Are we seeing a Vettel era?

[ell66]

And what "myth" is that exactly?
Hamiltons problem is that he's a winner, had he just accepted he didn't have the car to beat vettel he'd of trounced jenson just as he did last year, unfortunately he pushed to hard at times when he shouldn't of. Couple that with bad luck and personal problems and there's the reason he didn't have the best season, funny thing is with all that said had button and hamiltons crash/result in Canada been reversed (which is easily could of been) then lewis would of beaten him,despite jensons so called great year.

We'll see next year, I still stand firm that with the same cars youd have hamilton and alonso and then the rest.

The myth that Hamilton is unbeatable.
I also think the example you used is wrong. Hamilton was not the only driver racing Vettel, button(in the same car, no less) was also racing Vettel so far as I can remember... An he still beat Hamilton.
Hamilton aficionados can clutch at many straws, button still beat him fair and square.

This is not a slur on Hamilton, but high praise for button. Indeed next year may well be different, but button now has a foothold at McLaren.

Button did beat him fair and square, but like I said that one incident would have had them switch places, the normal order will return next year and he'l smash button all year like he did in 2010.
You also missed the point I made in my example, lewis is far more competitive than jenson, thats no slight on jenson its just the way it is, lewis pushed to hard to bridge the performance gap to RB7, he should of just excepted it and picked up wins and points when they presented them selves.

Enough of that though, i just want ferrari, mclaren and Red bull to have cars of very similar pace next year, would make for an epic championship.

[bhall]

I'll never understand how saying that a driver "is pushing too hard" is somehow a noble excuse for his failures. Pushing too hard is just as bad as not pushing hard enough; both are mistakes to be avoided.

Maybe it's just cold comfort for those who can't stomach the reality that their heroes are mortal human beings.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'll never understand how saying that a driver "is pushing too hard" is somehow a noble excuse for his failures. Pushing too hard is just as bad as not pushing hard enough; both are mistakes to be avoided.

Maybe it's just cold comfort for those who can't stomach the reality that their heroes are mortal human beings.

=D>

[MIKEY_!]

Except that not pushing hard enough is less likely to make you crash. (maybe I'm just being boring )

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Limits are always there. Its a drivers choice to exceed those limits, and once he does that, he lives with the consequences.
Problem is, you look a god one day and an imbecile the next.

Chasing a faster car and losing it to try keep up is admirable, but inexcusable as a reason for failure.

[red748]

This is definately a Vettel era.

I was trackside at the wet 2008 Monza F1 race. Vettel won it in the Torro Rosso,
his first win in F1. I remember being impressed by how Hamilton
worked his way up the order, but Vettel seemingly just filled his sails
and breezed home.

I was also lucky enough to get access into the Redbull pit after Sat qualifying
via a chance encounter with DC's hydraulics engineer, Phil Brown.
He told me there and then that Vettel would be driving the RedBull
the following year.

you can find my trip diary and pics at
freewebs.com/monza2008

I foresee a new thread comparing the Vettel era VS the Schumacher era.

[Mr Alcatraz]

I'll never understand how saying that a driver "is pushing too hard" is somehow a noble excuse for his failures. Pushing too hard is just as bad as not pushing hard enough; both are mistakes to be avoided.

Yea I don't get that at all
It has something to do with, and is similar to an error of aggression.
Kind of like in Baseball, depending upon the score with two outs if the runner on first was going/stealing he would have a very good chance to score from first on a long single. If he gets thrown out at the dish it was an acceptable risk, and an error of aggression, as opposed to an error of omission. But other than that I think the previous post was someone disjointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhr-Zir6mIM

[Spankyham]

The thing that has most impressed me about Vettel has been how much he improves each year and how well he adapts to new conditions. Also there is no doubt that he can be very quick over a Q lap.

On the other hand, his 2 championships have come in a dominant car that has had the benefit of every dubious interpretation of the regulations possible.

People point to Monza 2008 as a defining race, and, although any race win is great, I didn't see his win there as very surprising at all. He was very lucky in that most of the top contenders stuffed up Q, which, along with his Q skills got him pole.

