Sebastian Vettel
Discussion
Poppiecock said:
If you’re going to claim a car advantage for Seb... Lewis has had an even bigger advantage over all the other teams.
Funny, isn’t it? If you end up in the right car at the right time you can walk to multiple titles. Especially in the modern era where you can’t relentlessly test (like Schumacher) to turn a dog into a winner.
Did Lewis Hamilton fFunny, isn’t it? If you end up in the right car at the right time you can walk to multiple titles. Especially in the modern era where you can’t relentlessly test (like Schumacher) to turn a dog into a winner.
k your wife or something?Europa1 said:
Did Lewis Hamilton fk your wife or something?
I see the duvet is freshly ironed in this one...k your wife or something?I get sick of all the fawning like he’s the second coming.
He’s quick, no doubt, but that team have dominated like no other. Only the 88 McLaren challenges this dominance, but only for a single season.
Poppiecock said:
Europa1 said:
Did Lewis Hamilton fk your wife or something?
I see the duvet is freshly ironed in this one...k your wife or something?I get sick of all the fawning like he’s the second coming.
He’s quick, no doubt, but that team have dominated like no other. Only the 88 McLaren challenges this dominance, but only for a single season.
Poppiecock said:
I see the duvet is freshly ironed in this one...
I get sick of all the fawning like he’s the second coming.
He’s quick, no doubt, but that team have dominated like no other. Only the 88 McLaren challenges this dominance, but only for a single season.
The team only exists at all because Niki sat down with Toto and said that he thought Merc to F1 was a great idea if they worked together - and once Toto had agreed to push forwards with that, Niki's next move was to convince Lewis to come on-board.I get sick of all the fawning like he’s the second coming.
He’s quick, no doubt, but that team have dominated like no other. Only the 88 McLaren challenges this dominance, but only for a single season.
So he's not lucky to find himself at the best team and is taking the glory... He was moved across from McLaren because in early days of the current Mercedes team, he was selected due to his hard work and performance up to that point.
The best drivers do have a funny habit of finding their way to the best teams!
Europa1 said:
Hmmmm, you're right. I'll go back and re-evaluate the Ferrari and Red Bull years.
Red Bull had 2 go to the wire and 2 dominant titles.Ferrari got there through Schumacher’s relentless testing regime. Even then, they weren’t actually as dominant in most years as the 5 titles suggest.
Poppiecock said:
Europa1 said:
Hmmmm, you're right. I'll go back and re-evaluate the Ferrari and Red Bull years.
Red Bull had 2 go to the wire and 2 dominant titles.Ferrari got there through Schumacher’s relentless testing regime. Even then, they weren’t actually as dominant in most years as the 5 titles suggest.
Yet you still single out Lewis Hamilton as lucky to win his titles.
Poppiecock said:
Red Bull had 2 go to the wire and 2 dominant titles.
Ferrari got there through Schumacher’s relentless testing regime. Even then, they weren’t actually as dominant in most years as the 5 titles suggest.
Let's not forget that at the time "relentless testing" was not forbidden. On top of that Ferrari benefited of a huge tyre advantage over the other teams. Basically the tyres were design for them. I reckon if Michael had another top driver in his team, he would have struggled. Ferrari got there through Schumacher’s relentless testing regime. Even then, they weren’t actually as dominant in most years as the 5 titles suggest.
What about Mercedes. Doing nothing until Hamilton joined the team despite having all the experience of shumacher at disposition before that. Surely what you preach about Michael being able to develop a car through hard work can be apply to Hamilton as the success story is very similar. Where did McLaren end up without Hamilton?
Poppiecock on Hamilton said:
He’s quick, no doubt,
Wow! So all you have to do is get a quick driver. Tyre management, desire, bravery, ability to go wheel to wheel, [and your own strong points of Hamilton here] are of no consequence. All you have to be is quick.It's a point of view, and everyone is able to post their point of view on here, but if you damn one of the best drivers I've seen in a number of weeks watching F1 (I'm following the understatement of PPC) by feint praise, you should expect others to point out where you are wrong.
