Vettel as good as Senna, says Ascanelli...

[KobayashiFan]

Yeah, didn't "want" this thread to get closed.
It's just that Justin summed it up perfectly.

Oh yeah, I umm...knew that.


In my opinion, although I disagree with the Vettel/Senna comparison that Ascanelli made; it is incorrect to suggest Vettel won because of a superior car. Of course, the Red Bull RB6 was the dominant car this season. But many seem to have forgotten what Vettel achieved in 2008 in the Toro Rosso. Not just in Italy either. He was impressive in qualifying at many grand prix that year.

 

[Famine]

In my opinion, although I disagree with the Vettel/Senna comparison that Ascanelli made; it is incorrect to suggest Vettel won because of a superior car. Of course, the Red Bull RB6 was the dominant car this season. But many seem to have forgotten what Vettel achieved in 2008 in the Toro Rosso. Not just in Italy either. He was impressive in qualifying at many grand prix that year.

Ah, now, this is where my idea to fix the politics of F1 can help.

Using that system we can see that in 2010, the Red Bull car was the best on the grid (1st place, 279pt) and Vettel won the championship in that car - putting it where it would be expected (1st & 2nd). Under my system Vettel won 101pt to Webber's 178pt, meaning that Vettel finished higher than his teammate when both cars finished to the value of twice as often as he finished behind, putting him as a superior (and/or treated as such) driver than his teammate. His teammate finished 3rd in the championship (below the car's potential)

In 2009 the RBR car was the second best car on the grid and Vettel finished second in that car - putting it a place higher than it would be expected (3rd & 4th). Under my system, Vettel won 36pt to Webber's 45pt, meaning Vettel finished higher than his teammate when both cars finished to the value of just over 10% more often, putting him as a slightly better driver than his teammate, who finished 4th in the championship (equal to the car's potential).

In 2008 the STR car was the eighth best car on the grid and Vettel finished eighth in that car - putting it far higher than it would be expected (15th & 16th). Under my system, Vettel won 0pt to Bourdais' 35pt, meaning that Vettel never finished behind his teammate when both cars finished. This puts Vettel as a considerably better driver (and/or treated as such) than his teammate, who finished 17th in the championship (below the car's potential).

2007's contributions are harder to judge from a team perspective, not least because of McLaren's exclusion and Vettel coming in halfway through for Scott Speed. However, under my system Vettel was outscored by Liuzzi 8 to 3, meaning Vettel finished ahead of his teammate when both cars finished to the value of three times as often. Vettel's efforts in the STR alone would put him 16th in the championship (better than the car, the 9th best and thus 17th & 18th) while his teammate managed 18th (equal to the car's potential).


All of which means that Vettel has always been a better driver than either his teammate or the car he's in (except last season, where he was equal to the car - but only because both were first), even when his teammate has been in the top four drivers or his car has been woeful. That is, whatever you think of Vettel, rare for a driver - but Senna he's not.

Nope, in 1986 it was a Renault and he was in chamionship contention right down to the last race. Even though the Williams and McLaren were faster, Senna sat on pole for 8 out of the 16 races (Vettel only got slightly better average than that, 10 from 19, in clearly the fastest car). In 1987 it was a Honda, but the Lotus chassis was nowhere near as good as the Williams and they were having teething troubles with active suspension, yet he still won 2 races against the dominant Williams.

And I can prove this with the same maths. The '86 Lotus actually finished 3rd in the championship due to Senna's finishes (two wins, four seconds, two thirds), but on reliability the car was joint sixth with only four occasions where both cars finished. Senna's pace belied the car's ability - he never finished behind his teammate when both finished. Ayrton put what was on pace, reliability and his teammate's ability the seventh best car on the grid and put it fourth - ahead of a World Champion in a far superior car.

Haven't looked at 1987 yet, but I imagine it to be much the same.


Note for the hard of link-clicking: The above numbers are not representative of the actual championships, but of my reworking of it as featured in the link I posted. Please don't complain the numbers aren't accurate - they are, but not to the actual results.

 

[Anghammarad]

When Vettel is as good at overtaking that he is at qualifying I will consider it but not now.

 

[Anghammarad]

Like Senna did in 1988, 1990 and 1991, like Mansell did in 1992, like Prost did in 1993, like Schumacher did in 1994 (and highly likely wouldn't have if Senna had lived), not to mention 1995 and 2000-2004, like Hill did in 1996, like Villeneuve did in 1997, like Häkkinen did in 1998 and 1999, like Alonso did in 2005 and 2006, like Räikkönen did in 2007 and like Hamilton did in 2008.

Yeah. It's all in the car in this case, and this case alone.

I would say that the Brawn of 2009 was far more superior than any of the ones you mentioned and would also argue that this year's RB was farther (is that he correct use of the word farther?) ahead of the competition that the winning cars in the last few decades was ahead of theirs except for 2009. Vettel is very talented but he would not have won the WDC in a Ferrari or McLaren.

Sorry for the doublepost. My intention was to edit my first post but I failed miserably.

 

[KobayashiFan]

Ah, now, this is where my idea to fix the politics of F1 can help.

Using that system we can see that in 2010, the Red Bull car was the best on the grid (1st place, 279pt) and Vettel won the championship in that car - putting it where it would be expected (1st & 2nd). Under my system Vettel won 101pt to Webber's 178pt, meaning that Vettel finished higher than his teammate when both cars finished to the value of twice as often as he finished behind, putting him as a superior (and/or treated as such) driver than his teammate. His teammate finished 3rd in the championship (below the car's potential)

In 2009 the RBR car was the second best car on the grid and Vettel finished second in that car - putting it a place higher than it would be expected (3rd & 4th). Under my system, Vettel won 36pt to Webber's 45pt, meaning Vettel finished higher than his teammate when both cars finished to the value of just over 10% more often, putting him as a slightly better driver than his teammate, who finished 4th in the championship (equal to the car's potential).

In 2008 the STR car was the eighth best car on the grid and Vettel finished eighth in that car - putting it far higher than it would be expected (15th & 16th). Under my system, Vettel won 0pt to Bourdais' 35pt, meaning that Vettel never finished behind his teammate when both cars finished. This puts Vettel as a considerably better driver (and/or treated as such) than his teammate, who finished 17th in the championship (below the car's potential).

2007's contributions are harder to judge from a team perspective, not least because of McLaren's exclusion and Vettel coming in halfway through for Scott Speed. However, under my system Vettel was outscored by Liuzzi 8 to 3, meaning Vettel finished ahead of his teammate when both cars finished to the value of three times as often. Vettel's efforts in the STR alone would put him 16th in the championship (better than the car, the 9th best and thus 17th & 18th) while his teammate managed 18th (equal to the car's potential).


All of which means that Vettel has always been a better driver than either his teammate or the car he's in (except last season, where he was equal to the car - but only because both were first), even when his teammate has been in the top four drivers or his car has been woeful. That is, whatever you think of Vettel, rare for a driver - but Senna he's not.


Note for the hard of link-clicking: The above numbers are not representative of the actual championships, but of my reworking of it as featured in the link I posted. Please don't complain the numbers aren't accurate - they are, but not to the actual results.

Your idea works for me. 👍

 

[Ardius]

I would say that the Brawn of 2009 was far more superior than any of the ones you mentioned and would also argue that this year's RB was farther (is that he correct use of the word farther?) ahead of the competition that the winning cars in the last few decades was ahead of theirs except for 2009. Vettel is very talented but he would not have won the WDC in a Ferrari or McLaren.

Sorry for the doublepost. My intention was to edit my first post but I failed miserably.

The Brawn was not more dominant than the 90s Williams...you must have not seen those seasons if you think otherwise. Back then, the midfield teams were regularly seconds off the pace of the fastest cars, whereas nowadays its more common to see the entire field (except the new teams for this year) covered by tenths...the Brawn held a similar advantage to the Williams of 1992, 1993 and 1996 but it wasn't for the entire season like back then. Brawn visibly lost pace in the 2nd half of the year as others caught up.
If Button had a bad qualifying (which he did all too often in 09), he had to fight cars which were only a few tenths slower than his car in an era where overtaking appears more difficult. If Hill or Mansell had a bad qualifying, they were around cars that were seconds off their pace in an era where overtaking was slightly easier.

 

[Akira AC]

Vettel is a good driver,and presumably the best in the current generation of F1 race drivers,but qualify him in the same level of Senna its overrate him,But I found Kobayashi a better driver than Vettel,just slightly.

Better than Senna,maybe in 10 or 20 years,if the F1 is still going.

 

[Kilika]

One title and he gets compared to the greatest of all time? And it all came down to the very last race. If Alonso didn't have a bad race we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. And he didn't exactly blew his teammate away either. I believe people were having the same discussion when Jacques Villeneuve won the title in his sophomore season.

I'd say he has the potential to be another Shumacher if he does away with the mistakes. But not sure about Senna, he doesn't seem to have that killer instinct and ruthlessness Senna had. But like in all of F1, winning requires the total package.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Is Vettel a talent at the level of Ayrton? I don't know, and no one does.

Too many variables. Different time, different set of drivers, different development of drivers, different cars, different competition. It is impossible to compare.

Vettel is younger right now than Senna was at his first GP, and at the time he was a fairly young debutant himself. It was a completely different era.

But Hamilton seems incredibly able to find an extra two or three tenths beyond what the car can actually do. I don't know if I've seen Vettel do that...

I always find this figure of speech a bit irritating. No driver in the history of the sport (or any motorsport) has ever driven beyond what the car is capable of. There is no such thing as a perfect lap either.

 

[Grand Prix]

Vettel reminds me more of Jim Clark than anything.

- Both liked to dominate at the front, often creating a huge distance to second place in just a few laps
- Both got uneasy when followed closely by a rival
- Both had fast but fragile machinery
- Both had arguably the most brilliant lead designer/engineer of their respective periods

The difference lies in the personality and background. Jim Clark, coming from a farming occupation was much more humble, in fact on one occasion he even said he wasn't sure if he wanted to be Champion, as it would have been "too much fuss and drama." Vettel still needs to mature somewhat. But the skill and talent is undeniable. Time will tell if he learns to cope more with other drivers around him.

 

[niky]

I always find this figure of speech a bit irritating. No driver in the history of the sport (or any motorsport) has ever driven beyond what the car is capable of. There is no such thing as a perfect lap either.

Hyperbole, true... but I think it's well deserved.