Vettel vs Ricciardo 2014

[turbof1]

Again, I'm not intending on getting tangled up too much in this. And I don't know enough about that season to do so anyway, only that Schumacher broke his leg and that Irvine was a contender until the penultimate race, at which point Schumacher was back in the fray and duly handed his place over to Irvine.

There was roughly (from the top of my head) half an hour between Schumacher's crash and the restart of the race. Even without knowing anything about the season, does it make sense that during that half an hour, Ferrari re-assigns resources, redesigns and rebuilds the car for that very same race? Relocating, redesigning and rebuilding in half an hour?

reallocating resources (on-track resources as in assistance) and giving Irvine the optimum strategy: yes. Schumacher would have been 100% confirmed to be out for atleast that race.

reallocating and rebuilding the car specific for Irvine is a bit far fetched. Again the development path of the car would not have been changed. Updates that bring extra horsepower and/or extra downforce would be there with or without the accident. Very, very small details perhaps would have been altered to suite Irvine, but I even doubt that. car setup is more then enough to adapt a car to a driver's likings. And I think Irvine was able to extract more out of this after the British gp, once the situation was fully clear.

I think dialing this back to Vettel and Ricciardo is matter of perspective. I also believe Vettel struggles more then Ricciardo with the car due a lack of df (especially low speed df). Does that automatically mean Vettel had a no. 1 position at red bull when he was teamed up with Webber? No; extra downforce benefits every driver, how much you extract from that depends from driver to driver. Vettel extracted more out of the extra low speed downforce then Webber did, while webber lost less performance then Vettel when that downforce wasn't there.

And I think this is the same here: Vettel will eventually adapt to it, but at the moment he's struggling more then Ricciardo. Yes, there's absolutely no denial Vettel has a huge portion of bad luck so far, but the moments the 2 are on equal grounds Ricciardo has that extra confidence.

[basti313]

Speaking of manipulating statistics, this is under the very odd, and still unsubstantiated by you, assumption that Irvine gained some magic #1 driver benefits in between Schumacher's crash and the restart roughly half an hour later.

1.He had the full undivided attention of the Ferrari team from lap 2.
2.He did not have a rear gunner role he was brought to the team to fulfil.
3.He had optimum strategy call.


Not magic.

1. Did not help much, as the pit stop was defined by the fuel.
2. Irvine did not have a rear gunner role in 1999 at all. Either he did not see Schumacher at all because he was so slow or he won or he messed it up himself like in Magny Cours...
3. He did not have optimum strategy call at all. He lost the race because of a strategy fault.
I would not want this Nr1 status...

[WaikeCU]

Fact is Irvine had the No. 1 status at the team during Schumacher's absence. When Schumacher returned, Irvine still was the No. 1 driver, but he was despite the status the slower driver yet the driver with the biggest chance to get the WDC with Ferrari. Look at Malaysia GP 1999. If Schumacher had the No. 1 status he wouldn't have moved over for Irvine. Irvine might have improved throughout the season. Despite Irvine was the title contender, Schumacher was still faster than Irvine. Video below will prove everything that Irvine had become the No. 1 driver after Schumacher broke his leg.



EI: "... he's also the best no.1, but he's also the best no.2"

Doesn't make more clear than that.

End of discussion. Let's try and stay on topic for once please.

[FoxHound]

There was roughly (from the top of my head) half an hour between Schumacher's crash and the restart of the race. Even without knowing anything about the season, does it make sense that during that half an hour, Ferrari re-assigns resources, redesigns and rebuilds the car for that very same race? Relocating, redesigning, rebuilding and have it on the grid in half an hour?

I recall the race. And I can tell you it was clear Schumacher was not going to be well enough to race for at least a couple months. There was a huge red blanket being held up to prevent photos of the injury, as well as blood coming from the ankle. You can bet the moment he was airlifted to hospital the team would have been informed it was a near certain fracture of the leg.

1. Did not help much, as the pit stop was defined by the fuel.

Strategy counts, and Irvine had optimum as there were no other distratcions within the team.

2. Irvine did not have a rear gunner role in 1999 at all. Either he did not see Schumacher at all because he was so slow or he won or he messed it up himself like in Magny Cours...

That is clearly dispelled from what Irvine says. It is also dispelled by Ferrari's strategy back in those days.

3. He did not have optimum strategy call at all. He lost the race because of a strategy fault.
I would not want this Nr1 status...

That is absolutely not true. The McLaren was quicker than the Ferrari, it was a gamble from Ferrari to try something different.

@WaikeCU

From the horses mouth, emphatic evidence. Should put this whole thing to bed.

[Pierce89]

I think Vettel is also unfairly bashed for being not very adaptable or a one trick EBD pony because they are working to get the car to behave a certain way.

Now, anyone who understand anything about racing knows that's bollocks however it's worth pointing out here that if you KNOW for a fact that getting the car to behave a certain way has a massive speed potential for a driver you would be stupid not to try to make that happen.

It's also a mistake to assume that if Vettel has to eventually adapt to a different style that would make him slower than Ricciardo.

The only problem with that theory is the fact that we've all heard all the whispers that at the YDT last year, Ricciardo impressed the team much more so than Vettel.

[Pierce89]

So after now seeing clearly how "galvanizing around" a driver is no proof it makes a difference in performance, on what basis do you think it would have made a difference?

I'll answer this one. IMHO amd many others around here, the RB7 was so strong, that, had Vettel broken his leg 40% of the way through the season, Red Bull could've and would've reoptimised the rb7 around Webber's preferences and that would've been enough for him to beat the Maccas and Alonso. The rb7 was a supreme ride, that much is beyond doubt.

