2011 Formula 1 Japanese Grand Prix

That is what Jenson looked like after Suzuka. All while thinking "Next year I will destroy you Sebastian for making me get grass on my tires at the 2011 Japanese GP"

 

Love the ending

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to devalue what Vettel has done so far, I'm just saying that even with two titles under his belt he's still not demonstrated to me that he should be mentioned in the same breath as Senna just yet.

Again: He needs a stronger teammate or a less dominant car. Let's be honest here - the Toro Rosso was by no means a bad car. Not even slightly.

It'd be entertaining to stick Hamilton in the Red Bull and see what he's like in a season where his head is screwed on. He rattled Alonso's feathers a bit in 2008. I don't really like Hamilton but a battle between him and Vettel in the same car would be fantastic to watch.

Bourdais isn't the best talent barometer either. Very few people have ever made a successful crossover between the U.S. and F1. Mansell managed the hop the other way and won back-to-back F1 and IndyCar titles (despite almost killing himself early in the 93 season) and Villeneuve managed an F1 title in 97. Even then he struggled over Schuey in a sub-par Ferrari and failed to beat Damon Hill of all people in 96. And remember Zanardi? Another IndyCar champion who did hopelessly in F1.

 

Bourdais is clearly a very good driver though and he had some awful luck in his seasons in F1.
Why is it we only talk about Vettel from 2008? What about his debut and part-season in 2007? He's had plenty of time in "low-end machinery" - I have no idea why people keep saying he has to drive a crap car to be considered a great. He has already been in non-WCC machinery and has had to cope with running in the back of the pack as well as midfield.

I feel people just like to make up excuses for themselves why they don't rate drivers like Vettel. Its complete rubbish - he's clearly, undeniably one of the all time greats.

There have been plenty of decent drivers who looked great in backmarker and midfield teams but just didn't have the right stuff in a top team. Vettel is already much better than these drivers but because he hasn't served 2 or 3 seasons in a terrible car he can't be considered a great?
Why does he need prove anything with lesser machinery? He's completely battered a decent teammate in Webber, he's stood up to the pressure of a top team fairly well and he has delivered extremely consistent, top results all season long. What's left to prove? Its clear if he was in a HRT he would still be beating any teammate put in the other seat.

The only thing we don't know is if he would be able to withstand the disappointment and demoralising factor of being in a team unable to challenge for the championship. But what this has to do with being an all-time great I don't know.

Its pretty hard to argue against 2xWDC. I was already tired of reading this stuff after 2010. Now he is twice the champion and people still wish to write him off due to some arbitrary measuring stick?

As good as Senna? Why not? He isn't Senna of course. And he doesn't quite have the same records yet. But no one can ever apparently be as good as Senna due to his ridiculous mythical status. Again, "arbitrary measuring sticks".

 

>

Re: Senna

Yes, I agree it's an arbitrary measurement, but I'd hardly say Senna's "mythical" status is "ridiculous".

Anyone who actually watched him race wouldn't deny him an ounce of what people claim of him, regardless of his misdemeanours (and few drivers get off scot free on that one - Vettel pulled some blindingly stupid stunts in 2010). Call it "je ne sais quoi" if you like (yes it's arbitrary, yes it's subjective - I don't give a toss - everything in F1 apart from the bare statistics is entirely subjective) but I've not seen that from Vettel. I'm not saying Vettel isn't capable of achieving that because as a double world champ you can't really deny him that, but he just lacks the sparkle that made people like Senna "great".

Edit: I guess it comes down to whether you get a kick from watching someone race or not. I've nothing against Vettel as an individual or as a machine built for speed, but save for very few instances I don't get a buzz from watching him race. That's not a mark against the man himself - I quite like Schumacher but most of his wins were pretty tedious. Ditto Prost. Button in a Brawn wasn't that special to watch for the most part (his early season wins thrashing people were no different from Vettel's wins this year) but Button in the McLaren this year has been thrilling to watch as he's really having to fight for it.

As I said: It's subjective really. I watch F1 for the excitement first, and for the drivers second. Vettel isn't really an exciting driver. As quick as Senna? Perhaps. But without the "spark".

F1 is more than mere numbers.

 

Yes, I guess I was.

I subscribe, and think that's pretty much all there is to say about this

 

I say that his mythical status is ridiculous because it puts Senna in some untouchable land of no one being able to be considered as good as or dare I say better than him.
Its ridiculous because of course someone can be considered better than Senna. He was not perfect.

I hate this ideal that to consider a driver one of the "greats" he automatically has to have everything Senna, Clark, Schumacher..whoever had. Why can't Vettel be considered a great without the "spark"?
Gilles Villenueve is regularly considered a "great" and Vettel is far more a successful driver and arguably just as likable and exciting.

To me, I consider Alonso, Hamilton, Button and Vettel all "F1 greats". Without a doubt they are the modern equivelants of any othe era's top drivers and all have various strengths and weaknesses that make them stand out.
Why I consider each driver great is mostly different reasons. The reasons Vettel is great are not the same as the reasons as why Senna was great.

