Is Vettel overrated? What do you think

[Nando]

I don't know what it is about Vettel and Hamilton fans, but the false logic (not to mention the bogus facts) often employed when they discuss their heroes makes my head spin. It also makes me glad I missed the days of Schumacher dominance, because I imagine that --- was even worse.

One can give those drivers all the reasonable credit in the world, but, for some reason, it's not enough. They must be anointed as the second-coming in the eyes of those who readily drop to their knees in worship to satiate their fellatious cravings. I think it's unhealthy.

You have two drivers, neither of whom have been around for even six full years, and they've both enjoyed advantages not usually seen in the world of Formula One. Neither had early Minardi or Jordan days as is often the case when a driver breaks into F1. They both debuted in good, if not great, cars - Vettel's first run for BMW was in a good car. They've both benefited enormously from the designer almost universally acclaimed as the best F1 has ever seen - MP4-22 and MP4-23, Hamilton's weapons during his best years to-date, were clear evolutions of Newey's design work at McLaren. They've both been the sole focus of the vast majority of their teams' efforts.

To their credit, they've made the most of the opportunities given to them, and that's all you can really ask of a driver. But, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't go any further than that...yet. I want to see them away from Newey's influence for one thing. Hamilton's been no more than solid thus far in his non-Newey experience, and Vettel has virtually no non-Newey experience.

So, forgive me if I'm not exactly pushing for a front-row seat to either one of these guy's coronation ceremonies. My respect must be earned.

False logic?

Whenever Alonso has gotten a teammate that is close to him in speed he has had trouble.
With Trulli and with Hamilton. How do you explain that? He´s only superior when he´s "alone" in the team.

Do you have to run 15 years in a Minardi to be certified or is that just BS on your part?

[mnmracer]

The problem, as pointed out before, is that aside from qualifying (and only then in general), these statistics are completely without context, and every instance is given equal weight. For instance, Michael Schumacher is given -2.000 for his 1 race in Jordan, in which he outqualified his team mate, but only made it around the first corner. Similarly, aparantly Fernando beating Alex Yoong at Minardi is equally impressive as him beating Jacques Villeneuve at Renault, and more impressive than any team mate Ayrton Senna has ever beaten? Lastly, awarding points has become utterly pointless since 2010 (refueling ban), but even before took nothing regarding finishing (or not) into account.

These stats are interesting in aiding to make an analysis, but on their own, they're useless.

Indeed. He's a great driver. I don't think anyone has ever argued against that.

33 people in this poll alone have.

It's never been my goal to disparage Vettel. I just want to see objectivity take precedence over fantasy.

Yet all you do is go to lengths to put everything down to the car, a standard you only appear to aply to Vettel (not very objective). That right there, is why you and I often find ourselves at odds. Now do you maybe understand?

[bhall]

The problem, as pointed out before, is that aside from qualifying (and only then in general), these statistics are completely without context, and every instance is given equal weight. For instance, Michael Schumacher is given -2.000 for his 1 race in Jordan, in which he outqualified his team mate, but only made it around the first corner. Similarly, aparantly Fernando beating Alex Yoong at Minardi is equally impressive as him beating Jacques Villeneuve at Renault, and more impressive than any team mate Ayrton Senna has ever beaten? Lastly, awarding points has become utterly pointless since 2010 (refueling ban), but even before took nothing regarding finishing (or not) into account.

These stats are interesting in aiding to make an analysis, but on their own, they're useless.

The numbers are by no means an exhaustive measure of a driver's success, because there are simply too many variables in F1 for such a statistic to ever exist. But, given at least an elementary understanding of the varied dynamics that exist from one team to another, I do think they provide a reasonable window to a driver's performance.

I think the best way to use them is to compare driver X's numbers with those of his teammate before/after they were teammates. That's a good indicator of relative strength and weakness. (Just take care not to tangle yourself up in the web of associations lest you find yourself in the F1 equivalent of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.)

[...]

It's never been my goal to disparage Vettel. I just want to see objectivity take precedence over fantasy.

Yet all you do is go to lengths to put everything down to the car, a standard you only appear to aply to Vettel (not very objective). That right there, is why you and I often find ourselves at odds. Now do you maybe understand?

[...]

Since then he's woken himself out of his crash kid title in 2010, and dominated 2011.

I wonder - what do people think nowadays?

It's a complicated subject. The RB7 was a fantastic car, easily on par with the MP4/4 and the F2004. It was so good, in fact, there was virtually no way it could lose. Accordingly, there's no way to deny the substantial wrinkle that adds to any evaluation.

That said, Vettel went out and did exactly what he was supposed to do with it, and that's all you can ever ask of any driver.

I'll put it like this: both Vettel and the RB7 did everything right last year. It was a peerless combination, and both the car and its driver deserved every accolade they received. However, the car impressed me more than the driver.

[...]

However, Vettel did everything he was supposed to do. One can't knock those efforts just because his car was divine.

These things all make any comparisons extremely difficult, if not futile altogether.

[...]

I think one thing most can agree on is that Vettel is probably the most difficult driver to rate in F1. He is capable of, and has regularly demonstrated, staggering speed. At the same time, though, he's shown himself to have difficulty displaying that speed under less than ideal conditions, even though his teammate has often taken those same conditions with the same car and blossomed. Those two traits stand in such stark contrast to each other that it's hard to know which is the more accurate representation.

Part of that's human nature, I suppose. We all can stand and applaud a driver who uses the tools he's been given to do exactly what he's supposed to do with them. But, we tend to be positively riveted by a driver who uses the tools he's been given to do something no one thought possible. Vettel has tons of experience with the former, virtually none with the latter and can't really be faulted for either.

See, it's not a knock against Vettel when I ask such a question. Regardless of how or why, he led all Red Bull drivers in 2008.

I just find it difficult to make any sort of qualitative judgments about him. He's been handed every conceivable advantage throughout his entire F1 career, and, to his credit, he's made the most of it.

But, I have no idea what that means overall.

[SeijaKessen]

Yet all you do is go to lengths to put everything down to the car, a standard you only appear to aply to Vettel (not very objective). That right there, is why you and I often find ourselves at odds. Now do you maybe understand?

If you look a few pages back, I actually compared Vettel to Nigel Mansell in that both benefited more often than not, in having front-running cars. Vettel's 2011 was comparable to Mansell's 1992 season in having the best car on the grid by a country mile.

Whenever I think of 1992, I think more about the Williams FW-14B than I do about Mansell. He just happened to be the guy who lucked out in piloting the car. 2011 I will think more of the EBD RB7 than I will about Vettel. He did the job he was supposed to do, there was nothing particularly awe-inspiring about his drives. Certainly it was a fantastic season, statistically speaking, but it's easy to dominate when no other team is fielding a car on par with one car.

[bhall]

[What I said]

False logic?

Whenever Alonso has gotten a teammate that is close to him in speed he has had trouble.
With Trulli and with Hamilton. How do you explain that? He´s only superior when he´s "alone" in the team.

Do you have to run 15 years in a Minardi to be certified or is that just BS on your part?

The "false logic" wasn't for you.

I don't explain Alonso's form, because I've said nothing about it here one way or the other. It's immaterial to this discussion.

That said, he wins when his car allows it. He doesn't win when his car doesn't allow it. That's Formula One in a nutshell. It's quite simple.

And, come on; I didn't say anything about any sort of backmarker certification. When people invoke "youngest this" and "youngest that," it's important to note the fact that they began their careers in cars that allowed such records to be broken. It's a distinct advantage, don't you think?

[Morteza]

Yet all you do is go to lengths to put everything down to the car, a standard you only appear to aply to Vettel (not very objective). That right there, is why you and I often find ourselves at odds. Now do you maybe understand?

If you look a few pages back, I actually compared Vettel to Nigel Mansell in that both benefited more often than not, in having front-running cars. Vettel's 2011 was comparable to Mansell's 1992 season in having the best car on the grid by a country mile.

Whenever I think of 1992, I think more about the Williams FW-14B than I do about Mansell. He just happened to be the guy who lucked out in piloting the car. 2011 I will think more of the EBD RB7 than I will about Vettel. He did the job he was supposed to do, there was nothing particularly awe-inspiring about his drives. Certainly it was a fantastic season, statistically speaking, but it's easy to dominate when no other team is fielding a car on par with one car.

I really like the comparison you made between Vettel and Mansell. Given the facts you provided, they are very similar drivers.

[Nando]

And, come on; I didn't say anything about any sort of backmarker certification. When people invoke "youngest this" and "youngest that," it's important to note the fact that they began their careers in cars that allowed such records to be broken. It's a distinct advantage, don't you think?

Yea that i can´t speak on, i´m with you on that one. I did not even recall anyone using that as an argument
It would not even make nonsense to use the youngest records as a yard stick.


But it´s just that you seem to disregard Alonso from the equation simply because he´s been in a Minardi and fought his way up or have been in F1 7 more years. It´s like you separate him from the other two.

Both Hamilton and Vettel has now been in F1 for 5 years, that´s more then enough to remove the experience factor in my opinion.

All three of them has won in cars that really wasn´t the fastest car that year. All three have done amazing performances in cars not really up to the job.
Therefore i think all three should be talked about without any of the driver´s excluded from the equation.

They have consistently proven that they are the best out there right now. All three have proven that if you give them a car they will win the championship, if you give them a very bad car they will still show their skills in it.

Maybe i have just miss-interpreted your comments but again, it does seem you separate two from the other.

[bhall]

But it´s just that you seem to disregard Alonso from the equation simply because he´s been in a Minardi and fought his way up or have been in F1 7 more years. It´s like you separate him from the other two.

When a driver has been with four teams over the course of 11 years and experienced different levels of competitiveness, it's a helluva lot easier to make judgments about their career one way or the other. That's what having a considerable body of work allows.

Vettel and Hamilton simply aren't there yet. But, it's not their fault. Chronology happens. As their careers progress, they will inevitably gain more experience and build on their respective bodies of work. That's when I'll have something more complimentary to say than, "They're great drivers."

Why is that not enough? Why is it so important to immediately hand drivers an exalted status. Relax. Enjoy the show. Let it all unfold.

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.)

[Nando]

When a driver has been with four teams over the course of 11 years and experienced different levels of competitiveness, it's a helluva lot easier to make judgments about their career one way or the other. That's what having a considerable body of work allows.

Vettel and Hamilton simply aren't there yet. But, it's not their fault. Chronology happens. As their careers progress, they will inevitably gain more experience and build on their respective bodies of work. That's when I'll say something other than, "They're great drivers."

Why is that not enough? Why is it so important to immediately hand drivers an exalted status. Relax. Enjoy the show. Let it all unfold.

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.)

Sure but what did you take from those 11 years?

And how do you see the year 2007.
Arguably Hamilton has proven in black and white that he is indeed just as good over a season, if not better then Alonso in the same machine.

We can definitely say that Alonso is the more complete driver. But, what weight does that carry if you can´t beat your teammate?
See where i´m coming from?

[SeijaKessen]

When a driver has been with four teams over the course of 11 years and experienced different levels of competitiveness, it's a helluva lot easier to make judgments about their career one way or the other. That's what having a considerable body of work allows.

Vettel and Hamilton simply aren't there yet. But, it's not their fault. Chronology happens. As their careers progress, they will inevitably gain more experience and build on their respective bodies of work. That's when I'll say something other than, "They're great drivers."

Why is that not enough? Why is it so important to immediately hand drivers an exalted status. Relax. Enjoy the show. Let it all unfold.

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.)

Sure but what did you take from those 11 years?

And how do you see the year 2007.
Arguably Hamilton has proven in black and white that he is indeed just as good over a season, if not better then Alonso in the same machine.

We can definitely say that Alonso is the more complete driver. But, what weight does that carry if you can´t beat your teammate?
See where i´m coming from?

To be quite honest Nando, you're viewing this in a black and white manner, when the truth is rarely as simple as you have been trying to make it out to be.

Hamilton's two best seasons were 2007 and 2008.

He had more combined wins in his first 2 seasons than he has had in the last 3 1/2 combined.

Since going 2nd, and then 1st in the WDC, he has done 5th, 4th, 5th, and is currently in 4th.

If his career ended tomorrow, about the only thing that could be said about him is that he started off his F1 career in a spectacular fashion, and then found himself in respectable positions after then, but was never able to recapture the glory of those first two seasons. Then in another 15-20 years, he would be just another footnote in F1 history.

What we're currently seeing with Fernando Alonso is the type of body of work being laid down on a consistent basis, that the truly great drivers achieve.

Now, it's not to say Hamilton may not wind up with a similar body of work, but realistically, it's too early to definitively say where his career is going. His career arc might mirror that of Jacques Villeneuve for all we know.

[Nando]

Actually you are the one using statistics now.

07-08 was obviously the most succesful years because those cars were the most competitive compared to the rest of the field.

Just as you would say Alonso´s best year was 05-06.

what i´m simply comparing is 2 drivers, same car, 1 will come out on top.
Now you can make a case saying they are equal and i would be stupid to argue against that, but it still can´t be ignored that Hamilton in exactly the same equipment matched Alonso in his first year.

He would also not be just another footnote in F1. Gilles Villenueve is also another footnote in F1?
He won six races in his career. Does that make him any less of a driver?

[SeijaKessen]

Actually you are the one using statistics now.

07-08 was obviously the most succesful years because those cars were the most competitive compared to the rest of the field.

Just as you would say Alonso´s best year was 05-06.

what i´m simply comparing is 2 drivers, same car, 1 will come out on top.
Now you can make a case saying they are equal and i would be stupid to argue against that, but it still can´t be ignored that Hamilton in exactly the same equipment matched Alonso in his first year.

He would also not be just another footnote in F1. Gilles Villenueve is also another footnote in F1?
He won six races in his career. Does that make him any less of a driver?

Statistics are helpful to explain things when the fanboys get glassy-eyed and weak in the knees when it comes to discussing their drivers. I also do not recall saying anything negative about statistics. I'm simply trying to bring an account in that is at odds with what you and several others have been gushing over.

I don't dispute Alonso's two best seasons being 2005 and 2006. However, 2012 is shaping up to be a very good season in spite of how things looked in February/March.

Perhaps it can't be ignored that he matched Alonso in his first year, but, Gerhard Berger very nearly matched Ayrton Senna in 1992. 20 years later, would you say Berger was the equal of Senna? No. See how important hindsight is, as well as the need to avoid stark proclamations in the middle of a driver's career?

Yes HE WOULD BE A FOOTNOTE.

Do you even remember Alan Jones, who won the 1980 World Championship?

Very few people do.

He managed to sandwich the WDC with two good seasons, and then was relegated to the history books with nary a mention save for those interested in the history of F1.

There's a lot of talented drivers who drove in F1 that unfortunately peaked too early, or never peaked at all, and simply are not remembered the way people in that time period may have thought.

Gilles Villeneuve isn't a footnote because anyone who saw him drive knows he wasn't just another good driver. He was spectacular in every sense of the word, and drove a dog of a car to victory at Jarama back in '81, something I've yet to see Vettel or Hamilton do.

Right now, for Hamilton, we've got a Jacques Villeneuve career arc in play. Much like Villeneuve, Hamilton finished 2nd in his first season, won the WDC in his 2nd, and then managed a few average seasons before winding up as an average midfield driver.

For Vettel, we've got the Nigel Mansell career arc in play.

[Nando]

Actually you are the one using statistics now.

07-08 was obviously the most succesful years because those cars were the most competitive compared to the rest of the field.

Just as you would say Alonso´s best year was 05-06.

what i´m simply comparing is 2 drivers, same car, 1 will come out on top.
Now you can make a case saying they are equal and i would be stupid to argue against that, but it still can´t be ignored that Hamilton in exactly the same equipment matched Alonso in his first year.

He would also not be just another footnote in F1. Gilles Villenueve is also another footnote in F1?
He won six races in his career. Does that make him any less of a driver?

Statistics are helpful to explain things when the fanboys get glassy-eyed and weak in the knees when it comes to discussing their drivers. I also do not recall saying anything negative about statistics. I'm simply trying to bring an account in that is at odds with what you and several others have been gushing over.

I don't dispute Alonso's two best seasons being 2005 and 2006. However, 2012 is shaping up to be a very good season in spite of how things looked in February/March.

Perhaps it can't be ignored that he matched Alonso in his first year, but, Gerhard Berger very nearly matched Ayrton Senna in 1992. 20 years later, would you say Berger was the equal of Senna? No. See how important hindsight is, as well as the need to avoid stark proclamations in the middle of a driver's career?

Yes HE WOULD BE A FOOTNOTE.

Do you even remember Alan Jones, who won the 1980 World Championship?

Very few people do.

He managed to sandwich the WDC with two good seasons, and then was relegated to the history books with nary a mention save for those interested in the history of F1.

There's a lot of talented drivers who drove in F1 that unfortunately peaked too early, or never peaked at all, and simply are not remembered the way people in that time period may have thought.

Gilles Villeneuve isn't a footnote because anyone who saw him drive knows he wasn't just another good driver. He was spectacular in every sense of the word, and drove a dog of a car to victory at Jarama back in '81, something I've yet to see Vettel or Hamilton do.

Right now, for Hamilton, we've got a Jacques Villeneuve career arc in play. Much like Villeneuve, Hamilton finished 2nd in his first season, won the WDC in his 2nd, and then managed a few average seasons before winding up as an average midfield driver.

For Vettel, we've got the Nigel Mansell career arc in play.

Ok i was actually going to reply but then i read this and decided not to, it´s just no point. Ill just sit back and laugh a little if that is ok.

"Gilles Villeneuve isn't a footnote because anyone who saw him drive knows he wasn't just another good driver."

[SeijaKessen]

For the record, were it not for the fact that Gilles Villeneuve was a gentleman driver, he would have had more wins than 6.

The ability to drive dog cars/cars not setup well to finishes they should not be in, is what separates the men (Villeneuve, Senna, Peterson, Alonso) from the boys (Vettel, Hamilton).

Both Vettel and Hamilton cry when things do not go their way...which is also indicative of those who have been given everything in life, so they are not quite accustomed of how to deal with adversity when it comes along. Instead they sulk in the corner like a spoiled brat when things don't go their way. Would you like to know what the huge difference was between those two and many other drivers from the past? A lot of the greats had to claw their way to the top. Nothing came easy for them, and to be quite honest, that is what helped to define them as great drivers; adversity. The ability to pull it together when things are not all roses, is what marks a true champion. Anyone can be gracious in victory, being gracious in defeat is another matter.

[Nando]

Oh you have no idea what could have been started here....

For once i decided to walk away, not because of defeat, this isn´t a battlefield or a fist fight, it´s a discussion.

Or atleast it was, now it´s just a broken tape recorder regurgitating same old sh*t.