Ecclestone: Vettel more noteworthy than Schumi

[Londoner]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/06/29/ecclestone-vettels-success-noteworthy-schumachers/

He evidently hasn't seen or cannot remember the 1995 or 2003 seasons to be honest.

[Collieafc]

Hes not the best. It just so happens that his cars so good even a chimp could win in it. Going by Bernies logic, that would make Mansell one of the best drivers ever

[DOSBoot]

Bzzz. Wrong Bernie, I'm not tuning in to see Vettel win. I'm tuning in hopeing to see he doesn't win.

[DanielPT]

Hes not the best. It just so happens that his cars so good even a chimp could win in it. Going by Bernies logic, that would make Mansell one of the best drivers ever

Mark Webber has yet to win this season and only once he finished 2nd...

[AndreaModa]

Bzzz. Wrong Bernie, I'm not tuning in to see Vettel win. I'm tuning in hopeing to see he doesn't win.

We all are aren't we?

Oh wait DonTirri isn't!

[DOSBoot]

Oh wait DonTirri isn't!

Hence I said "I".

[FullMetalJack]

Hes not the best. It just so happens that his cars so good even a chimp could win in it. Going by Bernies logic, that would make Mansell one of the best drivers ever

Mark Webber has yet to win this season and only once he finished 2nd...

Riccardo Patrese only won once in 1992.

[mario]

Hes not the best. It just so happens that his cars so good even a chimp could win in it. Going by Bernies logic, that would make Mansell one of the best drivers ever

Mark Webber has yet to win this season and only once he finished 2nd...

That was exactly the same point that I was going to make - yes, the RB7 is probably the fastest car in the field, but Webber is not able to challenge Vettel in terms of outright pace at the moment, either in qualifying or consistently over a full race distance. Oddly, though, in race trim Webber can match Vettel over a single lap, it seems - Webber has managed to be either close to Vettel's fastest laps, and in four races this season actually set a faster lap in the race to Vettel - but he just can't do that lap after lap, in part because his driving style seems to be ill suited to the new tyres.

So, to be more accurate, I would say that Newey has designed a car that is the fastest provided that it is driven in a very precise way to maximise the lifespan of the tyres. Speculatively, given the current driver line up, I suspect that if Hamilton or Alonso had the same car at their disposal, their lap times would probably be pretty similar to Vettel's times - at the very least, judging by the fastest laps from the European GP, I doubt that Vettel is half a second quicker than Alonso and more than a second quicker than Hamilton through talent alone (I could believe a couple of tenths, but gaps of half a second or more are about the car, plain and simple).

[DonTirri]

Bzzz. Wrong Bernie, I'm not tuning in to see Vettel win. I'm tuning in hopeing to see he doesn't win.

We all are aren't we?

Oh wait DonTirri isn't!

Actually, to be honest i am tuning in to see Whinelton and Failonso lose. Those two things make me even happier than Vettel winning.

[Benetton]

I'm tuning in to see Jenson Button win.

I despise Vettel, Webber, Hamilton, Alonso and Massa.

I'd also really like Mercedes to turn it up a notch.

[FullMetalJack]

I'm tuning in to see Williams win, although I know that may never happen again.

Also to see Button, Webber or Kobayashi win.

[Peter]

In 2010, I said that I hated Webber and Button religiously, not anymore, cool guys. But as of now, I hate Vettel religiously. I'll support anyone who can stop him from winning.

About talent, I rate Vettel below Alonso and Hamilton, that RB7 is just supernatural.

[AndreaModa]

I'm tuning in to see Williams win, although I know that may never happen again.

Also to see Button, Webber or Kobayashi win.

Add Virgin to that list, and yeah I'd agree with that 100%

[Aerospeed]

Actually, to be honest i am tuning in to see Whinelton and Failonso lose. Those two things make me even happier than Vettel winning.

Not much of a Vettel fan, but he is better than Failonso and Whinelton

[Peter]

I'm tuning in to see Williams win, although I know that may never happen again.

Also to see Button, Webber or Kobayashi win.

Add Virgin to that list, and yeah I'd agree with that 100%

ROFL, Virgin winning a race?

[nome66]

actually i just thought about this. by EITHER logic, Ayrton Senna is the best.
Great car= great season. 1988-1992. Turbo-v6/v12/v10
Great Driver= great season. all the time.

also:: anyone else think the front wing on the RB6/7 might have a little to do with vettel? I mean come on. In Shanghai, the WHOLE FIELD was 2.2 seconds of Red Bull's pace in Qualifying!

[Rocks with Salt]

anyone else think the front wing on the RB6/7 might have a little to do with vettel?

That's the big annoying five-ton elephant in the room here mate. Always has been; always will. 'Tis the same with all championship drivers: we all know it's the car, not the driver. The only time we can tell if a driver is good or bad in F1 is if they massively fail on a Badoer-like scale, otherwise the scale of good and bad might as well not even exist.

