Sebastian Vettel
Discussion
jsf said:
The Williams Senna died in was a nasty handling car, it took a long time to sort it out.
I can't see the evidence to support that. Damon Hill won six races and finished second in a further six driving the same car as Ayrton Senna. He finished second in the F1 championship just one point behind Michael Schumacher. Muzzer79 said:
Are you saying that if AN turned up at your team, you’d tell him to sling his hook?
I certainly wouldn’t.
Newey has a habit of creating dogs as well as superstars. In any case, a modern team isn't ever going to be Newey and a pocket full of HBs. If I had to take one design team from the paddock, it wouldn't be Red Bull's (I'd take the obvious one).I certainly wouldn’t.
Wonder whether Vettel is hoping Mercedes lose some of their mojo when Toto steps back a bit? Otherwise you're stuck in a 'B' team and I'm not sure that's where Vettel ought to be, if he's in F1 at all.
Mercedes strength is in their structure of competent departments, it's far more a team of specialists than a single focal point.
When key people move on, they continue to dominate, because the structure is there to absorb and evolve.
It's the perfect expression of how competent management of a business produces world beating performance.
When key people move on, they continue to dominate, because the structure is there to absorb and evolve.
It's the perfect expression of how competent management of a business produces world beating performance.
RichB said:
Off at a tangent I know but it was when they started banning innovations like active suspension that F1 started to go downhill. I remember the Brabham fan car. Okay it was banned, probably for a good reason: it spat stones up into the face of oncoming drivers but boy was it innovative! F1 should be all about allowing the engineers and designers to come up with ever more creative ways to gain an advantage. Not about making some bloody rubber hoops last another 3 laps! I love it still, but boy I wish Liberty would relax the reigns somewhat... 'Righto, back to what you were doing' 
The Brabham fan car was not banned, Bernie withdrew it as part of his power play negotiations.It did not spit stones out, that was a made up story by the Lotus drivers to try and get it banned.
RichB said:
k, I consider my wrists duly slapped, it was over 40 years ago and I'm happy to say my memory has been somewhat dulled over the year by a pleasant lifestyle. Now, what have you to say about the main point of my post, i.e. curbing innovation in F!? Or, simply ignore me, I won't be offended, and we'l return to discussing Sebastian Vettel 
It's a constant fight between the competitor and the rule maker to keep the speeds under control without destroying the DNA.I think the rules are far too tight now, but don't see that improving, in fact its getting worse with the 2022 cars.
RichB said:
I fail to understand is why the rule makers battle to keep speeds under control? It's a nonsense, and therefore something I struggle with. A driver could inevitably be killed crashing at 190mph as 220mph.
There is a genuine reason and it's to do with the laws of physics. Momentum = Mass x Velocity. So far so good, but it's only part of the story.
Kinetic Energy increases with the SQUARE of velocity, meaning the amount of Force involved in a collision absolutely rockets as cars get faster. This means that if a car is going quickly enough it become impossible to conceive any viable form of catch fence or crash barrier which could keep the car out of the grandstands. Similarly it becomes impossible to conceive any helmet or driver restraint system which will prevent destruction of his brain against his own skull or destruction of his internal organs against the seat belts. Pretty much all forms of motor racing have concluded that about 200 mph is the maximum practicable speed consistent with a reasonable level of safety.
Teddy Lop said:
I've a feeling they might have mandated a V10, but it was after ferrari had found they couldn't make a V12 work at 3 litres and switched to V10s, as it was what killed the cosworth DFV. I could be rong though.
The DFV ran out of development potential and was properly trounced during the turbo era.The last F1 car to win a race with a DFV was the Tyrrell 011 in 1983, using the engine in DFY spec.
When turbo engines were banned, they introduced the 3.5 litre formula where the best layout was the V10, those were pegged back with rpm limits and eventually ever smaller capacities meant the V8 made the better compromise before we moved to the current V6 hybrids.
