The '13 driver transfer discussion/speculation thread op updated 16/10

[Mike Rotch]

The points table by itself does not prove anything.

Only it does - it proves that in that year, driver A was better then driver B as judged by the single measure available to teams that directly talks to success; points.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yeah, the idea of a 2014 deal for Vettel convinces me that Massa's gonna stay and Di Resta and Hulk are just getting their names promoted.

I haven't seen anything substantial to link di Resta to Ferrari, anyway. Most of it seems to be Raikkonen-Hamilton Syndrome, where the driver's fans assume their driver is good enough for any seat on the grid, and therefore link him (or her) to any and every potential vacancy with a team better than their current one.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Only it does - it proves that in that year, driver A was better then driver B as judged by the single measure available to teams that directly talks to success; points.

In 2007, Webber outqualified Coulthard 15-2, when both finished Webber was ahead 3-1. Are you going to foolishly stand by Coulthard being a better driver in 2007?

If the number of points deciding the better driver was absolute, it would clearly indicate that Prost was decidedly better than Senna. Hell, Damon Hill was better than Senna.

I would disagree. The one who collects more points is certainly the better of the two at collecting points during that season, but there's far too many variables to it than to be able to simply conclude it's because he/she is a better driver.

 

[Dhalism]

Voting for Di Resta for the Ferrari seat, because I believe he is easily the most talented driver of the three at this point in time. But, if he did get the seat, that would be such a strange circumstance. Sergio Perez, a through and through Ferrari man, sign's with Ferrari's arch-nemesis, and Di Resta, a through and through Mercedes man, would sign with Ferrari.

Anyways, weird as it would be, pulling for Di Resta.

Scuderia Fernando is Faster then You will suck the life out of him.
I'd rather see him in a team that can let his talent prosper.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Voting for Di Resta for the Ferrari seat, because I believe he is easily the most talented driver of the three at this point in time.

I'm sure Ferrari are following this thread and taking notes as we speak.

 

[nealcropper]

The one who collects more points is certainly the better of the two at collecting points during that season.

Can I just ask, how does one collect more points than another driver in a F1 race?

Is it through quali or is it for finishing above another driver in the race? I think you know what I'm getting at. Of course it means that whoever has the most points is the better driver, all be it in that season, if it didn't then what is the point in the points table? Your argument is flawed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can I just ask, how does one collect more points than another driver in a F1 race?

Is it through quali or is it for finishing above another driver in the race? I think you know what I'm getting at. Of course it means that whoever has the most points is the better driver, all be it in that season, if it didn't then what is the point in the points table? Your argument is flawed.

Here's a hypothetical for you: two drivers go into the final race of the season on equal points. Both have an equal number of results; ie, they both have two fourth-place finishes. However, on his way back to his hotel after Friday practice, one of the drivers is involved in a car accident. It was not his fault, and it was unavoidable. Unfortauntely, he is hospitalised with non-serious injuries and forced to miss the race. His team-mate goes on to qualify well, and scores his best result of the season.

So which driver is better? One finished higher than the other in the points table, but only because the other driver was unable to compete in the final race of the season following a situation that he could not have forseen or avoided.

 

[nealcropper]

You are talking about something which almost never happens, and before you start chiming off examples, don't, I'm not interested.

The fact remains that the FIA use the POINTS table as a way to measure the success of its drivers. As a whole the points table determines Who is the better driver in that season.

By your logic you are saying that someone who finishes near the bottom of the table could be as good as a driver as someone who finished near the top. I don't accept that.

Success in any sport is measured by talent AND reliability. Granted there are many other governing factors in Formula 1, like strategy, but if we didn't use the points table what would we use?

And as for the Senna and Prost argument, sometimes I don't think that Prost gets the respect that he deserved. He was AS GOOD as Senna IMO. It's just that Senna's life was cut horribly short that people remember him more than Prost. Yes Senna was an amazing driver, what he could do with an F1 car in the wet was outstanding, but please don't tell me that Prost wasn't up to Senna's standards because I assure you, he was.