In 2008 the STR was a very handy car, definitely better than the Red Bull. Also, at Monza, where flat out speed is all important, it was the 2nd or 3rd (can't remember which) fastest car, meaning no-one was going to get past it. So, to win, all Seb had to do was not make any mistake. To his credit, he didn't and got the win, but, as I said, for me it wasn't an earth shattering win.

This year will be very telling for him. I don't see RB getting a 3rd year of great interpretations and agreements. They should still be right up there, but I think the racing will be very close, it will be interesting to see how he performs if this is the case.

[raymondu999]

Also, at Monza, where flat out speed is all important, it was the 2nd or 3rd (can't remember which) fastest car, meaning no-one was going to get past it. So, to win, all Seb had to do was not make any mistake. To his credit, he didn't and got the win, but, as I said, for me it wasn't an earth shattering win.

Don't forget that with rain; it's always useful to add more downforce to the car - having a car fast in a straight also means that the setup was reasonably dry.

[Spankyham]

Also, at Monza, where flat out speed is all important, it was the 2nd or 3rd (can't remember which) fastest car, meaning no-one was going to get past it. So, to win, all Seb had to do was not make any mistake. To his credit, he didn't and got the win, but, as I said, for me it wasn't an earth shattering win.

Don't forget that with rain; it's always useful to add more downforce to the car - having a car fast in a straight also means that the setup was reasonably dry.

I see what your point, but, they all setup their car for the race in the wet and, the STR fast in a straight line all year, so, wet or dry it no other car was going to be able to get past him unless he made a mistake - which of course he didn't do

[raymondu999]

they all setup their car for the race in the wet

1. Source?
2. Bourdais, despite having some 9 laps more of fuel, we're up to 4 tenths faster in S2 and S3 - the two sectors which would benefit the most from more wing (Lesmos, Ascari, Parabolica) - that is almost a dead cert for me that Bourdais was on a wet setup, and Vettel on dry
3. Webber had more top speed than Vettel that weekend
4. Vettel categorically said he was on a dry setup, as Toro Rosso thought the race would be dry

[Spankyham]

they all setup their car for the race in the wet

1. Source?
2. Bourdais, despite having some 9 laps more of fuel, we're up to 4 tenths faster in S2 and S3 - the two sectors which would benefit the most from more wing (Lesmos, Ascari, Parabolica) - that is almost a dead cert for me that Bourdais was on a wet setup, and Vettel on dry
3. Webber had more top speed than Vettel that weekend
4. Vettel categorically said he was on a dry setup, as Toro Rosso thought the race would be dry

I don't want to argue that his win wasn't good that day. But, IMO, given the way things panned out so well for him in Q and that he got pole, the win was more expected than a surprise.

On the nitty gritty of your points, again IMO, he had two advantages that outweighed all of them. He was in a car that was very fast in a straight line (pretty important at Monza no matter what the conditions) and he was in front in the wet.

[jamsbong]

I'll never understand how saying that a driver "is pushing too hard" is somehow a noble excuse for his failures. Pushing too hard is just as bad as not pushing hard enough; both are mistakes to be avoided.

Yea I don't get that at all
It has something to do with, and is similar to an error of aggression.
Kind of like in Baseball, depending upon the score with two outs if the runner on first was going/stealing he would have a very good chance to score from first on a long single. If he gets thrown out at the dish it was an acceptable risk, and an error of aggression, as opposed to an error of omission. But other than that I think the previous post was someone disjointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhr-Zir6mIM

Pushing too hard or not enough is a sign of lack of skill/experience and talent. Top champs are always able to stay closer to the limit more often than their opponents. This is why they end up being champions. I know it is a bit out of topic, but in WRC, Loeb manage 8 world championship and it is not because he had a fantastic car but his ability to make lesser mistakes while still remain faster than others.
In the current F1, I see Alonso being consistently pushing the limit. He is always pushing the relatively slow Ferrari to almost match the Mclarens and RBs.

[raymondu999]

Indeed. Often; pushing constantly at 100%; or constantly at 99.99%; is a lot harder than giving it 110%.

[MIKEY_!]

Yes it's that ability to be a consistently great driver that often makes the best what they are. Webber for instance can be hugely quick at times (sometimes only a few laps at occasional races) but usually he is slower than vettel.