If quickness was the only requirement, there would be hundreds of drivers able to do LH's job, while in fact there are hundreds of pretenders, left in the pub, telling all those who'll listen that they could have been a contender.
I still struggle that people can’t see that such a prolonged period of dominance has enabled Hamilton to break records that can only be broken if the team has found something nobody else has.
The stupid token system handed Mercedes 3 titles unchallenged and 5 years in Ferrari and Red Bull are only able to challenge sporadically.
Mercedes May have targeted Hamilton, but even they probably only thought they’d get a couple of seasons before everyone else caught up.
You can claim tyre advantage for Ferrari in the past, but they themselves have protested that Mercedes have been handed a tyre advantage just as they got some kind of parity.
Alonso was courted by ferrari with the promise of titles, same again at McLaren. Over the years lots of top drivers have ended up in the right place at the wrong time. Those who set records are those who find the right place at the right time and this is usually as much through luck as anything else.
It often seems that Hamilton has been elevated above his position of being a very good driver who just managed to get into the right place at the right time in a period where the rules mean his team got a 3 season head start on everyone else.
Additionally, everyone forgets that Schumacher and Vettel both had very hard fought titles in their bag.
The stupid token system handed Mercedes 3 titles unchallenged and 5 years in Ferrari and Red Bull are only able to challenge sporadically.
Mercedes May have targeted Hamilton, but even they probably only thought they’d get a couple of seasons before everyone else caught up.
You can claim tyre advantage for Ferrari in the past, but they themselves have protested that Mercedes have been handed a tyre advantage just as they got some kind of parity.
Alonso was courted by ferrari with the promise of titles, same again at McLaren. Over the years lots of top drivers have ended up in the right place at the wrong time. Those who set records are those who find the right place at the right time and this is usually as much through luck as anything else.
It often seems that Hamilton has been elevated above his position of being a very good driver who just managed to get into the right place at the right time in a period where the rules mean his team got a 3 season head start on everyone else.
Additionally, everyone forgets that Schumacher and Vettel both had very hard fought titles in their bag.
Edited by Poppiecock on Saturday 14th September 21:18
I don't think you can argue that SCH/Ferrari, VET/Red Bull and HAM/Mercedes' championships were anything other than hard fought. None, absolutely none were easy, in fact I'd argue that the years of domination were possibly even harder as it's so hard to get a team to do that.
You can't rubbish one driver (for instance, HAM, VET or even BUT) for winning in a dominant car as it's so bloody difficult to be so totally dominating.
I watched a two hour interview with Roy Keane last night where he goes into a similar thing with the 90s Man Utd team that won everything, everyone thought they made it look easy when in fact it was the hardest thing they'd ever done.
Winning once is actually easy, intense but so much easier than sustained amazing performance. Step forward Nico
You can't rubbish one driver (for instance, HAM, VET or even BUT) for winning in a dominant car as it's so bloody difficult to be so totally dominating.
I watched a two hour interview with Roy Keane last night where he goes into a similar thing with the 90s Man Utd team that won everything, everyone thought they made it look easy when in fact it was the hardest thing they'd ever done.
Winning once is actually easy, intense but so much easier than sustained amazing performance. Step forward Nico
swisstoni said:
What you seem to forget is that Hamilton had Rosberg to deal with in his own garage for four years.
This all depends on how you rate Rosberg.Didn’t it end up 2-1 in the end with Rosberg deciding time with his very lovely wife and family was more important? (Same thoughts as Vettel?)
Opinions on Rosberg on this forum depend on how much you want to fellate Hamilton.
Poppiecock said:
swisstoni said:
What you seem to forget is that Hamilton had Rosberg to deal with in his own garage for four years.
This all depends on how you rate Rosberg.Didn’t it end up 2-1 in the end with Rosberg deciding time with his very lovely wife and family was more important? (Same thoughts as Vettel?)
Opinions on Rosberg on this forum depend on how much you want to fellate Hamilton.
Well, at least we all know where the expression 'absolute poppycock' comes from 
It's perfectly clear to me however. Mercedes wanted to re-enter F1 so they spent an unbelievable amount of money to make damned certain their car and eventual PU was as good as the best, if not the best. They calculated that cost and signed off on it. With that investment, obviously they had to deliver - hence.. they selected the finest driver they could. They wisely chose the hottest upcoming talent at the time and also a driver known to be endlessly composed and consistent - in other words, a reliable factor in their overall race effort.
Lewis only wins because he has the best car. Lewis only has the best car because he shone out and could reliably make use of it. Both statements are true and it's stupid to argue either of them. The idea another driver could be shoehorned in and do as well is ridiculous. Since the return of Mercedes to F1, and right up to today, there has been no other driver that has the composure AND talent of Lewis. Some have a lot of one and a fair degree or the other, but no one else has both to such high levels. That is why he is at Mercedes, which gives him the potential to win. It is also why he validate's that potential and does win.
It's perfectly clear to me however. Mercedes wanted to re-enter F1 so they spent an unbelievable amount of money to make damned certain their car and eventual PU was as good as the best, if not the best. They calculated that cost and signed off on it. With that investment, obviously they had to deliver - hence.. they selected the finest driver they could. They wisely chose the hottest upcoming talent at the time and also a driver known to be endlessly composed and consistent - in other words, a reliable factor in their overall race effort.
Lewis only wins because he has the best car. Lewis only has the best car because he shone out and could reliably make use of it. Both statements are true and it's stupid to argue either of them. The idea another driver could be shoehorned in and do as well is ridiculous. Since the return of Mercedes to F1, and right up to today, there has been no other driver that has the composure AND talent of Lewis. Some have a lot of one and a fair degree or the other, but no one else has both to such high levels. That is why he is at Mercedes, which gives him the potential to win. It is also why he validate's that potential and does win.
Whatever.
Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
Poppiecock said:
Whatever.
Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
I actually think, including Alonso all of the above would have lost more than one title to Rosberg. I doubt Schumacher, Button and Massa would have beaten him at all.Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
Poppiecock said:
Whatever.
Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
"Whatever"? Not a great way to establish one's relevance in what is quite clearly a debate.Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
Why on earth would Seb have managed as well at Merc as Lewis? Lewis has been challenged at Mercedes plenty of times, he's had to fight and he has done so without flipping out and messing up. Seb can't do that. He wins when he's clean out in front and un-threatened. Introduce a threat, and he makes mistakes often enough to write off any car advantage.
For the first half of last season, Ferrari v Mercedes was a real battle. If the drivers had swapped seats, I believe Lewis would still have won. Not because the Ferrari was the better car, but because the difference in sustained performances between Seb and Lewis is large, whereas the gap between the two cars performance is relatively slim. Even when Lewis can't possibly win or take a podium, he keeps cool enough to bring home the points that offset the balance during a season, unlike Seb, who once he knows he can't win, tends to drive in a fairly unpredictable and often desperate manner.
Seb is one of the finest drivers on the planet in terms of talent. But his inability to keep his cool and composure under pressure weakens the potential of his talent. There is endless evidence of that. For Lewis, there is endless evidence that you generally get what you pay for each time he's sent out, no matter how s
tty the race conditions are for him.Poppiecock said:
Whatever.
Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
Composed and Consistent was, I believe, referring to Nico not Lewis. Nico only got ragged in 2016 when he threw everything into his WDC challenge. Put Seb in that team and he’d be on 8 titles? Alonso on 6? Button on 5? Pre accident Massa would have had a few, too. What if Schumacher hadn’t taken his 2nd retirement? Would he now be on 10?
If McLaren hadn’t dropped off a cliff, would the signing have even happened?
It’s all down to right place at right time.
Composed and consistent came after most dominant car in history. The McLaren wilderness years were almost the polar opposite.
Most drivers will look bad in a bad car, as they will overdrive it to try and wring out the performance. This is, to an extent, I feel part of the problem Vettel has had. Having 2-3 years with a car that wasn't competitive so when he did receive one that was actually pretty decent he has continued to overdrive it.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff