The Crudders 2013 Formula 1 Thread

bennett_346

supersonic wrote:

You can have the best equipment, the best support, all the talent in the world - but if you haven't got a giant pair of testicles propping you up in that cockpit, and an innate drive to win then more often than not you don't.

That drive often will garner negative comments at first. I've seen it so many many times (and thought the same myself) with many different sport people. Hendry - boring, cutting, but the best. Tiger - miserable, would throw the toys out - but the best. Phil Taylor - the same. And of course Schumacher. But now I really respect these people for what they have achieved and because of their uncompromising drive. Vettel seems to have that. And I am damn sure in years to come we will be remembering him in the same light as the best of the best.

Depends what you're in it for really. If you're there to become purely rich fair enough.

supersonic

Senna offered to drive for free for williams.

thekickingmule

supersonic wrote:

You can have the best equipment, the best support, all the talent in the world - but if you haven't got a giant pair of testicles propping you up in that cockpit, and an innate drive to win then more often than not you don't.

That drive often will garner negative comments at first. I've seen it so many many times (and thought the same myself) with many different sport people. Hendry - boring, cutting, but the best. Tiger - miserable, would throw the toys out - but the best. Phil Taylor - the same. And of course Schumacher. But now I really respect these people for what they have achieved and because of their uncompromising drive. Vettel seems to have that. And I am damn sure in years to come we will be remembering him in the same light as the best of the best.

I like Formula 1, but am no means a fan, but I agree with this entirely. Having balls takes you above the rest, look at Senna!

bennett_346

Passing your team "mate" knowing he's turned down his engine doesn't take balls, i'm sorry.

It was a cheat of a win plain and simple to me.

lawman

There was an agreement made before the race that in such a position that they were 1-2 they would hold position. At this early stage of the season the team takes precidence over either driver. Fact. Times have changed since senna and Schumacher. Consider if webber loses the title to Alonso or Raikkonen by a margin of less than 8 points and suddenly the roles are very much reversed. It was a cheap shot and he is not helped by the way Horner pussy foots about and has no authority. Arguably the best tactician f1 has ever seen in Ross brawn showed how you should handle the situation. The comparison between Senna, Vettel and Schumacher misses out the fact that senna had an extraordinary ability to transcend the limits of a bad car, just look at Monaco in his debut year. As I pointed out Vettel has never, not once won a race from lower than third on the grid. It's just a fact. Give him the best car and he will win races, much like button had the best car for the first part of 2009, which led to him winning the title, take that away and he wouldn't have won the title. It's exactly the same for Vettel last year and to a certain extent in 2010. He has never had a teammate who I would consider world class, fast webber is no doubt he is not the same calibre as Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton, which is widely accepted.

IMO he lacks the maturity to be a legend and he knows that without Newey and red bull, live would be a hell of a lot harder. I honestly cannot see him being able to win a championship in a car that is not the fastest, or even mount a serious challenge. I'm not doubting he is a good driver, but as ever the statistics don't show the whole story, he has it sooooo easy these last 3 years and luck has most certainly been on his side much more than any of the others. Every one knows it, or should recognize that he is third best in F1 at the moment and his titles are largely down to Adrian Newey building fantastic cars and pushing the regulations to the limit to fid success. If any one in f1 is a legend, it is surely him and not Vettel and I would argue that there 3 maybe 4 guys if you include kubica that in the same machinery would beat him fair and square. I fear we will never know this because he knows this and is scared to go out his comfort zone and risk losing his "reputation". As far as I'm concerned he never has and never will have that legendary reputation.

VTech

In years to come people will talk about Vettel in the same regards as they do now about Senna, and that is fact, and based on what has been written above.

supersonic

It was a cheat of a win plain and simple to me.

There was no cheating at all. No rules were broken.

There was an agreement made before the race that in such a position that they were 1-2 they would hold position

Even Webber admitted the 'agreement' was tenuous. Unlike the direct order he was given in 2011 at Silverstone not to attack Vettel. Which he did, and lost out. And not the first tome Webber has done it either, but everyone applauds him when he does it.

The comparison between Senna, Vettel and Schumacher misses out the fact that senna had an extraordinary ability to transcend the limits of a bad car

Schumacher had that ability too! He did a great job at Benetton, and then at Ferrari as the early Ferraris were far from competitive. His biggest mistake was coming out of retirement when he had lost it. Vettel has not yet raced for anyone considered a 'bad' team - but either way he is the fastest man out there, makes few mistakes on track, is winning more than anybody else, has the guts to go for the win (because he knows he is quickest) is 3 times world champion and at the minute the best. That is the fact.

VTech

I have to get involved when people slate Schumacher, He was and is without doubt one of the best F1 drivers ever to grace the sport. His ability to get the most out of a given situation was extraordinary and his ability to describe improvements to the team were remarkable.

bennett_346

supersonic wrote:

It was a cheat of a win plain and simple to me.

There was no cheating at all. No rules were broken.

It doesn't have to be a rule broken to constitute a cheat of a win to me.

If you and I were having a race on our mountain bikes and despite not writing any rules prior to the race, if we were level pegging for a long time and you were slightly ahead of me, would it be fair to say i legitimately won if your chain snapped through no fault of your own and i carried on past? Yes, it would be a legit win but would it prove who was the better rider out of the two of us? No.

Yes i would have technically won, but it doesn't prove anything, especially skill wise.

If mark had not have turned his engine down, it is very likely that Vettel would not have been able to pass Webber.

supersonic

Not sure what your analogy is analogous to - vettel is the proven better driver isn't he?

lawman

[quote="supersonic"

The comparison between Senna, Vettel and Schumacher misses out the fact that senna had an extraordinary ability to transcend the limits of a bad car

Schumacher had that ability too! He did a great job at Benetton, and then at Ferrari as the early Ferraris were far from competitive. His biggest mistake was coming out of retirement when he had lost it. Vettel has not yet raced for anyone considered a 'bad' team - but either way he is the fastest man out there, makes few mistakes on track, is winning more than anybody else, has the guts to go for the win (because he knows he is quickest) is 3 times world champion and at the minute the best. That is the fact.[/quote]

Exactly proving my point yourself. Senna and Schumacher both transcended the cars capabilities, but lets not forget that in 94 he had illegal systems on the car, and took Hill out to win the championship because HE cocked up. And whilst at Ferrari yes he built the team into what it was, but that was a time when he won the majority of his championships he had effectively custom made tyres, engine, etc and barring 2003 he had the best car by miles. I've no doubt he was very good, but he had a lot more going for him than others at the time did, Rory Bryne was a genius designer much like Newey was and still is.

Vettel has yet to be in a bad car, there is no escaping that, and for those who argue the 2008 Italian Grand Prix was in an inferior car, the toro Rosso was a decent enough car to qualify top 6/8 every week and as we saw in 2009 with force India, the smaller teams who lack the downforce the top teams have often do better at tracks like spa and monza as aero advantage isn't as great there, it's a horsepower race. He has yet to have a drive. Has he had a race like Raikkonen did at Suzuka in 2005? No. He had Abu Dhabi where they found a loophole in the rules to set the car up for overtaking and still managed to hit just about everything in his path. No driver is without mistakes, but he's had his fair share over the last three years and turkey was most definitely his fault, as was taking out Button in 2010. I've no doubt he is very fast over a lap, no question at all, but his mental strength just isn't there IMO and he would crumble against a proper world class team mate, and he simply won't do it because he knows this, so will happily sit at Red Bull and let Newey design a car that is way quicker than the rest. Any team he goes to it usually turns to gold.

bennett_346

supersonic wrote:

Not sure what your analogy is analogous to - vettel is the proven better driver isn't he?

The race specifically, not previous ones. Just because someone has driven better in the past does not entitle them the benefit of the doubt in forthcoming ones.

supersonic

Exactly proving my point yourself.

Maybe you need to reiterate clearly what your point was. As when you mentioned 'Schumacher, Vettel and Senna'. It was only Senna that you said had this ability, you clearly omitted Schumacher. My counter was (and one that you now agree with) that Schumacher had it too and, in the case of Vettel, who even though has not yet had any opportunity to prove such honours, is still the best driver out there. Any talk of 'he couldn't cope with pressure, wouldn't perform in other cars' is pure conjecture, you don't know that for the same reasons you give. The fact remains he is the one that is winning and the one that has the titles. Three in a row at that, and I bet a fourth. You don't fluke three titles.

The race specifically, not previous ones. Just because someone has driven better in the past does not entitle them the benefit of the doubt in forthcoming ones.

Just as well he proved them wrong then.

gt-arrowhead

Supersonic is too right in saying that he is the fastest, proving himself like Schumi or Senna or not. He is the fastest and thats all that really counts for him at the minute.

Do you think we will ever see Vettel in a non-competitive car?

gt-arrowhead

lawman wrote:

Vettel has yet to be in a bad car, there is no escaping that, and for those who argue the 2008 Italian Grand Prix was in an inferior car, the toro Rosso was a decent enough car to qualify top 6/8 every week and as we saw in 2009 with force India, the smaller teams who lack the downforce the top teams have often do better at tracks like spa and monza as aero advantage isn't as great there, it's a horsepower race.

That was exactly what i was thinking, people say that he is still a good driver because he won in a Toro Rosso. The Toro Rosso is the fastest car in a straight line. This year and last year, i remember distinctly in Korea where Vergne and Ricciardo were 1st and 2nd through the speed traps. The car set ups at Monza are mostly based around top speed. Vettels win in Monza is irrelevant. So your right, he hasnt won a race in a non competitive car.

TheNorthernTrain

Vettel has proved himself... I know car set-ups are not the same, but essentially he had/has the same car as Webber, yet he consistently beat him, infact, not just beat him but absolutely thrashed him!

He has the ability to find time where others purely can't, if this is down to car set up then even he has some part to play in that and knows exactly what he wants from his car and knows how to translate that to his engineers.

The man is a driving legend. Competitive car or not... stick him in a Marussia or Caterham and he may not do as well but he will make it perform so much better, I guarantee it, infact I'd stick my neck on the line and say he could just get it in the top 10, regularly. He has that talent.

gt-arrowhead

This is a random question, but am i the only one that thinks that the stepped noses look much better than the smooth ones?

Ive never really liked curves in cars too much anyhow.
Heres the E21. Sexy as hell!

Clank

You stand alone.

bennett_346

They're hideous.

These were the best looking days:

gt-arrowhead

That does look pretty nice. I love this car though, its an Eagle, and thats all i know about it. I like the F1 cars that looked like these. Massive tyres, curvy front end and a naked rear end. I make an exception about the curvy cars for these ones

Clank

bennett_346 wrote:

They're hideous.
These were the best looking days:

Let's face it, since aerodynamics became the be-all and end-all, F1 cars could never be described as 'lookers'. All we're discussing is which is less mingy!

I think all you can do is appreciate the cars for the engineering prowess and not the looks. 8)

OCLV74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXGPCeAQk38

Absolute classic. Chomping at the bit for the next race, still we have Valentino back on a yamaha at Qatar this weekend which should be interesting.
On the subject of Vettel, yes he wanted the win, but from what was said, it was pretty clear to hold station. The team had already told Mark to turn down the engine settings and cruise for the win, for vettel to decide to rob the victory was, lets just say, a little pathetic. Yes racers are there to win, not come 2nd, but I think it showed a blatant disrespect for his team mate, but also his disrespect for the team. I feel he did it because he's not sure if RB will be as dominant this year due to the tires falling to bits quickly this year, so he wants to get as many points as he possibly can. RB are winning due to Adrian Newey, he makes the difference between them, and the rest of the grid. Mclaren are flakey, have been for a good few years now. I think Lewis made a good choice, and it lets him have a go at getting a car to perform.

The one thing that worries me about this season is the tires. Do we really want the F1 champion to be the person who can manage the tires best? Currently that is what is happening. The pole-position shoot out is becoming irrelevant, it's almost the best position to be in is 10th for tyre choice. Quite why the powers-that-be have decided tires should be the major factor here is beyond me. Yes, it makes it more 'exciting' due to more pitstops etc, the problem now, is there are so many pitstops, I find it difficult (as do the commentators) to actually follow all of the races within the race as they develop. Also, I want to watch the drivers racing at 100%, not racing at 80% because the tires will die 5 or 6 laps earlier. I preffered it when there was also refueling, you didn't have to have any of this 'turn the engine down' rubbish to save fuel. (It meant much more strategy too)

Currently the sport has now been turned into, who can make a car that is nice to the tires and is very reliable being driven at 80%. That is not what I would like to see. Sooner Bernie goes, the better.

Oh and Schumi was a great driver no doubt, and when he arrived at Ferrari it was a dog of a car, however when you have specially made tires for yourself it does give a hell of an advantage. have a read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19998444

supersonic

I agree that some of the rules are odd, and are detracting from the racing. Or are ridiculous in the hope of improving overtaking.

cooldad

You are all wrong. Best looking lawnmower ever.

cooldad

Not a bad little car, neither.

gt-arrowhead

That Lotus cooldad posted is a beauty, but i really love this one: Its a 1968 Lotus


As for the tyre compunds, i recon they should have kept the same tyres as last year but added more compounds. For example a compound between medium and hard and a compound between soft and medium etc. And they should have changed the tyre selections available at each event to make it at least a 2 stop race. I recon that would have been spot on. I think they may have over the done it this year with the tyre degradation levels since as other people say, it wont be as exciting since the drivers wont be giving it everything as they want to make the tyres last. And indeed the driver that manages the tyres the best will be the winner most likely.

I think they should re introduce refuelling because that will mean that teams can run MANY different strategies throughout the year and that would be very very interesting to see. However i think they stopped refuelling in the interests of safety?

Im a little disappointed with the tyre compounds this year so far...when Pirelli announced what they were doing i was like "yeah great!" because last year there wasnt that many pitstops, lets face it. But i fear this year they have gone over the top with it and made it so it isnt going to be about wheel to wheel racing but about tyre management. That basically defeats the purpose of F1. Cant wait until 2014!

OCLV74

Yeah, that's the one thing I really miss is the refuelling, it made a HUGE difference to strategy, and it made it very entertaining to watch. I wouldn't have said it was overly dangerous, we had that big flame up on verstappen was it? Oh and massa taking the refuelling hose for a strut down the pit lane, aside from that nowt major in like how many years? When you consider we had a garage fire last year at Williams, and the state of these tires, when they go, they go bigtime, totally destroy themselves in big chunks. I'd personally think the tires are more dangerous, daresay a lot of the drivers would agree. There is a great deal of frustration amongst the drivers with the current situation, but they have to deal with it because that is what the current ruling is.

I'm hoping the rule changes next year will move us on from this sorry situation and we can be back to racing on the edge once again.

PS Cooldad, I have to love that JPS, was one of them in my very first scalextric set!

Edit: It WAS verstappen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot3U6pGA-jA
And there was me thinking weed wrecked your short-term memory.

gt-arrowhead

More questions from me to see what people think:

1. Your top 3 overtakes of 2012?

2. Best at overtaking overall in 2012?


My answers:

1. Raikkonen on Schumacher through Eau Rouge in Spa
Raikkonen on Schumacher again in Brazil
Hulkenburgs double pass in Korea

2. Raikkonen was the best at overtaking overall for me.
(I can think of many occasions where Raikkonen did some nice passes except from the ones above, so he gets it for me)

Heres Raikkonens pass on Schumi in Brazil, it was quite a pass!

tlw1

for once Scumachers wheel is facing away from the person overtaking him

VWsurfbum

matthew h wrote:

for once Scumachers wheel is facing away from the person overtaking him

As much as i hate the whinging pom, Button has the highest rate of overtakes in a season, which i find amazing as i never consider him to be much of a overtaker.
same as Seb, but some of his overtakes last year were pretty good and forceful.
I like aggressive drivers like Hamilton, but they all seem to get tamed the longer they are driving. When Alesi first came on the scene i loved it, propper balls out racing.

Here's another question for you, If you were a racing driver who would you be and why?
Mine i would have to say Irvine. Did ok, not top end but lived the whole ferrari playboy lifestyle. 8)