The DFV engine architecture lived on in turbo form in Indycar and was also used in F3000, there was also a long stroke version used in sportscar racing.
RichB said:
hanks 
mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago?
Yes, Indycar runs a higher maximum speed than, for instance, NASCAR which tops out around 205 mph. This is to some extent offset by their lower weight. I believe the absolute vMax for F1 is up towards Indycar on some long straights although cornering speeds are typically much lower than on an oval. mind you were not the IndyCars hitting 220 at Indianapolis 500 a couple of weeks ago? As someone just mentioned above the "Safer" barriers used in North America are an astounding piece of engineering. Most NASCAR circuits (certainly the ovals) have barrier all the way round, including the 2.5 mile ones like Daytona, Pocono and Talladega. Indy is a bit of an oddity in that Indianapolis itself still has concrete walls on the straights. In big impacts you can see a wave of energy moving along the barrier.
There are some stretches of Safer Barrier at Le Mans, for instance in the Porsche Curves, and I've seen some short sections at F1 circuits as well. They don't need repairing after a collision, avoiding long race interruptions.
Exige77 said:
Maybe Charles is so much quicker because he’s so much quicker ?
Ferrari want to win the WCC more than anything, that means getting points with both cars.
Ferrari might have a history of dodgy deeds but only to help them get what they want which is wins or points.
Was there a significant difference in pace between the two last year? The handling behaviour of the car would have to change massively in CLC's favour for the gap to be explained by driving alone. I know we're talking about a driver who thrived on blown diffusers, but he is also a 4 time world champion, he made KR look haggard and past it at Ferrari. He knows how to drive quickly.Ferrari want to win the WCC more than anything, that means getting points with both cars.
Ferrari might have a history of dodgy deeds but only to help them get what they want which is wins or points.
Something is not right.
So in RB's dominant years he got to the front and drove away. He repeatedly makes mistakes under pressure and can't get the best out of a car that is not 100% suited to him.
[/quote]
2 of the 4 years were very hard fought.
There are few drivers who can really get an F1 car that isn't suited to them to work properly - none of them are currently on the grid. One is returning next year, though.
Gazzab said:
Stroll isn’t top tier. If Vettel is really still top tier then he needs to prove it by way of decent margins.
It doesnt matter whether it's 1 second or one thousandth of a second in pace, either way. If Vettel gets more points on the board, that's what AM are paying him for. C350Akra said:
One of my points is that the RB in all 4 of those years was so much better then any other car it should not have been a hard fought battle, ergo, SV is not good enough to make it easy.
That's just nonsense - I think there's some very biased views being posted.In the Red Bull years, it was vastly more competitive - not because Seb is slow or prone to mistakes, but because the much simpler cars meant many more drivers and teams had a shot at wins. Plus we still had the unpredictability of engine blow ups, too. Let us also not forget that Red Bull were a customer team.
2010 had 3 different cars and 6 different drivers winning races in the first 7 races. And in 3 of the 4 years, his team mate (a not too shabby Webber) was nowhere.
I do still wonder if Mercedes will be found to have been cheating the power plant rules for years - are Ferrari just unlucky to have been caught? I find it very odd that Mercedes have had such a big advantage for such a sustained time period, with Renault, Honda and Ferrari not really getting anywhere near them on a consistent basis.
Mr Tidy said:
He seems to be a has-been!
Can't qualify in Q3, trundles around in the 2nd half of the grid, crashes from time to time - just an embarassment. Which may be why Ferrari dumped the loser.
Good luck Renault.
Although Nico Hulkenburg might have been a better option if they hadn't written that option off before!
There's nothing like a well informed and considered post.Can't qualify in Q3, trundles around in the 2nd half of the grid, crashes from time to time - just an embarassment. Which may be why Ferrari dumped the loser.
Good luck Renault.
Although Nico Hulkenburg might have been a better option if they hadn't written that option off before!And that's nothing like a well informed and considered post...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff