of the 2009 season; A very disappointing record. I just hope it doesn’t cost Ferrari’s championship run.
anon
19th May 2013, 7:33
Look, Alonso’s a poor qualifier. Even his rookie teammate got 6 poles to 4 in 2007. 2009 doesn’t really count since it was a truly poor car. Ferrari were caught out by the double diffuser.
Qualifying is largely irrelevant with DRS, a huge differential between the performance of cars at different stages of the race because of tyres, plus Ferrari are probably the quickest car on the grid off the start line so Alonso will always pick up 1-2 spots.
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 8:56
A poor qualifier does not get 22 pole positions.
Although I find it ironic that you blame Alonso for the fact that he cannot qualify high enough, yet you give the Ferrari car all the credit for the good starts. May I remind you that Alonso had good starts back at Renault?
When the Ferrari car was working on Saturdays, usually in the rain, Alonso took back to back pole positions in 2012. He’s a perfectly capable qualifier when he has a car underneath him to do it.
Manished
19th May 2013, 10:49
Alonso ‘s qualifying performance has been shaby this year. Not only he was outqualified by his teammate in 2 occasions, he failed to string all sector time together in China and Spain. You can dig up history all you want, human is inconsistent, what matter now is present, not the past.
Back in renault days we had launch control dude. Look at Massa, his start was as rapid as Alonso’s. Trying to put it on Alonso alone makes your argument weak.
anon
19th May 2013, 12:27
But 22 pole positions from over 200 races. He’s had cars capable of winning championships with Renault, McLaren and Ferrari. He’s been in a top team since 2003. 2008 and 2009 it was his choice to run off to Renault because he couldn’t beat the rookie driver at McLaren.
Even Massa starts well. It’s due to their engine mapping more than anything.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 9:04
Even when he qualified behind his team-mate he was no more than 1-2 tenths slower and bear in mind that in those days qualy depended also on how much fuel the cars were carrying. Also taking into account that Lewis is considered by most as the fastest guy on one-lap pace, I think Alonso was quite a match for him and by no means can be considered a poor qualifier. P.S. In Hungary Hamilton didn’t post a faster time than Alonso in Q3 so you can take it as 5:5 poles.
Ferrari has issues with one-lap pace since 2007 as I remember Kimi saying in an interview back then that their race-pace was better than the one in qualy (even if they did grab a good share of poles that season). I think for this season Ferrari should focus more on race pace since it doesn’t make sense to set up your car in grabbing pole and then toast your tires in a few laps and get past by everyone behind – just ask Mercedes.
anon
19th May 2013, 12:36
Alonso couldn’t even beat his first year teammate in the championship. Imagine if Perez wasn’t a 3rd year driver not a first year driver and started matching Button immediately.
Except Hamilton did it to the guy that was the current world champion 2 years running.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 17:50
You’re running away from the point. The fact that Hamilton is an exceptional driver doesn’t make Alonso a poor qualifier.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 17:55
I’m sorry but the logic of your stament is beyond my intellect.
anon
20th May 2013, 7:31
Alonso couldn’t beat his rookie teammate. Since that first year, Hamilton has improved. Alonso is the third best driver on the grid at best.
Cristian (@cristian)
19th May 2013, 9:16
I agree that Alonso is modest in qualifying ( not poor). He is one of the best starters (if not the best I saw in F1) and that makes up for it in a way. And when you add to that his aggressivity he can overcome this flaw of his nicely :)
He had some very good cars through the years and he amassed those 22 poles in big part because usually he had a slower teammate or one that seemed out of form for one reason or another ( like Massa and Fisichella, who, on their peak, were faster than Fernando on qualifying pace). Alonso is great on race pace, and that matters much more ( Lauda in 84 was a disaster in qualifying, but was formidable on race pace and strategy).
yr
19th May 2013, 10:29
So by that reasoning vettel is also modest in qualy since he had some good cars to amass all his poles. Same could be said about most drivers if we use that reasoning.
Cristian (@cristian)
19th May 2013, 12:13
No. Vettel dominated a very fast teammate who was in his best years. You cannot get a pole without a very good car. Comparing drivers like Vettel and Hamilton with Alonso on the matter of qualifying you can easily see that the two are much better( in qualifying).
Alonso is also older and drivers tend to lose some speed with age. In Alonso’s case that happened a bit quicker than in other’s. I don’t deny that he was faster in the past, but he was never a one-lap specialist.
anon
19th May 2013, 12:42
Yes, and not to mention Vettel has nearly twice as many poles as Alonso in nearly half the races.
Todfod (@todfod)
20th May 2013, 10:41
@cristian
There are only 2 people on the current grid that are better qualifiers than Alonso – Vettel and Hamilton.
I would hardly call that ”modest” .
Cristian (@cristian)
20th May 2013, 12:45
Webber and Rosberg are better than him in qualifying, matching sometimes ( in Rosberg’s case, often) those two.