[WaikeCU]

So after now seeing clearly how "galvanizing around" a driver is no proof it makes a difference in performance, on what basis do you think it would have made a difference?

I'll answer this one. IMHO amd many others around here, the RB7 was so strong, that, had Vettel broken his leg 40% of the way through the season, Red Bull could've and would've reoptimised the rb7 around Webber's preferences and that would've been enough for him to beat the Maccas and Alonso. The rb7 was a supreme ride, that much is beyond doubt.

Indeed, totally. I still believe that RB have build the cars around Seb the years when he dominated. Well, maybe not 2010, but certainly the following seasons. I still remember Webber claiming that Vettel is strong at going round corners generally, but especially slow corners. RB wasn't famous for its engine power, because Mercedes or Ferrari engines were stronger in straight line speed. RB was famous because Adrian Newey designed a dominating masterpiece that was the best car in going around corners. If you give a car that is good around corners, in the hands of a driver that is exceptionally well in going around corners too, then you have a winning formula.

[mnmracer]

So after now seeing clearly how "galvanizing around" a driver is no proof it makes a difference in performance, on what basis do you think it would have made a difference?

I'll answer this one. IMHO amd many others around here, the RB7 was so strong, that, had Vettel broken his leg 40% of the way through the season, Red Bull could've and would've reoptimised the rb7 around Webber's preferences and that would've been enough for him to beat the Maccas and Alonso. The rb7 was a supreme ride, that much is beyond doubt.

Indeed, totally. I still believe that RB have build the cars around Seb the years when he dominated. Well, maybe not 2010, but certainly the following seasons. I still remember Webber claiming that Vettel is strong at going round corners generally, but especially slow corners. RB wasn't famous for its engine power, because Mercedes or Ferrari engines were stronger in straight line speed. RB was famous because Adrian Newey designed a dominating masterpiece that was the best car in going around corners. If you give a car that is good around corners, in the hands of a driver that is exceptionally well in going around corners too, then you have a winning formula.

The only problem with that is that it's in direct violation with what red Bull and Newsy have been saying: they don't build a car around anybody. Newsy designs the car the fastest way it can go, and it's up to the driver to make it go around. All the tricks from the last couple of years had nothing to do with anyone's preference, it was the fastest way to go around the track.

[PlatinumZealot]

I am in agreement with M&M on this one... (for once! lol)

[mnmracer]

I am in agreement with M&M on this one... (for once! lol)

[Pierce89]

I'll answer this one. IMHO amd many others around here, the RB7 was so strong, that, had Vettel broken his leg 40% of the way through the season, Red Bull could've and would've reoptimised the rb7 around Webber's preferences and that would've been enough for him to beat the Maccas and Alonso. The rb7 was a supreme ride, that much is beyond doubt.

Indeed, totally. I still believe that RB have build the cars around Seb the years when he dominated. Well, maybe not 2010, but certainly the following seasons. I still remember Webber claiming that Vettel is strong at going round corners generally, but especially slow corners. RB wasn't famous for its engine power, because Mercedes or Ferrari engines were stronger in straight line speed. RB was famous because Adrian Newey designed a dominating masterpiece that was the best car in going around corners. If you give a car that is good around corners, in the hands of a driver that is exceptionally well in going around corners too, then you have a winning formula.

The only problem with that is that it's in direct violation with what red Bull and Newsy have been saying: they don't build a car around anybody. Newsy designs the car the fastest way it can go, and it's up to the driver to make it go around. All the tricks from the last couple of years had nothing to do with anyone's preference, it was the fastest way to go around the track.

So, are you saying that you honestly don't believe that in season development was led by Vettel more so than Webber? Surely Red Bull are smart enough to realize catering to Vettel's strengths was more effective than catering to Mark's strengths.

[mnmracer]

Indeed, totally. I still believe that RB have build the cars around Seb the years when he dominated. Well, maybe not 2010, but certainly the following seasons. I still remember Webber claiming that Vettel is strong at going round corners generally, but especially slow corners. RB wasn't famous for its engine power, because Mercedes or Ferrari engines were stronger in straight line speed. RB was famous because Adrian Newey designed a dominating masterpiece that was the best car in going around corners. If you give a car that is good around corners, in the hands of a driver that is exceptionally well in going around corners too, then you have a winning formula.

The only problem with that is that it's in direct violation with what red Bull and Newsy have been saying: they don't build a car around anybody. Newsy designs the car the fastest way it can go, and it's up to the driver to make it go around. All the tricks from the last couple of years had nothing to do with anyone's preference, it was the fastest way to go around the track.

So, are you saying that you honestly don't believe that in season development was led by Vettel more so than Webber? Surely Red Bull are smart enough to realize catering to Vettel's strengths was more effective than catering to Mark's strengths.

You can believe what you want to believe. I'll take the designer's word, especially considering it's a word he's had for over 20 years now.

China 2012 is a great example of that btw. Vettel wanted another direction, and tried something at that race, but Red Bull kept to what they believed was the fastest way to go 'round the track.

[beelsebob]

It's getting very hard to argue at this point that Vettel is faster than Ricciardo.

[mnmracer]

It's getting very hard to argue at this point that Vettel is faster than Ricciardo.

You actually think Ricciardo was faster today?

[SilverArrow]

It's getting very hard to argue at this point that Vettel is faster than Ricciardo.

It is, it really is.