The F1 driver transfer discussion/speculation archiveFormula 1 

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotThePrez
  • 3,041 comments
  • 202,429 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
LMSCorvetteGT2
I really don't see how he's been any worse than the hailed Bottas to be honest. And in worse machinery. The FI cars are very inconsistent and though they're probably the best of the mid pack teams (aside from Williams returning to top form), it still doesn't change the fact. It probably also did him no favors to switch over to Sauber.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ferrari had the opportunity to see his data when he was at Sauber and they weren't impressed.
 
So he's had two shining moments in the span of 3 seasons. If I were at Ferrari, I wouldn't be impressed, which they aren't.
 
Two? That's a bit harsh I think.

Brazil 2010, pole by an enormous margin in a car that shouldn't have done that.
4th at Spa 2012
Led and competed for the win in Brazil 2012 (until the, erm, you know...)
3rd in quali in Italy 2013 and finished 5th.
Majorly outperforming the crap 2013 Sauber in the second half of the season, including 4th in Korea.
Should have been on the podium in Bahrain 2014 if the car hadn't had problems.
5th on the grid in Austria to 6th in the race.
Held a good 5th place for a long time at Silverstone this year.
Was on for points in Hungary until the Front Wing Failure.

Oh, and won Le Mans on his first try in a car he'd never driven against seasoned teams.
 
GTPorsche
So he's had two shining moments in the span of 3 seasons. If I were at Ferrari, I wouldn't be impressed, which they aren't.
Click to expand...

He's had more than that and yes we get it Le Mans isn't F1 but you're being hyper critical here in this instance on Hulk. If Bottas is the beloved son of the top teams in need of a supposed Ace Driver than surely Hulk is right there. He may not have achieved tons but he's done quite good and always been the team leader at teams he's raced for apart from 2010. On top of that he's done plenty in a mid pack car each year since his test season that I feel at least warrants the same opportunity that Perez got especially considering he's driven better.

Surely, he'd do no worse than Kimi is right now and that goes the same for Bottas even. The fact Kimi is still in the seat says more about Ferrari having the potential to back slide over the progress they've made than it does about the current prospects on the grid.

EDIT: I will say the 10 million pounds wanted for Bottas from Williams was probably a smarter call on Ferrari considering that Bottas may have done no better than Kimi is doing right now. Thus the option of keeping that performance without spending an extra 10 million was wise, but then again there is always the what if "Bottas ended up on par or close to it with Vettel".
 
Their performances would mean more if they were consistent, even in inconsistent cars. Bottas is hardly outperforming Massa, so why would Ferrari take him considering they were the ones that let Massa go because he wasn't performing the way they wanted him to.

As for Hulk, 9 things over the course of 5 years isn't anything to land him a spot in a top team. There's a lot more mediocrity in there than there is greatness, even if he was touted at one point of being destined for greatness coming out of that championship season in GP2.
 
Ferrari had a hard choice to make. Stay with Raikkonen, who is consistent whether it be fast or slow as a turtle, and someone who is loyal to the team especially since Vettel has hopped aboard. Bottasis in a multi-year contract that would need to be bought out, and has actually slipped from 2014. Hulkenberg, despite what he has done, seems to be stuck in that middle ground with Grosjean, Perez, and others of being good, but not good enough. 2017 will be an intriguing year. A lot of contracts expire in 2016, including Rosberg, Bottas, Hulkenberg, not tom mention any newcomers that surface from anywhere. Staying with Kimi, while dooming 2016 as far as WCC goes, may have been thought out if looking at a frontrunner for 2017. We aren't in the leadership for the Scuderia, and we won't have good answers on why they made the choice they did until the full picture is shown, but Arrivabene has proven that he knows how to make a Ferrari a winner in this lackluster turbo V6 era. We can't start hammering on him for his thought process yet. If the team fall backwards next year, then we can share the pitchforks and torchs, but until then, the debating about Hulkenberg and Raikkonen and Bottas is moot. My predictions weren't completely crap after all.
 
GTPorsche
Julia Palmer tweeted earlier a picture of Eau Rouge along with "What's steep but also flat".

All I could think of was "his chances of making it to the F1 grid".
Click to expand...
Oh wow. Apply aloe to burn site.
 
GTPorsche
Their performances would mean more if they were consistent, even in inconsistent cars. Bottas is hardly outperforming Massa, so why would Ferrari take him considering they were the ones that let Massa go because he wasn't performing the way they wanted him to.

As for Hulk, 9 things over the course of 5 years isn't anything to land him a spot in a top team. There's a lot more mediocrity in there than there is greatness, even if he was touted at one point of being destined for greatness coming out of that championship season in GP2.
Click to expand...