Alonso is in a second division at this and he isn’t even topping it. Over one lap, I think that Grosjean, the Hulk and Kimi are faster
Todfod (@todfod)
21st May 2013, 14:36
@cristian
I would have to disagree. Alonso is as good if not better than Webber in qualifying. Rosberg has good qualifying pace, but lacks consistency in quali pace as compared to Alonso
Manished
19th May 2013, 10:56
I think both drivers should focus on improving their qualifying form before demanding improvement from the car. Alonso in particular failed to improve his Q3 1st attempt in Spain and said that was maximum, poor excuses as everyone did improved in the end. I remember in abu dhabi, Alonso failed to improve his Q3 first attempt(on srubbed set) with fresh rubber. He would’ve won if he did.
There are times when he keep blaming the car, these races reminded me he didn’t did his best either. Political driver and nth more.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:15
Alonso is not a poor qualifier but it’s far from his strength: Vettel and Hamilton are definetly better in that respect, as with I’d say Webber and Rosberg. He’s good at starts though absolutely but he does have a good car in that respect also don’t forget. It’s really his race pace and craft which has done him a service all these years though.
It’s probably a good thing for him then that qualify holds little relevance these days!
puneeth Bharath (@puneethvb)
19th May 2013, 21:32
@Vettel1
I agree with you that probably Vettel and Hamilton are better than Alonso in qualifying.. I would nt say by a huge margin but they are better slightly… I doubt about Rosberg and Webber though… Even in 2007 he was a match for Hamilton and it was nt like Alonso was destroyed in qualifying by Hamilton… Hamilton had the upper hand in qualifying but only just…
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
20th May 2013, 8:26
Bear in mind though that is their active strengths: Rosberg and Webber have always been good qualifiers, not quite as good racers.
fangio85 (@fangio85)
20th May 2013, 1:24
Where do you guys get your info from? Please post a link to a reputable source that proves alonsos starts are mainly down to the car. Alonso and Massa have both always been good starters, Alonso a bit more than massa. Funny how people saying that now would be the same people arguing the car wasn’t the reason for vettels streak of poles the last few years, which is hugely more likely
Manished
20th May 2013, 13:06
it has been reported by ted kravits in his notebook during bahrain gp.
they had the best clutch setting, best engine torque, best software to make sure the clutch bite point is always nailed on.
Its laughable to credit the driver when it was engineers that do all the setting for launch during warm up lap.
Cornflakes (@cornflakes)
19th May 2013, 1:23
F1 is so paranoid it’s doing itself no favours. Uh oh tyre’s went off quickly we must change, ooh a season with 1% less overtaking…. we need drs! Keep it simple and it’ll work. Although having said that I don’t think it’s not working now, I’m enjoying F1 almost as much as ever
OmarR-Pepper (@)
19th May 2013, 2:11
I’m starting to digress… Is tomorrow the indy 500? Just joking, oval racing is boring in my opinion,
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
19th May 2013, 2:30
My only issue with that COTD is that the majority of the races mentioned were wet. Hockenheim was a dull race as a whole, bar the first few laps. The team orders only made it worse. Yes 2010 had some great races but there were some diabolically dull ones too. Valencia was spiced up due to Webber’s accident.
Not every race can be a classic, no. However, we have had some absolutely amazing races in the Pirelli era. They made Valencia exciting at the end of the day!! And regarding DRS being an artificial overtaking device, I really do not want to see the Trulli train (or the modern-day equivalent) back. Hungary would be absolutely dire without DRS but there are some tracks where it needs limiting further, yes. 4 stops was a bit much for me, but remember Catalunya is usually very hard on tyres, if not, the hardest on tyres. These ‘random’ blowouts need to stop however, before somebody does indeed get hurt. If one happens at Monaco it could end up very nasty indeed.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
19th May 2013, 2:34
I thought 2012 was amazing because it had the titanic battle between two of the greatest drivers like in 2010, but with the quality of the racing which we saw in 2011.
wificats (@wificats)
19th May 2013, 7:27
Quite right. Although there were unquestionably some great races in 2010, they were either rain-affected, or on circuits that often provide classic racing. Not all the circuits on the calendar will provide close-exciting racing, even with a fairly close field. Seeing as some of the circuits are so poor, and the cars are so aero-dependent and predictable to drive, there is still some need for the ‘gimmicky’ post-2011 features. I do think that DRS could be more judiciously implemented, though.
Kimi4WDC
19th May 2013, 5:22
I think 2012 was pretty amazing, I don’t have any idea why they changed tyres.
anon
19th May 2013, 7:27
2010 was entertaining, but in terms of driving quality I thought 2009 and 2010 where some of the worst seasons in memory. 2010 was plagued by veteran drivers making poor mistakes and no-one stepping up to the plate.
Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Webber all had their chances to take the championship by the scruff of the neck. Four championships between them, there was close to 30 years experience between Alonso, Button and Webber, but in the end the only one to exhibit really high quality driving consistently was Vettel in the closing races of the championship — the guy in his third full season of F1.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 9:27
Wow, what an awesome ode you composed for Vettel. No really, leaving the bias apart, the main reason Alonso or Webber lost that championship was due to that poor strategy their respective teams chose for tham and it had nothing to do with driving.
While I agree that 2010 was the season when Alonso did the most mistakes (not search for any excuses but he was under pressure to perform in his first year with Ferrari and was pushing to the limits to catch the faster RedBulls) but still did a very good job with the car he had, McLaren actually got slumped in the development race (and sometime taken out by the German genius) and Webber did outperform Vettel in the fisrt part of the season before he was gifted Seb’s broken chassis and later bits were taken out of his car and given to Dirty Mary (or how it was called). But I agree, if we conveniently ignore every detail I mentioned above Vettel is the best driver out there.
xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag)
19th May 2013, 11:01
I disagree; it was Alonso and Webbers failures to make their strategies work.
(Also, Webber lost it when he crashed in Korea, whereas Vettel showed huge mental strength and recovered from his Korean retirement.)
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 11:21
@xjr15jaaag
There was no way they were going to overtake the Renault unless he made a mistake of some sort. Petrov was too fast in a straight line. For 40 straight laps Alonso couldn’t even get alongside, let alone try to pull a passing maneuver. Hamilton wasn’t able to make a single run on the other Renault of Kubica either.
It was the strategy that failed, not the drivers.
xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag)
19th May 2013, 11:39
He should have been more talented @kingshark
Kingshark (@kingshark)
19th May 2013, 11:45
@xjr15jaaag
You’re completely ignoring just how difficult it was to overtake in F1 before DRS.
Hamilton couldn’t overtake Kubica for some 20 laps either. Does Hamilton lack talent too?
I guess, maybe, Schumacher in his prime is the only driver I can think of that would have got the job done.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 11:58
@kingshark I just really think neither of them should’ve been behind Renault’s in the first place.
To add to your list though, definetly Senna ;)
xjr15jaaag (@xjr15jaaag)
19th May 2013, 12:02
@kingshark
There is a large difference between Kubica and Petrov; Kubica is/was supposedly one of the fastest guys in F1; I think Hamilton or Alonso said he was the driver they most feared or something like that, and Petrov was a rookie in a slower car than Alonso.
Alonso made the crucial mistake of catching him up and then slowing down; I was always taught that it’s best to catch up and make your move instantly to maintain your rhythm.
That way, you maintain your speed and it makes passing a lot easier.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 12:31
Oh my god, you must be a real racer. How many championships did you win dude? Everyone in the paddock agreed that it was impossible for Alonso to overtake on that track unless Petrov made a mistake because obviously he was getting away faster on the straights and when getting to the corner Alonso couldn’t even get alongside but obviously you chose to ignore this fact.
@vettel1 I think we should both agree that had nothing to do with Alonso’s driving but more with a blunder from the pit wall.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 12:46
Yeah, right. It’s amazing how quickly people make things up. Did you even watch that season? In Brazil Webber had an engine problem and couldn’t challenge Vettel for victory while in Abu Dhabi the team got the strategy wrong and that took him out of the game not the mental weakness.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 12:54
@klaas – Do you really believe Webber would have won Brazil? Why ignore his inability to qualify better than any of the other frontrunners (except Massa) in Abu Dhabi in the first place?
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 13:02
@david-a Do you really believe Webber lost the championship because he failed psychologically? He had two troubled races while Vettel had 2 trouble-free races when it mattered the most. Even from his qualifying position he could have won the championship in AbuDhabi if the team didn’t screw up his strategy.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 13:33
@klaas –
For me, you’re fishing for excuses when you blame the team for Webber losing the championship and citing these so-called “troubled races”.
In Abu Dhabi, yes, Webber could have won the title, but his own failure in qualifying did not help. He also didn’t gain any places at the start. And while you’re blaming RBR for screwing up the strategy, Webber wasn’t winning the title anyway, with Vettel leading. There was no choice but for him to pit early. There’s an explanation here .