[DanielPT]

I'm turning in to see F1 cars to race, some show now and then and to see some heroics or epic fails. I feel neutral towards most drivers except Kobayashi and some back of the grid folks, whom I like and Hamilton, who I dislike (thanks to Lewisteria...). I feel neutral towards Vettel, so I don't mind him winning.

[fjackdaw]

anyone else think the front wing on the RB6/7 might have a little to do with vettel?

That's the big annoying five-ton elephant in the room here mate. Always has been; always will. 'Tis the same with all championship drivers: we all know it's the car, not the driver. The only time we can tell if a driver is good or bad in F1 is if they massively fail on a Badoer-like scale, otherwise the scale of good and bad might as well not even exist.

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

[DonTirri]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

[Peter]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

The 2005 McLaren, though far less reliable, was something like half a second faster than the Renault, all the time. In 2006, by mid season, Ferrari were easily the fastest cars on the grid.

[dr-baker]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

The 2005 McLaren, though far less reliable, was something like half a second faster than the Renault, all the time. In 2006, by mid season, Ferrari were easily the fastest cars on the grid.

Depends on what exactly you mean as 'the best.' In the current season of F1RWRS, foe instance, Foxdale ought to be dominating the championship (having led many laps and scored about 80% of all poles) but due to unreliability and crashes, have yet to finish a race and thus, halfway through the season, have been demoted to pre-qualifying...

[Ferrim]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

[DanielPT]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

Given the constructors championship, the MP4/14 finished second in the WCC even though Ferrari changed their second driver like they changed underwear, so I it was not best by far. But I agree about 1991 and 2005.

[Benetton]

The 2005 Renault was the best overall package since it had the reliability that McLaren lacked. The McLaren was the fastest car, although alot of credit goes to Raikkonen who I rate way above Alonso in terms of raw pace. Arguably, the point system used back in 05, 06 also helped Alonso's title bids since Raikkonen really had no opportunity to catch Alonso in the latter part of the season (and put pressure on him) unless Alonso retired and Alonso knew that coming second or third would be enough. Very Prost like but hey he won the title so who cares.

The 2006 championship is the only Alonso title I think he truly deserved. He raced very well that season and almost lost the championship because of a rule change which would not have been enterily fair IMHO.

Alonso will have a hard time winning another championship since at the moment Vettel and Hamilton, besided being better drivers in terms of pace, have better teams around them. Ferrari post-Todt has lacked something. And I really want to see what Kubica can do in a top class car when he returns.

[RAK]

Not true - you need a good enough car in order to physically be in a position to win a race, but you usually need a championship-level driver to actually go out there and win. What you're forgetting is, a) not every champion wins in the absolute best car (Raikkonen, Alonso), and b) when they are, it's still quite rare for that one team to be miles ahead of everyone else, more often than not there's a level of genuine competition. Pretty much every year since the Schumacher era ended, it's come down to the wire, more or less.

The HELL? the hell is Failonso doing there? The 2005 and 2006 Renaults were the absolutely best cars on the grid ffs. Mclaren's were quicker yes and the Ferraris more reliable maybe but since being ABSOLUTELY best means Overral best, atleast to me, the Renaults were the best.

You should rather add Prost in 86, Rosberg in 82, Senna in 91, Schuey in 95 and Häkkinen in 99 into that list. But Failonso? Get a grip.

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

To be honest, I think everybody's missing out Hawthorn in 1958. The Vanwall was unreliable, but probably the best car on the grid technologically. The Ferrari had power, but also suffered slightly from Enzo Ferrari's conservative attitude at the time. That Hawthorn won the championship does not necessarily mean he was the best driver of the year, but I wouldn't call a car with drum brakes, a four-speed gearbox and limited aerodynamic efficacy the best car of 1958.

[tommykl]

Enzo Ferrari did once say: "Aerodynamics is for those who can not manufacture good engines".

[mario]

Enzo Ferrari did once say: "Aerodynamics is for those who can not manufacture good engines".

True, although he soon changed that tune when his cars were blown into the weeds by his rivals who had cottoned onto the fact that aerodynamics could more than make up for a less powerful engine...

[Collieafc]

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

1983. Piquet won with the Brabham, but was 3rd in the Constructors

[DonTirri]

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

99 Macca was NOT the best car of the grid. I mean seriously, the Ferrari was so good that EDDIE FRAKKING IRVINE could challenge Häkkinen with it.

[TomWazzleshaw]

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

99 Macca was NOT the best car of the grid. I mean seriously, the Ferrari was so good that EDDIE FRAKKING IRVINE could challenge Häkkinen with it.

Compared to the McLaren the Ferrari was virtually bulletproof. Irvine had only one DNF all season compared to 5 for Hakkinen.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

99 Macca was NOT the best car of the grid. I mean seriously, the Ferrari was so good that EDDIE FRAKKING IRVINE could challenge Häkkinen with it.

How was the Macca NOT the best car on the grid? Look at this, Hakkinen took pole 11 times out of 16, took 6 fastest laps, more than any other driver, with Coulthard with 3, meaning McLaren took fastest lap on more than half of the calendar (although only just). Hakkinen really should have won at least 7 times, but through it away with mistakes such as the one at Monza. In my opinion, you underrate Irvine too much. I mean, he wasn't blisteringly quick, but he could get the job done. That's all I'm saying.

[DonTirri]

How was the Macca NOT the best car on the grid? Look at this, Hakkinen took pole 11 times out of 16, took 6 fastest laps, more than any other driver, with Coulthard with 3, meaning McLaren took fastest lap on more than half of the calendar (although only just). Hakkinen really should have won at least 7 times, but through it away with mistakes such as the one at Monza. In my opinion, you underrate Irvine too much. I mean, he wasn't blisteringly quick, but he could get the job done. That's all I'm saying.

Refer to the posts about 2005. The Macca might've been the quickest but FAR from the most reliable. And C'mon, Couldthard got beat by Frentzen in that car simply down to reliability.

And no, I am not underrating Irvine, you are overrating him. He was worth exactly shite BEFORE and AFTER his Ferrari years. Not to mention it took him 3 years to get his first win IN that Ferrari, and we know how many Schuey scored in the same timeframe.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

How was the Macca NOT the best car on the grid? Look at this, Hakkinen took pole 11 times out of 16, took 6 fastest laps, more than any other driver, with Coulthard with 3, meaning McLaren took fastest lap on more than half of the calendar (although only just). Hakkinen really should have won at least 7 times, but through it away with mistakes such as the one at Monza. In my opinion, you underrate Irvine too much. I mean, he wasn't blisteringly quick, but he could get the job done. That's all I'm saying.

Refer to the posts about 2005. The Macca might've been the quickest but FAR from the most reliable. And C'mon, Couldthard got beat by Frentzen in that car simply down to reliability.

And no, I am not underrating Irvine, you are overrating him. He was worth exactly shite BEFORE and AFTER his Ferrari years. Not to mention it took him 3 years to get his first win IN that Ferrari, and we know how many Schuey scored in the same timeframe.

The 1999 Macca was not reliable? Look, out of Hakkinen's 5 retirements, only once did he retire due to something falling of his car, which was his tyre, so I can't exactly say that was mechanical. Also, I don't think we're talking about Coulthard here. You yourself said it was down to Hakkinen not supposed to be on that list, so Coulthard has nothing to do with this. And I can't help but laugh at your Irvine-Schumacher comparison. Well done my friend.

[DonTirri]

How was the Macca NOT the best car on the grid? Look at this, Hakkinen took pole 11 times out of 16, took 6 fastest laps, more than any other driver, with Coulthard with 3, meaning McLaren took fastest lap on more than half of the calendar (although only just). Hakkinen really should have won at least 7 times, but through it away with mistakes such as the one at Monza. In my opinion, you underrate Irvine too much. I mean, he wasn't blisteringly quick, but he could get the job done. That's all I'm saying.

Refer to the posts about 2005. The Macca might've been the quickest but FAR from the most reliable. And C'mon, Couldthard got beat by Frentzen in that car simply down to reliability.

And no, I am not underrating Irvine, you are overrating him. He was worth exactly shite BEFORE and AFTER his Ferrari years. Not to mention it took him 3 years to get his first win IN that Ferrari, and we know how many Schuey scored in the same timeframe.

The 1999 Macca was not reliable? Look, out of Hakkinen's 5 retirements, only once did he retire due to something falling of his car, which was his tyre, so I can't exactly say that was mechanical. Also, I don't think we're talking about Coulthard here. You yourself said it was down to Hakkinen not supposed to be on that list, so Coulthard has nothing to do with this. And I can't help but laugh at your Irvine-Schumacher comparison. Well done my friend.

Okay, comparing to Schuey was unfair yes. Lets compare him to his successors? Irvine took 4 wins in 4 years. Rubinho took 9 wins in his first 4 years. Massa took 10, while beating his teammate, the reigning world champion on MERIT. So yeah. Irvine wasn't bad for a midfielder, but the car was a MASSIVE reason he even had a shot at the title. He belonged nowhere near that level.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

Agreed. I'll stop talking now.

[resir014]

When I first read this at F1F, the first thing that came to my head is:

F1 has lost their common sense. Literally.

[Londoner]

When I first read this at F1F, the first thing that came to my head is:

F1 has lost their common sense. Literally.

Did F1 even have any common sense in the first place....

[FullMetalJack]

What. The. HELL?????

The McLaren was by far the best car for most of the season. Häkkinen should have won it (and 1998 as well) WAY earlier than he did.

Ah, and Senna in 1991 is very very similar to Alonso in 2005. Took a big lead early on and hold to it against a faster but more unreliable opposition.

Alonso in 2010 would have been a tremendous example. I don't remember when was the last time that the world champion drove the car that finished third in the constructors.

99 Macca was NOT the best car of the grid. I mean seriously, the Ferrari was so good that EDDIE FRAKKING IRVINE could challenge Häkkinen with it.

Mika Salo basically won a race in it

[The Mountain Man]

You got it all wrong.
Bernie was actually referring to the fact he's making more money now than during the Schumacher era.