They are, the last two years Hulk has been quite consistent when the team doesn't fail him and Perez. When the cars are on par for the weekend it comes down to them, which is why your comment makes hardly much sense considering the variation from track to track due to nature and climate of the area. If the car is inconsistent how can they be all the more consistent than the car. Same reason as to how Bottas knew the Williams wouldn't perform at Monaco this year but knew it would run well at less down force efficient tracks. The point is even when you know the inconsistent places the car will perform at doesn't change what the driver can do about it.

I guess the best example would be Ricciardo or Vettel. The RBR this year is far more inconsistent than last years from brake issues that created more black particulates than a diesel, to that of Energy failures and engine issues, does this mean DR is less of a performer than we though due to not being as consistent as last year. Is Vettel Pre-2015 because the 2014 car didn't gel with him unlike years past? The point is on average he has proven to do better than a journey man driver of F1, and has done other things to show that given the right ability he can perform and so can Bottas (even if I'm not a fan), the point is they need consistency and they'll only find that in a team like Ferrari or Mercedes
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
They are, the last two years Hulk has been quite consistent when the team doesn't fail him and Perez.
Click to expand...

True, but to my mind there's still a difference between "simple" consistency and the ability to make something of the opportunities that can present. Heidfeld is a good example of that too, I think.
 
Tired Tyres
Who is to say why their negotiations with other drivers fell down?
Click to expand...
Ferrari themselves. It's becoming increasingly apparent that Ferrari only took Raikkonen because they couldn't get Bottas. The talk of their "not being impressed by him" seems to stem from Raikkonen fanboys who are in denial that he's not their number one choice anymore.
 
Tired Tyres
That makes me wonder why they couldn't they get Bottas then?
Click to expand...
Williams were asking too much to release him, given that a) Bottas will be a free agent in 2017 unless he re-signs with Williams, and b) Ferrari and Williams are fighting over second place in the constructors' championship, and so Ferrari would be very hesitant to fund that campaign. And there will be more options in 2017; they might be able to dig Ricciardo out of his Red Bull contract.

Still, it doesn't mean that Raikkonen was the right choice. He has consistently under-performed since re-joining Ferrari, and if any other driver had his stats, they would have been let go already.
 
prisonermonkeys
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ferrari had the opportunity to see his data when he was at Sauber and they weren't impressed.
Click to expand...
The main problem with Hulkenberg is Ferrari already have a german driver and they don't exactly love the idea of having 2 of them. At the same time they don't even like the idea of an italian driver, Luca Ghiotto is quite fast and Helmut Marko already put his eyes on him, so I guess after Kimi they'll sign Kvyat, Vestrappen or Sainz Jr.
prisonermonkeys
they might be able to dig Ricciardo out of his Red Bull contract.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Vettel will be happy. This team is built around him, they don't want to unsettle the balance.
If one day Vettel will go, Ricciardo will surely be an option.
 
TenEightyOne
True, but to my mind there's still a difference between "simple" consistency and the ability to make something of the opportunities that can present. Heidfeld is a good example of that too, I think.
Click to expand...

Nick always second Heidfeld you say, who was just a character of many times bad luck and the nature of F1 as we are spelling it out. I guess, but he had cars that were actual contenders a couple times there and thus something that I can't say certain other prospects have had.

HKS racer
The main problem with Hulkenberg is Ferrari already have a german driver and they don't exactly love the idea of having 2 of them. At the same time they don't even like the idea of an italian driver, Luca Ghiotto is quite fast and Helmut Marko already put his eyes on him, so I guess after Kimi they'll sign Kvyat, Vestrappen or Sainz Jr.
Click to expand...

...No cause Ricciardo seems like the best and most likely option especially after Helmut (due to Daniel getting older since Marko as that creep vibe) that Daniel is only the fifth best driver he worked with. Right in front of the massive talent Ralf Schumacher.

Plus the constant nature once again, of how the cars are inconsistent but the driver is the one that is blamed when the results don't poor in like years past is left to be dumped. Both RBR drivers have been threatened about their current positions if they don't step it up, so Ferrari are sure to keep an eye out.
 
Last edited:
HKS racer
The main problem with Hulkenberg is Ferrari already have a german driver and they don't exactly love the idea of having 2 of them.
Click to expand...
If they're the two quickest drivers available, then I don't think Ferrari will care.

I'm not sure Vettel will be happy. This team is built around him, they don't want to unsettle the balance.
Click to expand...
I think people read too much into the Vettel-Ricciardo relationship. I think Vettel's difficulties last year were more a byproduct of the new regulations rather than his relationship with his team-mate. He adjusted to Ferrari so quickly and so affirmitavely that adjusting to the new engines is a much more likely explanation than team-mate dramas.
 
prisonermonkeys
I think people read too much into the Vettel-Ricciardo relationship. I think Vettel's difficulties last year were more a byproduct of the new regulations rather than his relationship with his team-mate. He adjusted to Ferrari so quickly and so affirmitavely that adjusting to the new engines is a much more likely explanation than team-mate dramas.
Click to expand...
Signign Ricciardo means he could "steal" some points finishing ahead of Seb in a couple of races at least. And what if these points are the difference between winning or loosing a championship? That's the problem.
On the other hand they could have more chances for the constructor if one day Ferrari has a competitive enough car.
 
Romain Grosjean has said that Ferrari were considering him to replace Raikkonen:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/24...ean-says-he-spoke-to-ferrari-about-2016-drive

Martin Brundle reckons Ferrari are going to try and pull off a coup by stealing Max Verstappen away from Toro Rosso before Red Bull can get their hooks in.

And Sergio Perez says that Stefano Domenicalli told him that he was being lined up for a 2014 Ferrari seat and that they wanted him to do another season with Sauber, but he moved to McLaren because he felt that McLaren had more forward momentum. He made the right call in that the 2014 Sauber was a pig of a car, but he admitted that he went to McLaren too soon and that it hurt his career in the long run.
 
Awesome laptime from Hamilton, Red Bull snapping at Mercedes' heels... but unless IRBR have cured their perennial brake-wear woes then the race could still be a very different matter.
 
prisonermonkeys
Sky are suggesting that Red Bull have issued Renault with a notice of termination for 2016.
Click to expand...

Nothing similar from Eddy Jordan so far... he's a prat but he's a well-connected prat who's often right. Mind you, that's also true of Brundle I guess.
 
Alex Rossi once again proves why he's not Formula 1 material: he blew a daring strategy by over-cooking the tyres in the GP2 feature race, then tried a foolhardy defence of an ambitious passing attempt at the final chicane.
 
prisonermonkeys
Alex Rossi once again proves why he's not Formula 1 material: he blew a daring strategy by over-cooking the tyres in the GP2 feature race, then tried a foolhardy defence of an ambitious passing attempt at the final chicane.
Click to expand...

Sounds like something that's par for the course in GP2 to be honest.
 
prisonermonkeys
Alex Rossi once again proves why he's not Formula 1 material: he blew a daring strategy by over-cooking the tyres in the GP2 feature race, then tried a foolhardy defence of an ambitious passing attempt at the final chicane.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of Rossi in the least, but you're really reaching with the first bit. Those who started on the harder tire were heavily compromised by the safety car and Rossi finished second among those who did, only beaten by occasional-tire-magician Mitch Evans and well ahead of the likes of Sirotkin, King, Marciello and Lynn.

And outbreaking himself in the final chicane is not all that egregious. It certainly wasn't the worst racing maneuver from the F1 hopefuls in the field. Gasly taking out De Jong and Rowland moving into Matsu****a were far more harmful.
 
SagarisGTB
I'm not a fan of Rossi in the least, but you're really reaching with the first bit. Those who started on the harder tire were heavily compromised by the safety car and Rossi finished second among those who did, only beaten by occasional-tire-magician Mitch Evans and well ahead of the likes of Sirotkin, King, Marciello and Lynn.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about right at the end, when the tyres went off. Taken in isolation, it's not that big a deal, but Rossi has a reputation for chewing through his tyres. He should have been closing on Markelov and Leal; instead, he fell into the clutches of Evans.

And outbreaking himself in the final chicane is not even the worst maneuver from the F1 hopefuls in the field.
Click to expand...
Rossi didn't even try to make the corner. He was just trying to force Evans off the road. On any other lap, this would leave him vulnerable down into La Source, but because it was the final lap, that wasn't a problem. It was a lot like Marquez dive-bombing Rossi on the final lap at Assen earlier in the year.
 
HKS racer
Signign Ricciardo means he could "steal" some points finishing ahead of Seb in a couple of races at least. And what if these points are the difference between winning or loosing a championship? That's the problem.
On the other hand they could have more chances for the constructor if one day Ferrari has a competitive enough car.
Click to expand...

How so Ferrari have always maintained that the WCC is more important it wasn't until the Schumacher era that they were perfectly fine with making sure whoever the star was, that he too was happy and got his way. Now that's not to say Ferrari haven't always made sure things when the way they've said, but MS driving for them was probably the first of many drivers to be made sure he got his way so long as he was leading the Driver championship.

If Ferrari truely are invested at staying at the top or even winning again on a champion level then the second driver gaining extra points a couple times over the main driver shouldn't be an issue. Especially if they believe they can give Vettel the same thing he had at RBR.

But as can be seen at Merc, obviously the lesser driver taking away from the first place driver doesn't hurt anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back