Vettel has shown -bad- racecraft, which is why he doens't deserve the title yet. If Seb is so good, why hasn't he been able to dominate his teammate all year like Alonso has over Massa.
At this point Alonso is the most deserving.
The obvious response to your post (especially the portion I highlighted for clarity) is that the race does not always go to the swiftest. Or, more to the point, it is less important to start first than to finish first.WhiteBlue wrote:Webber was the faster Red Bull driver when qualifying was wet and Vettel had issues with his car which is very little consolation to the fact that he is generally slower. If you just look at dry qualifying you see that even with damaged cars Vettel was on average 1.5 tenth faster than Webber. If you take out Monaco and Turkey were Vettels car was definitely damaged Vettel was 2.5 tenth faster on average. However you turn it Vettel qualifies faster by any given criterion. He gets pole more often, has the higher average qualifying position and wins on aggregate time.zeph wrote:In Webber's case, that is patently untrue. He has been faster than Vettel for much of the season.Roland Ehnström wrote: Webber and Button have been more consistent, but also consistently slower than their team-mates.
In Korea Webber is only 0.7 tenth behind Vettel but you have to consider that he is using a new engine which is worth 2 tenth a lap. So the true difference is more like 2.5 tenth which is pretty typical of what the two drivers usually do. Webber was having a lot of good luck while lady luck was mostly crapping over poor Seb particularly in the reliability stakes.
So for me there is only one Red Bull driver who truly deserves the title at this point in time and it is Sebastian. Perhaps if Webber demonstrates some heroic stuff in the last three races and qualifies on pole for the last two times I'm prepared to change the opinion.
That is well understood. Experience and luck also play a big role in a driver's fortunes. It would just bug me wrong if Webber would win it by a percentage game and not by superior driving. IMO he has made his own fair share of mistakes and risk taking but he enjoyed better reliability and got away with some stuff that led to DNFs for other drivers (Singapore come to mind).donskar wrote:The obvious response to your post (especially the portion I highlighted for clarity) is that the race does not always go to the swiftest. Or, more to the point, it is less important to start first than to finish first.
I don't agree with some of this. Surely Webber and Vettel had a better car most of the season than Alonso and Massa. And Alonso is the more complete driver compared to Massa, no doubt about it. Massa can only do good if the car is 100% balanced and has superior grip. As soon as the grip varies and tyres are hard Massa typically is in problems. Nevertheless he also had won in Germany where he had to gift 7 points to Alonso that do not belong to Alonso. The points may be on Alonso's account but they do not belong there. They were bought for him by Ferrari with $100,000 and a lot of political arm wrestling. So if Alonso wins it by less than 7 points I'm not prepared to agree that he is a worthy champ. Ferrari and Alonso can throw their weight around at the FiA but they cannot do this with the fans. Alonso should better beat the other drivers by the rules if he wants to be respected as the best.Giblet wrote:If Seb is so good, why hasn't he been able to dominate his teammate all year like Alonso has over Massa. At this point Alonso is the most deserving.
The solution is in the Korean race thread. Vettel was conserving his engine and did very little running in the FPs plus he had a puncture.marcush. wrote:And i wonder why Webber could be quickest for all FP sessions and suddenly Vettel has the upper hand .
could it be they allowed him mappings not available to Webber to play it conservative for Mark?
Actually, even after 100 flips, the std deviation is sqrt(0.5*100)~7.Terrible3 wrote:ie: Flip a coin 3 times and then flip it 100 times. I am sure in the first three flips its possible to get at least two heads, but that does not mean heads will come up 60%+ of the time. In 100 flips it will work out to 50%
Exactly, thats why I am baffled when people make broad conclusions based on such a small data sample.Miguel wrote:Actually, even after 100 flips, the std deviation is sqrt(0.5*100)~7.Terrible3 wrote:ie: Flip a coin 3 times and then flip it 100 times. I am sure in the first three flips its possible to get at least two heads, but that does not mean heads will come up 60%+ of the time. In 100 flips it will work out to 50%
EDIT: Edited because I'm thick today. Anyway, what I mean is that in this era of ultrareliable cars, I don't think it's statistically significant if, even after two seasons, one driver accumulates two more engine failures than the other. It does suck, though. And no, I haven't counted if Vettel actually has 2 more engine failures than Webber, in case you wonder.
marcush. wrote:you make a interesting point here ..coin flipping .
Webber made two significant driver errors in races this year both leading to dnfs.
Vettel did at least one in spa . So thats ok with me.Both are not heros.
But how come that both use the same equipment and all technical issues leading to dnfs or loosing positions are concentrated on one car only ?
Can that be pure luck? Neverever.They work to the same standards on both sides of the garage ...they getthe same bits ..If you almost get a hit and miss on one car and the other is totally reliable something just has to be going on.I would not go as far as saying this is on purpose or playing higher risk and to let that driver shine more...but give me a better explanation for it please.the coin will not even come close as the risk for Webber is so low that it is NOT 50/50 as with a coin ...
Try it 16 times ...not a single time on the face..the explanation is they do not play the same game or to the same set of rules...