Your Brazilian example is even worse. MW ran the majority of the race in 2nd, not really troubling the leader, having qualified 3rd, and then this “engine problem” crops up. This has such a huge effect that it causes him to finish in…2nd place. How was this more trouble than say, the previous race for Vettel. SV led the majority of that race, from pole, then a proper “engine problem” crops up. It causes a DNF around 10 laps from the flag. 25 points gone. Not even the first time that happened to Vettel in 2010 either. Yet you still accuse others of making stuff up, and make Webber out to be the victim… maybe that’s all he’s good for amongst F1 fans these days.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 17:17
I’m not fishing for any excuses I was pointing out why Webber’s poor performances in the last 2 races could have been determined (more or less) by technical and strategic issues and I brough facts while I didn’t see any fact that would suggest Mark Webber’s emotional lability.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 18:12
@klaas – The technical failure MW suffered are dwarfed by Vettel’s, and didn’t even cost him anything. The strategy issue you cite cropped up due to a lack of driver performance, which forced a gamble. Whether the latter performance was psychological or not isn’t my problem- but he didn’t outperform Vettel in 2010 (barring a small handful of races) as you said, and Vettel drove far better than Webber when it mattered at the end of the season. End of.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 18:22
That’s the reason why I answered the original post.
Why did you get into this argument in the first place if you don’t care about it?
I said about the first half of the season and I brought facts in a comment below.
Agree and I never denied it so I can’t see the point for bringing this up. Full stop.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 18:46
I got involved because neither of the “issues” Webber had, really affected his ability to win the championship. In Brazil, he wasn’t challenging Vettel anyway. In UAE, as I’ve already said, MW’s performance caused the strategy, not the other way around.
As I pointed out, in the first half of 2010, Vettel had misfortune that actually did cost him points, and usually from winning positions. That is why I disagree with the idea that Webber outperformed him. MW was like a slightly better 2012 Button.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 12:43
@klaas
As @xjr15jaaag pointed out, Webber and Alonso’s inability to execute their strategies had a lot to do with driving in those instances. Especially Webber at Abu Dhabi, where he was awful in qualifying, and awful in the race, failing to progress. Vettel by contrast delivered int he closing stages of the season, having won the Japanese, Abu Dhabi and Brazilian races, plus losing the Korean race with an engine failure a few laps from the end. That run of form continued into 2011. How is that so hard for you to see?
I didn’t know Webber was German. I seem to remember he collided with Hamilton in Australia and Singapore. Maybe he’s the “Aussie A-Student”.
How did Webber outperform Vettel? There was Spain, Monaco, Turkey, Hungary, Britain, Belgium… where else exactly, out of 19 races did this happen? Vettel lost way more points to car failures, especially in the first half of the season, than Webber ever did. It was like Mclaren 2012, frankly. The points showed them to be close, but the far unluckier driver still came out on top.
anon
19th May 2013, 12:53
The Ferrari was plenty fast. It was definitely the faster car in the second half of the season. No doubt about it. Actually, it was pretty quick at the start of the season too. Remember Bahrain?? Alonso had the car to win the championship with.
At the end of the day, Alonso couldn’t get past a Renault. I couldn’t imagine Vettel almost giving up on trying to pass. Then Alonso on the lap back to the pits was gesticulating at Petrov. Pathetic from a veteran driver. Not only that but Alonso had failed to make the strategy work.
Lastly, Alonso had many opportunities throughout the year to earn more points. Shouldn’t have stuck it on the astroturf at Spa. Would have won it all.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 13:13
So you think the performance of the car from the start of the season is equal with the one from the last race? Did you ever hear about the development race?
Try Hungary 2010, by your standards Vettel must be a very bad driver since he couldn’t pass Alonso whose car was much slower.
Those gestures weren’t very nice but he’s human too and just lost the championship. If you watched F1 you must have seen that many drivers showed gestures even for less.
Alonso couldn’t make the strategy work because the strategy was wrong from the beginning, the team didn’t consider that others won’t do another stop.
He did have his share of mistakes but in the end made up for them and ended leading the championship coming to Abu Dhabi. He lost there because of poor strategy not poor driving.
And anyone who is not driven by hatred aknowledges and agrees with this.
anon
19th May 2013, 14:29
Ferrari was quick throughout the year. All three teams were close in pace but if I had to give the advantage to one team it would be Ferrari in 2010. Alonso had the better car and couldn’t get it done.
Alonso has a history of clamming up late in the season. In both his championship years he was lucky to have a superior car in both years early in the season and get out to a big lead. Even last year (the Ferrari had strong race pace from Barcelona onwards) he allowed himself to be outshone by Perez at Monza, made a costly mistake at Suzuka, qualified really poorly in Abu Dhabi. That was his chance to punish Vettel for his grid penalty but blew it. The letting Massa outqualify him in Austin and Brazil.
He got beat fair and square by the young guy in his third full season.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 14:54
I’m sorry but it seems we were watching a different sport if you are claiming that Ferrari had a more competitive car than RedBull in any of the 2010-2012 seasons.
To claim that Alonso was outshone by Perez at Monza when Sergio was claerly on a different strategy and not only Alonso but all the people in front of the grid were sitting ducks with dead tires compared to the Mexican’s fresh ones (Hamilton was clearly going to miss the win had the race been 2-3 laps longer). Reading your arguments I have a feeling that you didn’t even watch F1 races.
anon
20th May 2013, 7:38
Slightly faster car in 2010. Alonso had zero excuses for not winning. The best driver won. Red Bull was too fast in 2011 but Vettel flattered that car. It’s not like Webber got second in the championship. 2012 Ferrari had incredible reliability, Ferrari had strong race pace from Barcelona onwards. Reliability and good luck kept Alonso in the hunt not exceptional driving. Red Bull wasn’t even the fastest car last year it was McLaren, but their reliability was worse than Red Bulls.