 

[Wardez]

I think you guys just need to become a bit more objective with this. Hulk's clearly a faster driver. Trying to say either of them is plain out better, is just asking for pages of banter ending up on no one agreeing, because quite obviously, people have different ideas for what makes up a good driver. 'kay?

So for me Nico's a better F1 driver 'cause he's faster, remember the pole position in the wet? Right.

I also like the way he drives. But what I understand is that on paper, Paul is a better package. He's a DTM champion and really puts in consistent results, but that seems to be it. He's going to have to kick it up a notch to really be a winner in F1.

 

[nealcropper]

I think you guys just need to become a bit more objective with this. Hulk's clearly a faster driver.

This.

 

[Centura]

And who will go to Sauber? And will they keep Kobayashi? hmmm well the vibe is that Senna won't get another year at Williams, and Perez is taking most (if not all) his sponsoring with him when he leaves, Sauber will have to fill that hole...

It was mentioned a couple of days ago that the sponsors will stay on Sauber for 2013.

Have you met di Resta? Do you know he is arrogant? Can you point me in the direction of any quotes he has made that suggest he is arrogant? If not, you are trying to have us believe your opinion is fact, which is tiresome.

As I pointed out a few pages back when you asserted Hulkenburg is better then di Resta, the point's table proves otherwise.

“We had the same car, same engine, same tyres and I beat him,” said Di Resta. “I don’t want to diminish Vettel’s achievement (this year), but he won the championship because he had the best car. He did his job, but another driver in the same car would probably have achieved the same results. I hope one day to have the same opportunity.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/12/paul-di-resta-vettel-won-because-he-had-the-best-car/

 

[Mike Rotch]

“We had the same car, same engine, same tyres and I beat him,” said Di Resta. “I don’t want to diminish Vettel’s achievement (this year), but he won the championship because he had the best car. He did his job, but another driver in the same car would probably have achieved the same results. I hope one day to have the same opportunity.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/12/paul-di-resta-vettel-won-because-he-had-the-best-car/

Nope, sounds like him calling a spade a spade. When Vettel wins two world titles with the same car as Webber, people heap praise upon him and label Webber a bridesmaid.

If we apply the same standards here, why is it arrogant. He took the same machinery and did a better job of it.

Vettel has had the best machine in his title years - if LH or FA had that car, you think they also wouldn't walk it?

The fact remains that the FIA use the POINTS table as a way to measure the success of its drivers. As a whole the points table determines Who is the better driver in that season.

This pretty much sums it up.

In 2007, Webber outqualified Coulthard 15-2, when both finished Webber was ahead 3-1. Are you going to foolishly stand by Coulthard being a better driver in 2007?

And what about when Webber didnt finish?

This can go in circles ad infinitum. You like Hulk over di Resta for Ferrari, I like di Resta over Hulk for Ferrari and we both like Trumpet, the one eyed cat over Narayan in anything resembling a car.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You are talking about something which almost never happens, and before you start chiming off examples, don't, I'm not interested.

You opened this line of conversation, and now you don't want to talk about it? You're effectively saying "I'm right, and I don't want to hear a word against it". You are not endearing yourself to anyone with that kind of attitude.

The fact remains that the FIA use the POINTS table as a way to measure the success of its drivers. As a whole the points table determines Who is the better driver in that season.

But it's not the only factor.

Take, for example, Pastor Maldonado and Bruno Senna. Maldonado has a four-point lead over Senna, but Senna is considered to be the better driver by many fans because Maldonado is constantly in trouble on the track and has done some silly, inexplicable things in the past. A lot of people think hsi attitude is wrong, and that it has shown itself in the way he has only scored points in two races this season.

But hey, he's in front of Senna, so he must be the better driver, right?

By your logic you are saying that someone who finishes near the bottom of the table could be as good as a driver as someone who finished near the top. I don't accept that.

Look no further than Michael Schumacher. He is 50 points behind Nico Rosberg - but he has had all manner of mechanical difficulties this season that were unavoidable, and often struck when he was running in the points.

 

[m8h3r]

It was mentioned a couple of days ago that the sponsors will stay on Sauber for 2013.

“We had the same car, same engine, same tyres and I beat him,” said Di Resta. “I don’t want to diminish Vettel’s achievement (this year), but he won the championship because he had the best car. He did his job, but another driver in the same car would probably have achieved the same results. I hope one day to have the same opportunity.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/12/paul-di-resta-vettel-won-because-he-had-the-best-car/

But Di Resta does have a point there. Vettel would never have done what he did last year without the car and I believe there is a number of people who could have driven that car to similar success that Vettel did, Paul being one of them people.

 

[Ingram]

By your logic you are saying that someone who finishes near the bottom of the table could be as good as a driver as someone who finished near the top. I don't accept that.

EDIT: Prisonermonkeys basically made the point I was going to, so just look up..

 

[F1 fan]

Vettel has had the best machine in his title years - if LH or FA had that car, you think they also wouldn't walk it?

Fernando probably would have walked it. Lewis was busy crashing into everyone.

But Di Resta does have a point there. Vettel would never have done what he did last year without the car and I believe there is a number of people who could have driven that car to similar success that Vettel did, Paul being one of them people.

While Vettel certainly had an excellent car, his dominance was not just because of that. Put a slow driver in the car and he'll still be slow. Vettel won the title due to his consistency, outright speed and his ability to look after his tires. The way he embarrassed Webber is proof of that. I'm not saying Paul is slow, but I doubt he would have performed anywhere near as well as Sebastian did last year.

 

[nealcropper]

You opened this line of conversation, and now you don't want to talk about it? You're effectively saying "I'm right, and I don't want to hear a word against it". You are not endearing yourself to anyone with that kind of attitude.

But it's not the only factor.

Take, for example, Pastor Maldonado and Bruno Senna. Maldonado has a four-point lead over Senna, but Senna is considered to be the better driver by many fans because Maldonado is constantly in trouble on the track and has done some silly, inexplicable things in the past. A lot of people think hsi attitude is wrong, and that it has shown itself in the way he has only scored points in two races this season.

But hey, he's in front of Senna, so he must be the better driver, right?

Look no further than Michael Schumacher. He is 50 points behind Nico Rosberg - but he has had all manner of mechanical difficulties this season that were unavoidable, and often struck when he was running in the points.

Im not trying to be endearing. It's just the I know how these kinds of discussions go, you say one thing, I say another, you post links to loads of stuff that proves your right, I do the same. Pointless.

Maldanardo may have scored points in two races this season, but Senna has score less points. Don't get me wrong, Maldanardo is a guy who makes mistakes. Often one that cost him places, but if he can make those mistakes and still finish above Senna then who's the better driver?

Like I have said, there are a lot of governing factors, like strategy, but if Schumacher didn't feel that Mercedes didn't have a reliable enough car then he shouldn't have been there, and if he has been so plagued by all these mechanical failures then why is Lewis going there? Surely the reliability of the car would be a major factor in determining the possibility of picking up another world championship. Which would stop someone of Hamiltons calibre going there.

Are you suggesting that the people who have won world championships in the past didn't deserve them. The F1 championship is a endurance not a sprint, and as such you have to take all the variables into account in determining the better driver, but if we didn't use the points table then what, I ask you, do we use?

 

[Centura]

I'm not saying Paul is slow, but I doubt he would have performed anywhere near as well as Sebastian did last year.

Paul was even beaten by Adrian that year... To be fair, he was a rookie, but still...

 

[niky]

I feel it's worth mentioning here, since his name was brought up, but by points, Michael is way behind Rosberg. But if we go by points in races tha both have actually finished, he's ahead. And he qualifies above Rosberg as much as he does below...

And in this season, Lewis is trailing far back in points, yet if he hadn't had so many mechanical issues, he would be leading the championship.

At the end of the season, yes, results are results... But if you want to see who's got it and who doesn't, you have to look at the reasons behind the results.

 

[nealcropper]

I feel it's worth mentioning here, since his name was brought up, but by points, Michael is way behind Rosberg. But if we go by points in races tha both have actually finished, he's ahead. And he qualifies above Rosberg as much as he does below...

And in this season, Lewis is trailing far back in points, yet if he hadn't had so many mechanical issues, he would be leading the championship.