 

I have absolutely no trouble believing drivers could be faster than Senna, but this "mythical" status you keep describing (which I don't subscribe to incidentally - again, you only need to watch some of his racing to see why he's considered in such high regard. It's nothing to do with his talent being blown out of proportion to his actual results and to imply so is ridiculous) is based on a lifetime of getting more from a car than anyone else and being more spectacular to watch than anybody else.

Unless you didn't quite understand my response above, you already know how I feel on this: F1 is so much more than just numbers. That "spark" is why F1 fans - and indeed motorsport fans in general - love some drivers and hate others. If you reduce the sport to a bunch of numbers then really there should be a list of the greatest drivers ever and it should really go like this:

1. Michael Schumacher
2. Juan Manuel Fangio
3. Alain Prost
4. Jack Brabham
5. Jackie Stewart
6. Niki Lauda...

See where I'm going with this? If success is all that made F1 drivers great then Senna would be less "great" than Prost, Mansell equally "great" to Jacques Villeneuve.

Fair enough - we clearly have different defining factors for greatness. But to me excitement and retrospect are required before making such a grand decision, and Vettel has the benefit of neither right now. He's just very good at the numbers aspect.

 

Wouldn't go as far as to say I hate Alonsos's guts, but I'm no fan as well. But I have to recognize he's not "just" fast, he is clever, passionate, aggressively competitive. I like to see him race and he is "complete".

Edit:
...actually I guess I already did that when I said in a previous post: "Button, I really think he is now a complete racing driver, and his moves (albeit too discrete for some to notice - I mean the media, not you) are the gutsiest I've seen in the last years of F1. As is Alonso."

 

Completely agree Niky

Including the bit about hating Alonso. Though he's been less of a whining, mithering git this year and even amusing (think any of his irate radio calls with his team) and humble at times, so I'm warming to him. He's also undeniably fantastic to watch race.

 

Yeah, especially when a Red Bull passes him.

 

My move of the year so far.

 

Only if he tries to push the Red Bull off the track

 

+1. Everyone is so desperate to compare Vettel to Schumacher or Senna. Is it that hard to let things be? Different times, different cars. It's like comparing Pele to Lionel Messi or Babe Ruth to Hank Aaron. Celebrate the drivers for what they've done in their day and stop with the unending "is he better than..."

 

Hang on, I'd forgotten about Vettel/Alonso at Monza. I was thinking Webber/Alonso at Spa...

 

I do understand your previous response - my point is that why does Vettel have to be compared to just Senna to be considered great?

Let me put it another way - Alain Prost is considered an F1 great. But he certainly didn't/doesn't have the spark Senna did.

I'm referring to the general opinion here, not each of our own preferrences - the commonly agreed F1 greats usually include people such as Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Schumacher, etc. What I'm asking is why Vettel continues to be considered not among these drivers and why people have to keep coming up with ridiculous reasons.

And as for Senna's mythical status - I have watched a good deal of old footage, read many opinions of him and feel I have a pretty good understanding why he is considered so brilliant. I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant and one of the greatest drivers ever. I do however feel that like any person who is considered the best ever, his talents and achievements do get exaggerated to the extreme.

Obviously its difficult for me to really appreciate Senna completely as I was way too young to have been there to see it live. But judging by how Schumacher has become an exaggerated legend and from I remember of his early career, I can only come to the same conclusion that people's memories become a little rosey with time. Though obviously Schumacher is a different driver entirely and some people remember perfectly well but just choose to ignore/forget things, I still feel there are some who remember a different Senna than what actually happened.
Certainly the way he is described by some doesn't match the footage and opinions from the time.

Anyway, the Senna stuff is for another thread.

At the end of the day, Vettel is world champion and fully deserves it. I guess we should all focus on that, rather than dis-respecting or de-valuing Vettel's achievements by instead referring to other people.

 

Without wishing to enrage the Vettel fans, at least we got to see some proper racing with people like Prost, even if he wasn't as fiery as Senna (or Mansell, or Piquet etc).

I don't wish to go into any more detail on this because it seems to enrage people but we've still not seen any real wheel-to-wheel stuff with Vettel, and the wheel-to-wheel stuff is what excites me about F1. If he keeps winning from start to finish, he'll remain a thoroughly unexciting driver for me to watch. Schumacher may have been start-to-finish dominant for several years but for several other years we saw some amazing battles.

I personally wouldn't consider my reasons ridiculous. I simply think there's more to being great in F1 than cranking out wins.

By some, but then they wouldn't be mentioned at all if they weren't examples of amazing driving.

I remember Schumacher's early years vividly (I've been watching F1 regularly since 1992) and again, while he clearly did some pretty dodgy stuff he wasn't consistently as devious as people seem to make out - indeed he probably got into less trouble in 91-97 ish than he has in 2010/2011, but when you're crashing with a title challenger it's better remembered than when you're crashing into mid-fielders.

