Max Verstappen

[Muzzer79]

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

The 2012 Mercedes won a race in China but only scored two other podiums that year - one each for Rosberg and Schumacher. Aside from those 3 rostrum appearances, it's best result was 5th.

Hamilton allegedly made his decision around the 2012 Singapore GP, when his McLaren transmission broke whilst leading. Mercedes only scored one points finish in the six races after Singapore so I'm not sure how that translates as a car getting "better and better"

The McLaren MP4-27 won two of the last six races, plus six top five finishes.

Mercedes had potential, with Brawn and the backing of Mercedes but the point here isn't about potential, it's about risk. Deadslow claims there was none, but there irrefutably was.

The point here IS very much about potential though. After all, they were in prime position to capitalise on the 2014 hybrid era thanks to Ross Brawn's genius, their enormous budget, being a works factory team and having their vast pool of very very talented personnel already in place. People in here underestimate the groundwork and foundations that Ross Brawn laid from 2010 to 2013. Compare that to what McLaren-Mercedes were offering going forwards in terms of resources, sponsorship, customer engines, design direction....

But there was still risk that it wouldn’t work. Nobody had a crystal ball. The 2012 Mercedes showed nothing of what it would be in 2014.

Deadslow’s claim was that there was no risk. For a start, there’s risk in every employer change, F1 or not.

If I was a driver moving to Red Bull for 2024, there’d be risk. Small risk, granted, but still risk.

Moving to Mercedes in 2013 carried a lot more risk. With crystal clear hindsight, it’s easy to say they were always on a winning path, but at the time nobody knew that - it was all could-be, should-be.

[EmailAddress]

Max Verstappen said:

There is not one lap that I pushed flat out. You can’t, it’s impossible.

(Commenting on the Sprint Race yesterday.)

Doesn't bode too well for an interesting Race today.

[PhilAsia]

EmailAddress said:

Max Verstappen said:

There is not one lap that I pushed flat out. You can’t, it’s impossible.

(Commenting on the Sprint Race yesterday.)

Doesn't bode too well for an interesting Race today.

Or through to 2026, sadly.

[A44RON]

Muzzer79 said:

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

The 2012 Mercedes won a race in China but only scored two other podiums that year - one each for Rosberg and Schumacher. Aside from those 3 rostrum appearances, it's best result was 5th.

Hamilton allegedly made his decision around the 2012 Singapore GP, when his McLaren transmission broke whilst leading. Mercedes only scored one points finish in the six races after Singapore so I'm not sure how that translates as a car getting "better and better"

The McLaren MP4-27 won two of the last six races, plus six top five finishes.

Mercedes had potential, with Brawn and the backing of Mercedes but the point here isn't about potential, it's about risk. Deadslow claims there was none, but there irrefutably was.

The point here IS very much about potential though. After all, they were in prime position to capitalise on the 2014 hybrid era thanks to Ross Brawn's genius, their enormous budget, being a works factory team and having their vast pool of very very talented personnel already in place. People in here underestimate the groundwork and foundations that Ross Brawn laid from 2010 to 2013. Compare that to what McLaren-Mercedes were offering going forwards in terms of resources, sponsorship, customer engines, design direction....

But there was still risk that it wouldn’t work. Nobody had a crystal ball. The 2012 Mercedes showed nothing of what it would be in 2014.

Deadslow’s claim was that there was no risk. For a start, there’s risk in every employer change, F1 or not.

If I was a driver moving to Red Bull for 2024, there’d be risk. Small risk, granted, but still risk.

Moving to Mercedes in 2013 carried a lot more risk. With crystal clear hindsight, it’s easy to say they were always on a winning path, but at the time nobody knew that - it was all could-be, should-be.

carried a lot more risk as compared to what? McLaren being a customer team and haemorraging money or as I said previously Ross Brawn spearheading their direction, full works factory backing (crucial for the upcoming hybrid era), very talented key personnel in place, huge budget... when looking at it objectively that's not a greater risk compared to McLaren if that's what you're implying. That's a small risk long-term.

It's not like Mercedes were doing a Toyota in the early-mid 2000s and just had a huge budget without the highly talented resources in place and a genius visionary leading the charge, the foundations at Mercedes were already firmly in place by the time Ross Brawn got the boot and Toto Wolff took over at the end of 2013. Ross doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Edited by A44RON on Saturday 18th November 06:02

[PhilAsia]

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

The 2012 Mercedes won a race in China but only scored two other podiums that year - one each for Rosberg and Schumacher. Aside from those 3 rostrum appearances, it's best result was 5th.

Hamilton allegedly made his decision around the 2012 Singapore GP, when his McLaren transmission broke whilst leading. Mercedes only scored one points finish in the six races after Singapore so I'm not sure how that translates as a car getting "better and better"

The McLaren MP4-27 won two of the last six races, plus six top five finishes.

Mercedes had potential, with Brawn and the backing of Mercedes but the point here isn't about potential, it's about risk. Deadslow claims there was none, but there irrefutably was.

The point here IS very much about potential though. After all, they were in prime position to capitalise on the 2014 hybrid era thanks to Ross Brawn's genius, their enormous budget, being a works factory team and having their vast pool of very very talented personnel already in place. People in here underestimate the groundwork and foundations that Ross Brawn laid from 2010 to 2013. Compare that to what McLaren-Mercedes were offering going forwards in terms of resources, sponsorship, customer engines, design direction....

But there was still risk that it wouldn’t work. Nobody had a crystal ball. The 2012 Mercedes showed nothing of what it would be in 2014.

Deadslow’s claim was that there was no risk. For a start, there’s risk in every employer change, F1 or not.

If I was a driver moving to Red Bull for 2024, there’d be risk. Small risk, granted, but still risk.

Moving to Mercedes in 2013 carried a lot more risk. With crystal clear hindsight, it’s easy to say they were always on a winning path, but at the time nobody knew that - it was all could-be, should-be.

carried a lot more risk as compared to what? McLaren being a customer team and haemorraging money or as I said previously Ross Brawn spearheading their direction, full works factory backing (crucial for the upcoming hybrid era), very talented key personnel in place, huge budget... when looking at it objectively that's not a greater risk compared to McLaren if that's what you're implying. That's a small risk long-term.

It's not like Mercedes were doing a Toyota in the early-mid 2000s and just had a huge budget without the highly talented resources in place and a genius visionary leading the charge, the foundations at Mercedes were already firmly in place by the time Ross Brawn got the boot and Toto Wolff took over at the end of 2013. Ross doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Edited by A44RON on Saturday 18th November 06:02

"long-term"

[A44RON]

PhilAsia said:

"long-term"

well it was never going to be a one-year deal before the Hybrid regs came in, lets be honest

[Muzzer79]

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

A44RON said:

Muzzer79 said:

The 2012 Mercedes won a race in China but only scored two other podiums that year - one each for Rosberg and Schumacher. Aside from those 3 rostrum appearances, it's best result was 5th.

Hamilton allegedly made his decision around the 2012 Singapore GP, when his McLaren transmission broke whilst leading. Mercedes only scored one points finish in the six races after Singapore so I'm not sure how that translates as a car getting "better and better"

The McLaren MP4-27 won two of the last six races, plus six top five finishes.

Mercedes had potential, with Brawn and the backing of Mercedes but the point here isn't about potential, it's about risk. Deadslow claims there was none, but there irrefutably was.

The point here IS very much about potential though. After all, they were in prime position to capitalise on the 2014 hybrid era thanks to Ross Brawn's genius, their enormous budget, being a works factory team and having their vast pool of very very talented personnel already in place. People in here underestimate the groundwork and foundations that Ross Brawn laid from 2010 to 2013. Compare that to what McLaren-Mercedes were offering going forwards in terms of resources, sponsorship, customer engines, design direction....

But there was still risk that it wouldn’t work. Nobody had a crystal ball. The 2012 Mercedes showed nothing of what it would be in 2014.

Deadslow’s claim was that there was no risk. For a start, there’s risk in every employer change, F1 or not.

If I was a driver moving to Red Bull for 2024, there’d be risk. Small risk, granted, but still risk.

Moving to Mercedes in 2013 carried a lot more risk. With crystal clear hindsight, it’s easy to say they were always on a winning path, but at the time nobody knew that - it was all could-be, should-be.

carried a lot more risk as compared to what? McLaren being a customer team and haemorraging money or as I said previously Ross Brawn spearheading their direction, full works factory backing (crucial for the upcoming hybrid era), very talented key personnel in place, huge budget... when looking at it objectively that's not a greater risk compared to McLaren if that's what you're implying. That's a small risk long-term.

It's not like Mercedes were doing a Toyota in the early-mid 2000s and just had a huge budget without the highly talented resources in place and a genius visionary leading the charge, the foundations at Mercedes were already firmly in place by the time Ross Brawn got the boot and Toto Wolff took over at the end of 2013. Ross doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Edited by A44RON on Saturday 18th November 06:02

Carried a lot more risk than the example I gave of moving to Red Bull in 2024…..

The indisputable fact is that moving from a multi-race winning team that wins the last race of the season to another team that barely troubled the podium was a risk.

It was claimed there was no risk. There clearly, absolutely was.

Ross Brawn, works backing and all that are wonderful in hindsight. But Honda had all that in 2008 and joining them wouldn’t have turned out so rosily…..

The foundations were there but there were absolutely no guarantees. There never can be, hence there is risk.

[NRS]

Muzzer79 said:

Carried a lot more risk than the example I gave of moving to Red Bull in 2024…..

The indisputable fact is that moving from a multi-race winning team that wins the last race of the season to another team that barely troubled the podium was a risk.

It was claimed there was no risk. There clearly, absolutely was.

Ross Brawn, works backing and all that are wonderful in hindsight. But Honda had all that in 2008 and joining them wouldn’t have turned out so rosily…..

The foundations were there but there were absolutely no guarantees. There never can be, hence there is risk.

I’d assume the same posters would say there was little risk going to Renault for Danny too? Works team, own engine, lots of money going into it… worked out from memory?

[Bo_apex]

A44RON said:

carried a lot more risk as compared to what? McLaren being a customer team and haemorraging money or as I said previously Ross Brawn spearheading their direction, full works factory backing (crucial for the upcoming hybrid era), very talented key personnel in place, huge budget... when looking at it objectively that's not a greater risk compared to McLaren if that's what you're implying. That's a small risk long-term.

It's not like Mercedes were doing a Toyota in the early-mid 2000s and just had a huge budget without the highly talented resources in place and a genius visionary leading the charge, the foundations at Mercedes were already firmly in place by the time Ross Brawn got the boot and Toto Wolff took over at the end of 2013. Ross doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Edited by A44RON on Saturday 18th November 06:02

^^this^^

There is also risk by staying in the same place.

McLaren were never going to slug it out against the works Mercedes.

[PlywoodPascal]

you need only look at the media coverage of the move at the time to see that the general consensus was that moving to Mercedes was at best a huge risk or at worst going to be a career-ending move. It was viewed similarly to Ricciardo moving to Renault or Villeneuve moving to BAR.

[Bo_apex]

PlywoodPascal said:

you need only look at the media coverage of the move at the time to see that the general consensus was that moving to Mercedes was at best a huge risk or at worst going to be a career-ending move. It was viewed similarly to Ricciardo moving to Renault or Villeneuve moving to BAR.

consensus schmensus

Lauda was correct.

[MarkwG]

PlywoodPascal said:

you need only look at the media coverage of the move at the time to see that the general consensus was that moving to Mercedes was at best a huge risk or at worst going to be a career-ending move. It was viewed similarly to Ricciardo moving to Renault or Villeneuve moving to BAR.

You're wasting your time: contrarians will always ignore evidence.

[HustleRussell]

If we're talking about Hamilton in the Verstappen thread again...

Hamilton's career reminds me of that famous saying- "The harder I work, the luckier I get".

People like to characterise Hamilton a particular way but if you listen to any of his team mates, current or former, they are all astounded how hard he works.

In modern F1 you can rack up quite a tally given the right circumstances, but achieving success over such a long period for more than one team does not happen by accident.

[Muzzer79]

Bo_apex said:

PlywoodPascal said:

you need only look at the media coverage of the move at the time to see that the general consensus was that moving to Mercedes was at best a huge risk or at worst going to be a career-ending move. It was viewed similarly to Ricciardo moving to Renault or Villeneuve moving to BAR.

consensus schmensus

Lauda was correct.

Indeed he was.

But he wasn’t correct when he was at Jaguar. Nor when he was at Ferrari.

So, perhaps not a bloke you’d stake your career on?

This isn’t about who was right or wrong with hindsight. With hindsight, of course it was a good idea.

But nobody knew that at the time and it’s a fact that the consensus was that Hamilton was taking a big risk.

But I’m sure you’ll come up with some convoluted reasoning built on sand that, in your mind, makes your point…..

[PhilAsia]

Muzzer79 said:

Bo_apex said:

PlywoodPascal said:

you need only look at the media coverage of the move at the time to see that the general consensus was that moving to Mercedes was at best a huge risk or at worst going to be a career-ending move. It was viewed similarly to Ricciardo moving to Renault or Villeneuve moving to BAR.

consensus schmensus

Lauda was correct.

Indeed he was.

But he wasn’t correct when he was at Jaguar. Nor when he was at Ferrari.

So, perhaps not a bloke you’d stake your career on?

This isn’t about who was right or wrong with hindsight. With hindsight, of course it was a good idea.

But nobody knew that at the time and it’s a fact that the consensus was that Hamilton was taking a big risk.

But I’m sure you’ll come up with some convoluted reasoning built on sand that, in your mind, makes your point…..

...well it is BA you're endeavouring to reason with. Any point relating to LH and he has all circuitry melt down.

I wasn't shocked, just irritated with Max' first corner move. Hugely unsubtle and was relying on all stewards/commentators sagely pointing out that the track was green/full tanks/first corner of first lap, etc. However, those were all known issues and, as one of the best drivers in the world, he should have been able to err on the side of caution to stay within the rules - not blatantly ignore them and expect to be allowed to do so...., because MV (after winning the race it is easy to be conciliatory). Reminiscent of his banzai self-entitled, hot-headed Brazil 2021 incident, but more mature and slightly calmer .

Then, there was the incident when George turned into him where he should have shown more circumspection.

Apart from those two glitches, I was very impressed with the rest of his race though.

[RB Will]

Feels a bit of a biased view. I can’t imagine you said similar when A.N. Other driver has done same or worse in the past?

[HustleRussell]

RB Will said:

Feels a bit of a biased view. I can’t imagine you said similar when A.N. Other driver has done same or worse in the past?

Why can't you imagine that? I for one was very critical of Hamilton in his understeer era (Rosberg years). I am a competitor at club level, do you think I want that move to become an accepted part of the motorsport playbook?

The penalty for that needs to be a deterrent. We need to have drivers giving the place back at the earliest possible opportunity for fear of a severe penalty which will cost them the place, no matter what the collateral damage to their race.

"That was six laps ago- I can't let him past now, there's another competitor in between"- That's on you buddy, should've given up the place immediately, you now have to give up both places. If you don't do that we will give you a time penalty at the flag which is however long it needs to be to place you behind the driver you originally wronged.

I have seen IIRC a penalty of 6 or 7 seconds in a club race because that was how long the penalty needed to be to slot the driver in behind the competitor in question.

Edited by HustleRussell on Wednesday 22 November 09:45

[Muzzer79]

HustleRussell said:

The penalty for that needs to be a deterrent. We need to have drivers giving the place back at the earliest possible opportunity for fear of a severe penalty which will cost them the place, no matter what the collateral damage to their race.

"That was six laps ago- I can't let him past now, there's another competitor in between"- That's on you buddy, should've given up the place immediately, you now have to give up both places. If you don't do that we will give you a time penalty at the flag which is however long it needs to be to place you behind the driver you originally wronged.

I agree with your sentiment, however I can forsee a problem on marginal calls.

Everyone is trying to push the envelope - we want that, this is the pinnacle of motorsport after all.

So if you try a move that is 50/50 in terms of outcome of a penalty or not - do you cede the place when you could potentially have kept it? Or drive on and see what happens?

The over-riding consensus now (including from Max) seems to be to do the latter and deal with the penalty - perhaps because the penalty isn't strong enough but also because one might get away with it.

It's a difficult one. Whilst Max's driving frustrates me sometimes (primarily because I think he has the talent to not need to resort to such tactics) I also applaud him for having a go.

It's his defensive tactics and hypocrisy in terms of what he expects from other drivers which I think are more of an issue.....

[HustleRussell]

We have seen a number of instances this season where drivers have made questionable moves and just banked the 5 second penalty because it was better for them in their circumstances. Russell at least once (COTA?) for example. Why are we giving teams this choice? A 5 second penalty can be immediately calculated and as it is the team can choose whichever penalty is the lesser.

[PhilAsia]

RB Will said:

Feels a bit of a biased view. I can’t imagine you said similar when A.N. Other driver has done same or worse in the past?

I agree, it is biased. A.N.Other was far, far more skirting the edge of the rules (giving them a good ol' fashioned rimming). But when he did occasionally transgress badly, I was just as unimpressed - in fact, in 2011 I was hugely disappointed, and vocal, about his absolutely st driving and had it continued I would not have continued to support him as a sportmanlike and accomplished driver.

Quite often Max drives like he part of the Third Reich, permanently violating Others' (including A.N) borders...