Todfod (@todfod)
21st May 2013, 15:08
What parallel universe were you seeing the f1 2010 season in?
Yeah .. wonder if you even watched how Alonso and Massa finished 1 and 2 during that race.
Yeah .. Vettel just crashes into the side of them. Remember crash kid of 2010
I’ve heard a lot of rubbish from Vettel fa n boys in the past .. but you definitely take the cake
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 13:05
@klaas
As @xjr15jaaag pointed out, Webber and Alonso’s inability to execute their strategies had a lot to do with driving in those instances. Especially Webber at Abu Dhabi, where he was awful in qualifying, and awful in the race, failing to progress. Vettel by contrast delivered in the closing stages of the season, having won the Japanese, Abu Dhabi and Brazilian races, plus losing the Korean race with an engine failure a few laps from the end. That run of form continued into 2011. How is that so hard for you to see?
I didn’t know Webber was German. I seem to remember he collided with Hamilton in Australia and Singapore.
How did Webber outperform Vettel? There was Spain, Monaco, Turkey, Hungary, Britain, Belgium… where else exactly, out of 19 races did this happen? Vettel lost way more points to car failures, especially in the first half of the season, than Webber ever did. It was like Mclaren 2012, frankly. The points showed them to be close, but the far unluckier driver still came out on top.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 15:12
As I mentioned above, there was no way they could execute the strategies since they were flawed from the beginning. They only could work if the other cars went for another pit-stop which never happened.
I was talking about the ‘flawless’ Vettel who took out Button at Spa.
After 10 races (the first part of the season) Webber had more points, race wins and podiums than Vettel – technically that’s called outperforming.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 18:28
@klaas
As I mentioned with Webber, the gamble was only taken due to his poor performance that weekend. With Alonso, it was a bit more of a screwup (since FA was running 4th), but the article I linked to gave clear reasoning for why Ferrari did what they did, not to mention that it largely appears flawed due to hindsight. Still though, you’re getting so hung up on this idea that Alonso and Webber lost the title because of team errors (misfortune), while glossing over Vettel’s bad luck in 2010.
Again, you seem to enjoy pointing out Vettel’s flaws, as if it means so much more than everything else. “Anon” referred to Vettel driving consistently well in the closing stages of the championship, proven by how he did after Spa- 3 wins, a second, a fourth, an engine failure while leading. 2011 was a continuation of that form.
For someone so keen to excuse Webber’s performances by saying he had strategy and technical issues, you’ve managed to gloss over those that Vettel had again. It was Vettel’s bad luck that gave the impression Webber was outperforming Vettel. Webber never led Vettel by more than a few points despite all that Vettel went through.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 22:46
They came in the last race leading the championship over Vettel. They lost the title THAT DAY due to any other reason than Vettel’s bad luck in 2010. I don’t understand what Vettel’s woes have to do with what happened at that race.
Anon mentioned in his original post only about the veterans’ mistakes so I think it’s fair to mention some of Vettel’s flaws too (Turkey, Spa, Hungary) when comparing the drivers’ performances that year.
About Webber outperforming Vettel for the fisrt half of 2010- points are the only objective way to measure performance. The rest is ‘if and but’. Or would you agree that Alonso outperformed Vettel last season because the former had more bad luck (Spa, Monza vs Valencia) and this season too?
David-A (@david-a)
20th May 2013, 0:22
That’s true, but the positions FA and MW found themselves going in to Abu Dhabi in did owe to SV’s woes. You said the main reason they lost the title was strategy. While they might have lost on that day because of strategy (well at least Alonso did, with a strategy that didn’t work out in hindsight), but it certainly wasn’t more costly in terms of points than what happened earlier to SV. Sure, you can argue solely about “on that day”, but to do so would be far less relevant than the 18 races before it.
Fair enough. I would hope that Anon is at least aware of Vettel’s mistakes that year. In fairness, he/she did say “in the end the only one to exhibit really high quality driving consistently was Vettel in the closing races of the championship”. Of course, SV wasn’t the only person to drive consistently well, but if anyone delivered at the business end of 2010, it was Vettel post-Spa. You must agree with that, surely.
Indeed, but it isn’t always accurate. See Mclaren’s drivers in 2012. Webber was like Button- only able to be close to his teammate who had many more of those ifs and buts, regarding bad luck.
You mean Spa, Monza qualifying for Alonso vs. Monza, Valencia and Sepang for Vettel?
DaveF1 (@davef1)
19th May 2013, 12:16
I have to agree in 2010 we saw a lot of top dogs making quiet a few rookie errors and brain fades. However you’re being far too kind on Vettel when you say;
Considering Vettel was nicknamed ‘crash-kid’ for the majority of the season doesn’t make him sound like he exhibited high quality driving. Yes he was unlucky in the first two races but it takes a special kind of driver to crash into your team mate and throw away a one two.
David-A (@david-a)
19th May 2013, 12:51
@davef1 – The crash kid nickname wasn’t exactly fair though, looking back at it. He had 2 crashes in that season. Even his mid-30s teammate had more than that.
I also assume “anon” was referring exclusively to the final handful of races, where the pressure was really at its greatest for a tight title battle. In those I believe that he and Alonso were by far the best drivers, winning the final 6 races between them, while Hamilton had a tough spell (Italy, Singapore), Button was okay (except Korea), but didn’t stand out, and Webber, well, the less said about his performances there, the better.
Dizzy
19th May 2013, 14:26
Perhaps we saw more mistakes in 2010 because drivers were more on the limit than what we have seen since?
With no DRS the drivers actually had to fight hard to overtake so we saw more locked tyres under braking & more cars out-braking themselfs.
Since Pirelli came in the level of driver errors in the races has declined, Perhaps because drivers are no longer able to push as hard as they used to (Especially this year). When your only driving at say 80%, There is much less chance of making a mistake than if your at 95-100%.
anon
19th May 2013, 14:49
“Perhaps we saw more mistakes in 2010 because drivers were more on the limit than what we have seen since?
With no DRS the drivers actually had to fight hard to overtake so we saw more locked tyres under braking & more cars out-braking themselfs.”
I was comparing 2010 to years previous to 2010. DRS is only a new addition to the sport. BTW it’s “themselves”.
Neel Jani (@neelv27)
19th May 2013, 8:30
I just love the 2010 Ferrari and after the stepped noses from 2012 and 2013, it looks even more stunning!
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 12:02
I think the 2013 car looks fairly hideous actually: the nose is as flat as a table, the pillars are far too chunky and it looks like it’s got an awkward hunchback. The rear end isn’t exactly attractive either.
There aren’t really many cars I actively like this year: the Caterham is nice now, the Merc is okay (apart from the nose, which looks a bit awkward), the Sauber looked good in launch spec but I don’t like the new nose and I like the Force India – that’s about it!
Fisha695 (@fisha695)
19th May 2013, 9:10
Idea:
Step 1 — Bring back refueling & mandate that the tanks have to be a certain size, let’s say enough that a race can be done on 3 stops (so if you count the fuel onboard from the start it would be 4 fuel loads).
Step 2 — Toughen up the tire a bit so that it can last approx 33% of race length (meaning you only “need” to take tires twice out of the 3 stops).
Step 3 — Can not Fuel & work on the car at the same time (Le Mans style, the guys can be ready but they can’t change tires til fuel hose is disengaged for safety reasons).
Step 4 — All cars must start with full tank of fuel.
Step 5 — Profit?
This opens up the strategy of double stinting tires as well as maybe short-fueling (since while it would be 4 full fuel loads, each race would only require 3.5/3.75 fuel loads) to try and save/gain time/positions.
Dizzy
19th May 2013, 14:33
That would just see overtaking figures drop again though.
The stats show that on-track overtaking plummeted as soon as refueling came in as teams moved racing off the track & into the pits.
As soon as refueling was banned in 2010 the overtaking stats shot back upto Pre-refeuling levels.
All refueling ever did was put strategy above racing & that hurt the on-track racing & did more to hurt overtaking than anything else ever did.
Slr (@slr)
19th May 2013, 9:29
I agree with COTD, the majority of the races in 2010 were entertaining and to add to the COTD I’d also say that races such as Malaysia, China, Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Japan were also very enjoyable.
I actually wouldn’t mind going back to the 2010 regulations, even if it meant the return of those horrible shark fins.
ECWDanSelby (@ecwdanselby)
19th May 2013, 10:33
That was another big thing for me – those damned ugly fins. Absolutely awful!
ECWDanSelby (@ecwdanselby)
19th May 2013, 10:33
Sorry, I have to disagree.
The majority of the 2010 races were really boring. I remember everyone suddenly saying what a great season it was towards the end of the year because it was so close in the championship.