And again, he did some amazing things. I wonder how many other drivers could still come second in a race after being stuck in 5th gear for two thirds of it? Or lapping 3 seconds a lap quicker than anyone in the rain over an entire race? (funnily enough, both at Spanish GPs).

You could of course argue that F1 has changed enough to make feats like that irrelevant/impossible/freak incidents, but then it's the sort of stuff we did see from Senna or Schumacher and don't see from Vettel.

I agree. And as I've mentioned several times, I'm not trying to devalue the achievements of the youngest double world champion. I just think it's far to early to judge him by the standards of drivers who've done far more than win races start to finish.

 

On paper at least Vettel is very similar to a GP great that is frequently mentioned: Jim Clark. Both liked to dominate a race from the front, but didn't liked to be followed closely by a rival. Yet Jim Clark is considered "great", and Vettel not, at least not yet. Why is that?

This is all entirely subjective of course, but one reason I consider Jim Clark to be great is because of his personality. A very humble Scottish farmer that adapted remarkably well to driving racing cars, let down half of the time by his fragile Lotus machinery.

Then again, most drivers these days don't really have such storied backgrounds (in other words, they're boring ), to be fair. So it's difficult to draw comparisons.

 

I think the further back you go the more difficult it gets to compare in so many ways. Clark was winning at a time where even if he individually drove a faultless race, his Lotus could break and he could be dead in seconds. Indeed, that's essentially what happened at the German F2 race.

There's a sort of respect you reserve even for the unsuccessful drivers from an era like the 1960s, so it makes you revere the guys who didn't just manage to survive but managed to win or dominate.

Not to mention that few of us on GTP were probably old enough to remember someone like Jim Clark racing (even my dad was only mid-teens in the late 60s) and have seen no more 1960s or 1970s footage in total than we likely see over a modern GP weekend, so you kind of have to go with the stories of legendary drives rather than make your own decisions on them.

 

Right. Drivers were formed by the conditions of racing at the time. Drivers today can take a car to it's limit without much fear of losing their lives. 1960s? Had to be very brave indeed to take it to the limit. 1930s? Nearly impossible to take a car to the limit on 1930s rubber. Needless to say, with drivers struggling for grip and traction, there was a lot more room for finding speed potential, and you could take advantage of that if you were brave (or stupid ) and talented enough. Modern F1, not so much potential speed to be found between drivers.

So I guess the big question is, with such small differences in lap times, braking distances, and potential speed today, what can Vettel possibly do to awe us and and herald him as a "great"? (besides winning every race from pole to finish, of course )

 

With modern F1 technology and level of professionalism among drivers? Not much.

 

If you can completely disqualify a very competitive field of drivers over a complete season in these times, you're already a "great" in my book. Maybe we should call him a "modern great", the first one of the impossible-to-overtake-without-ridiculous-auxiliary-systems era?

 

We're totally "offtopicing" now, but in relation to these last posts I have one curious bit to add. Nowadays we regard Schumacher, in his early forties, as "old" (for a F1 driver).

Back in the days of "do-or-die" (or "do-and-die"), such age would be pretty normal, and in fact the appropriate age for champions.

Just a few quick facts:

1950 - Farina - 44 years old (oldest pole sitter in a Formula One race, a record he hold to this day)

1951 - Fangio - 40 years old

1952, 1953 - Ascari - 34 and 35 years old.

1954, 55, 56, 57 - Fangio - 43, 44, 45, 46 years old

Then came Hawthorn, a 29 year old kid. Then back to older guys with Brabham, in his mid-thirties

Fact is, with the exception of Hawthorn, to be older and wiser was better if you were a Formula 1 driver back in those days. So, indeed, comparisons are mostly futile.

As this picture of two outstanding drivers in their prime years shows.

 

We are going a little off topic, but I don't see the harm in it since the Japanese GP has been and gone now

I definitely see what you mean, which is why I've been saying all along that the only real way I'll get my entertainment from him is by seeing him fight for position more often. He's clearly quick enough in the Red Bull that he doesn't need to that often. Instead, I'm getting that action from Button who just about has the pace in a less competitive car to mix it, so we're treated to all this action of him coming through the field or scraping seconds off Vettel at the end of a race.

 

Yes, I think Button has been exciting to watch this season and surprised he is hardly mentioned as one of the great drivers in F1 today.

 

Button's career has been quite different from the other stars on the grid. He spent most of it in average cars with average results, and then finally showed what he could do with Brawn and now McLaren. Most others didn't have to wait 10 years or so the show off their true abilities.

Plus, he's a rubbish qualifier.

 

Too right he's had an odd career, though he's always shown flashes of excellence even in some of the lowlier cars.

Little from column a, little from "McLaren need to get their act together on Saturday" column b.

 

I was in rehab and just now read Vettle locked up the championship and the Japanese Gran Prix went so well. I knew he could do it. Congrats to him.

I had no internet access in the old rehab hospital nor tv service to watch it. Sucks donkey balls, but what can I do?