At the end of the season, yes, results are results... But if you want to see who's got it and who doesn't, you have to look at the reasons behind the results.

I agree, the points alone don't tell the whole story. The fact that we are missing here is that F1 is as much a team sport as it is a personal one for the drivers, without each other they are nothing, but if every team were exemplary and the cars never went wrong and it was just down to the drivers, the points would tell you who is the better driver. Because if someone made a mistake it would be the driver, so if Maldanardo made a mistake and it cost him points he would have to work damn hard to get them points back.

The fact is the cars do go wrong and sometimes even the team in the pits mess up (cough McLaren), so really we are both right in our own ways. I fully understand that the points are not the be all, and championship winners can win it on points by only actually winning one race, but that is the nature of the beast, and that is something that the drivers and the teams have to take into consideration.

Points are points, and they are the only thing that can net you a championship, without them you lose, and to get them you need to be on your game, and that means being the best in my eyes.

 

[Goshin2568]

I think you guys just need to become a bit more objective with this. Hulk's clearly a faster driver. Trying to say either of them is plain out better, is just asking for pages of banter ending up on no one agreeing, because quite obviously, people have different ideas for what makes up a good driver. 'kay?

So for me Nico's a better F1 driver 'cause he's faster, remember the pole position in the wet? Right.

I also like the way he drives. But what I understand is that on paper, Paul is a better package. He's a DTM champion and really puts in consistent results, but that seems to be it. He's going to have to kick it up a notch to really be a winner in F1.

Besides that possibly fluke pole, where is the evidence that Hulkenburg is faster? Di Resta has outqualified Hulkenburg 8-6 this year. Di Resta is also leading Hulkenburg in points. And they have the same number of DNF's. How does that make Hulkenburg "clearly faster"?

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

Hulkenberg is doing a nice first season, however I dont see how you could say that he's faster than Di Resta.

The pole position Hulkenberg got, he can probably only get it once. It was a combination of factor that made him got that pole, talent sure, but also the timing and the tyre he had at that time. It's a one shot thing and doesnt prove anything.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

Y'know..Ferrari said that they are considering three drivers for Massa's seat, so we all think that Di resta and Hulkenberg are two of them but, but whos the third? Grosjean??

 

[zippy_the_cat]

Y'know..Ferrari said that they are considering three drivers for Massa's seat, so we all think that Di resta and Hulkenberg are two of them but, but whos the third? Grosjean??

Massa.

 

[nealcropper]

Y'know..Ferrari said that they are considering three drivers for Massa's seat, so we all think that Di resta and Hulkenberg are two of them but, but whos the third? Grosjean??

I could see Grosjean at Ferrari. He's fast enough. Although he might want to start making better decisions.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Nah, Grosjean has a good thing going at Renault.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Not really understanding those saying Di Resta is too slow. Would somebody please name some examples of this lack of pace? Remember he had KERS issues in Spa.

I do sometimes wonder that if Di Resta was involved in a few crashes like most other drivers on the grid there wouldn't be criticism of pace. It's almost as if he's being called slow as a way to explain why he hasn't got a seat at the big teams.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Hulkenberg is doing a nice first second season, however I dont see how you could say that he's faster than Di Resta.

 

[avens]

Paul was even beaten by Adrian that year... To be fair, he was a rookie, but still...

Just gonna point out Sutil finished first in the non top4 teams competition, which is a separate F1 as we all know (then ruined his career due to being emo).

 

[SagarisGTB]

Of course it means that whoever has the most points is the better driver, all be it in that season, if it didn't then what is the point in the points table? Your argument is flawed.

I agree, the points alone don't tell the whole story. The fact that we are missing here is that F1 is as much a team sport as it is a personal one for the drivers, without each other they are nothing, but if every team were exemplary and the cars never went wrong and it was just down to the drivers, the points would tell you who is the better driver.

That looks like a blatant contradiction to me.

The week-to-week variables I previously mentioned include luck (right place, right time and wrong place, wrong time), mechanical reliability, pit stop performance and team strategy. Over the season, variables include car and tires suiting one's driving style. Driving performance is obviously a huge factor in terms of points earned, but to judge drivers solely by the points table without any other considerations is terribly misguided.