I get the impression sometimes people confuse a close championship with good racing.
montreal95 (@montreal95)
19th May 2013, 11:13
@ecwdanselby While some may have over-estimated the 2010 season, you went to the other extreme. I can easily name 10 2010 races which weren’t boring so no majority there. These were: Australia, Malaysia, China, Turkey, Canada, Britain, Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Italy, Singapore, Korea. That’s 12 actually and of the other 7 some are debatable. Monaco for example, or Valencia which had lots of excitement at the end such as the Kobayashi charge. Special mention also to Bahrain who made a stupid decision to race on the endurance layout
RogerA
19th May 2013, 14:39
i disagree, i enjoyed the racing in 2010 far more than any of the seasons since. i thought 2012 in particular was horribly dull as far as the racing went.
i don’t understand how anyone can watch the races since 2011 with all these horribly easy & boring drs motorway passes & all this tyre stupidity & say its good racing.
the motorway passing seen with drs is horrid to watch, theres no tension or excitement in these boring push of a button drive by’s.
also tyres that are designed to fall to bits in less than 10 laps have no business in the pinnacle of open wheel racing, theres just as little excitement in watching a car on fresh tyres drive easily past one on used tyres as there is to any of the drs ones.
i dont even bother watching a lot of the races anymore, all way too boring & artificial for me.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:00
There were a few great races in 2012: Valencia was very good (as all involved were able to push), Belgium would’ve turned out better than it did also had Grosjean not ruined the prospect of any sort of leading battle at turn one, Abu Dhabi was a very good race as was Austin and although a wet race and a championship decider, Brazil was probably the best race I’ve ever seen live. 2010 was good too, but I think we can have the best of both as those highlighted in 2012 prove.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 11:25
That tweet from Ferrari is incredibly stupid and irritating: they are doing themselves a disservice and serving only to increase I’m sure the feeling of animosity towards them from their detractors for how nonsensical that is. I appreciate it’s supposed to be in good humour, but I don’t take it that way since it shares the perspective of the horse whisperer – whom effectively called F1 fans stupid.
As for Massa, no they don’t: qualifying is almost entirely irrelevant now in this day and age; only race pace actually matters at all.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 12:57
The tweet from Ferrari served it’s purpouse perfectly since it was meant to irritate RedBull (and RedBull fans respectively).
Remeber that RedBull Christmas card aimed at Ferrari?
The Horse Whisperer works for Ferrari so it’s him who shares that perspective not the other way around.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 13:03
@klaas I don’t believe the intention is to make everyone besides Ferrari fans hate them: that’s what they’re doing.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 13:15
No, they are stating their point about tires, Lotus fans would agree, RedBull not.
Everytime they win everyone besides Ferrari fans hate them, they should give up on winning then?
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 14:56
@klaas no, they should give up on writing stupid tweets that just make themselves look like “Richard Hammond winners”! And stop calling other F1 fans stupid.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 16:16
I didn’t find Ferrari’s tweet stupid just like I didn’t find myself among the fans that the Horse Whisperer mentioned. Ferrari are stating their position concerning a problem that is on the entire F1 community’s lips right now. They have the right to express their satisfaction on Tweeter just like RedBull have the right to express their frustration in Bernie’s office.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 17:10
@klaas I’m sorry, so you support the fact they have said essentially F1 fans lack brain cells? That tweet also was just a crude, senseless joke as the two situations bear almost no comparison.
In actual fact, it’s highly ironic that the car is using more durable Pirelli tyres than the current crop for the demonstration run.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 17:15
The examples it used of previous four stop race didn’t even bear comparison, so the fact it was proclaiming the tyre critics were stupid was in itself incredibly stupid. Ferrari are doing themselves a disservice making silly claims such as the horse whisperer did.
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 17:47
Oh, come on @vettel1 you’re reaction is becoming a bit paranoid. The Horse Whisperer didn’t call the fans stupid, he was clearly talking about some team members who complained about too many pit-stops at Barcelona, and didn’t say they lacked brain cells but merely that they are using a selective network of them – which should be interpreted as hypocrisy and not stupidity. I say you leave that sourness away and watch the Show in Warshaw, I bet you’ll enjoy it so much you won’t even notice how many pit stop Massa made :)
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 17:54
@klaas I interpret anything to do with neural networks as commenting on intelligence ;)
It probably is, but then again he was pushing the tyres and not crawling around at a snails pace in a racing situation!
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 17:59
@vettel1 I’m glad I could make you see that tweet in a different way. Nerve cells must be spared and not wasted on false assumptions.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:03
@klaas no you haven’t really: it was still referring to the tyre criticisms and hence everything Ferrari has said in retaliation so I still don’t like it. 10 stops in that situation though is not a bad thing, 4 stops in a racing situation with the 2013 Pirelli’s is!
Klaas (@klaas)
19th May 2013, 18:27
@vettel1 4 stops with a hard(er) compound two years ago was Ok with RedBull, 4 stops on tyres that were ordered to be less durable this year is unacceptable. Hmmm, interesting logic. Personally I think it has to do more with who was sitting on the top of the rostrum than with the number of pit stops.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:31
@klass four stops on the soft and hard compound with drivers still able to push is okay but not ideal. Four stops on the hardest compounds available (including a new “harder” tyre) with drivers giving up places without a fight is not okay.
Also, I don’t really get where this idea that we must all have thought the 2011 GP was brilliant has come from. I didn’t find it that amazing to be honest!
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:50
@klaas rather!
phildick (@phildick)
20th May 2013, 8:19
I found the tweet quite funny personally. I’ll prefer a bit of irony or sarcasm to whining. And whining was what Ferrari used to do a lot and was unpopular for. But the pendulum has swung and now it’s the ‘cool’ Red Bull whining all the way. Pathetic.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
20th May 2013, 9:28
@phildick the only reason I didn’t like it (and I shall re-iterrate here) is that this is off the back of whining. Otherwise, I will have taken it for what it’s worth – a joke!
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
20th May 2013, 8:51
@vettel1 It’s depressing how some people will leap at the slightest inconsequential thing to attack whichever team they dislike. It was a lighthearted Tweet – the person who composed it probably spent no more than ten seconds thinking about it, but you and @klaas seem to have spent all of yesterday arguing about it.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
20th May 2013, 9:24
@keithcollantine I wouldn’t have minded but for the fact that I feel this is linked to Ferrari’s earlier comments (specifically the Horse Whisperer). I appreciate the fact it’s a joke and intended in good humour but it’s premature as far as I can see after Ferrari had challenged F1 fan’s memories I felt without any reasonable justifictaion (as the examples given weren’t really comparable).
I hope you understand that; I just really don’t take well to challenges to certain F1 fan’s (mine included) memories! If they hadn’t just recently had the Horse Whisperer speak I may have taken it as such a light-hearted joke!
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 16:15
One thing that did raise an eyebrow for me in the Clark article was how it regularly stated that he is rated above Senna: does that claim hold any truth, as I have always found that Senna is rated as the greatest of all time almost everywhere?
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
19th May 2013, 18:31
@vettel1 I rate Clark higher than Senna, if that helps.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
19th May 2013, 18:44
@craig-o I know a lot of people do but I’ve always found personally a lot more people do rate Senna more highly!
@banburyhammer I rate Clark as probably the second best of all time only behind Senna just for his sheer dominance and ability to just jump in and drive anything as fast as possible with the finesse and mechanical sympathy he had.
Senna though for me is still the greatest: he was competing against giants too in Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Schumacher yet he is unanimously regarded as the best of that bunch. His qualifying speed was mesmerising and particularly in 1991 and 1993 I think he put in some of the best performances ever. I think he pushed the limit as far as it could possibly go with the way he danced the cars on the limit of adhesion. Who knows what both drivers could have achieved had they not had their lives tragically cut short.
Banburyhammer (@banburyhammer)
19th May 2013, 18:31
To be fair, the difference betweeen Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher is also widely regarded to be much of a muchness. Its really down to the induvidual, and Id personally would say Clark. He was the one which stood out, and his peers were Stewart, Hill, Gurney, Brabham, Surtees. McLaren.. you could go on. Id say out of all the generations of drivers, that one is possibly the greatest, and for all those peers to indisputibaly regard Clark as the most gifted of the lot of them? That for me says it all.
Todfod (@todfod)
21st May 2013, 15:28
Agree with everything you said. Which is why Clark was always #1 in my books, followed closely by Senna.
anon
20th May 2013, 7:46
Senna was the best qualifier of all-time. No-one will argue that, but Senna wasn’t even the best driver on the grid. Prost’s record against Senna’s speaks for itself at the peak of the rivalry. I mean, Prost even goes to Ferrari and nearly wins the championship against the far superior McLaren.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
20th May 2013, 8:28
Senna definitely got better as the seasons progressed though in the races, which is why I referred to 1991 and 1993 (where in the first the Williams was maybe faster and the second definitely faster).
BasCB (@bascb)
19th May 2013, 18:53
Well, the COTD did a great job of getting the debate rolling on then. I must say I do not agree with it though.
Yes, we had some very memorable races that year. But don’t we have several of those almost every year we look at? I think 2012 was a lot better, and 2011, despite the predictable championship battle, actually gave us a lot of great races too. In my opinion 2013 was not quite as good, partly because of the Pirellis seeming to be a tad overdone. But far more because the endless talk about how tyres are presumably ruining everything on TV!
wsrgo (@wsrgo)
20th May 2013, 7:16
In the telegraph article, Whitmarsh claims that Macca have won 186 races since 1966. He’s wrong there… according to this. He doesnt even know how many races his team has won??? No wonder the MP4-28 is crap…
BasCB (@bascb)
20th May 2013, 7:42
I would guess that the difference is from non championship races won @wsrgo, because while its always a bit murky with races done due to counting things like weekends participated, qualified, started, started in the race after it was red flagged etc, It would be surprising if there remained many misunderstandings over who won a race!
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
20th May 2013, 9:05
@wsrgo Whitmarsh’s figures includes non-championship grands prix. Perhaps he has a copy of this on his bedside table?