Best driver performance over a season of all time?

[mnmracer]

1992 and 2011 is not great proof of a great driver in Mansell or Vettel, it is more a proof of a overpowered car in my opinion. That is not to say Vettel or Mansell are not great drivers, but they had the deck stacked greatly in their favor in the years mentioned.

I am a bit more open to Schumi in 2004, but Rubens finishing second by such a hefty margin over the likes of Kimi, JPM and Button makes me think that was more the car also.

Please help me understand:
Rubens finishes second with a hefty margin, and "it might not be the car", while Mark coming in 3rd, is "proof of an overpowered car"?

Really? Along with the F2002, the F2004 and the RB7 were the most dominant cars raced in F1 since 1993 and arguably two of the most dominant cars in the sport's history.

I suggest you read up on one of the many articles shedding some light on the perceived dominance of the F2004 and RB7. They (most often) had the fastest car, but not by the margin they ended up winning that season. Everyone acts like the Red Bull has 2 second advantage front-row lock outs every race, like in the '80s and '90s. In reality, they had 6 front rows in 20 races: that is the same ratio as Mercedes has this year.

Let's be realistic here, the team principles voted Alonso as the best driver that year. The majority of fans, pundits and paddock experts said that Alonso was the best performer. You're free to have your opinion, but don't try and make out that the general opinion of the F1 community was divided as to who was the best driver that year.

Let's be realistic here, don't try and make out that Alonso is the only one that received praise for his drive that year.

I think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs contradict each other. You dismiss Alonso in 2012 because Massa was underperforming, yet how do you know that Barrichello did not underperform in 2001? or Webber in 2011?

Since you're making the opposite statement (2012 showed Alonso's pace, not Massa's), why don't you answer your own question

[SectorOne]

Really? Along with the F2002, the F2004 and the RB7 were the most dominant cars raced in F1 since 1993 and arguably two of the most dominant cars in the sport's history.

I suggest you read up on one of the many articles shedding some light on the perceived dominance of the F2004 and RB7. They (most often) had the fastest car, but not by the margin they ended up winning that season. Everyone acts like the Red Bull has 2 second advantage front-row lock outs every race, like in the '80s and '90s. In reality, they had 6 front rows in 20 races: that is the same ratio as Mercedes has this year.

I just love this quote. Especially the last bit.

Mercedes has the same therefore equal performance. Otherwise mentioning Mercedes would be quite useless in of itself.

2 second advantage? No but often just below a second. With that car you expect every single pole and win to be taken.
It was THAT good.

Just like the car Senna and Prost ran in 88. Utter dominance.

[mnmracer]

Really? Along with the F2002, the F2004 and the RB7 were the most dominant cars raced in F1 since 1993 and arguably two of the most dominant cars in the sport's history.

I suggest you read up on one of the many articles shedding some light on the perceived dominance of the F2004 and RB7. They (most often) had the fastest car, but not by the margin they ended up winning that season. Everyone acts like the Red Bull has 2 second advantage front-row lock outs every race, like in the '80s and '90s. In reality, they had 6 front rows in 20 races: that is the same ratio as Mercedes has this year.

I just love this quote. Especially the last bit.

Mercedes has the same therefore equal performance. Otherwise mentioning Mercedes would be quite useless in of itself.

Let's raise some hands how many people think Mercedes have a dominant car?
Anyone?


Hmm.. one would almost start to think judging a car's dominance based on qualifying is a little simplistic

2 second advantage? No but often just below a second. With that car you expect every single pole and win to be taken.
It was THAT good.

Just like the car Senna and Prost ran in 88. Utter dominance.

Like I said, you might want to read up a bit.

[sennafan24]

1992 and 2011 is not great proof of a great driver in Mansell or Vettel, it is more a proof of a overpowered car in my opinion. That is not to say Vettel or Mansell are not great drivers, but they had the deck stacked greatly in their favor in the years mentioned.

I am a bit more open to Schumi in 2004, but Rubens finishing second by such a hefty margin over the likes of Kimi, JPM and Button makes me think that was more the car also.

Please help me understand:
Rubens finishes second with a hefty margin, and "it might not be the car", while Mark coming in 3rd, is "proof of an overpowered car"?

I should have said "I would be more open to Schumi in 2004" if it was not for the fact that Rubens finished so far ahead of the drivers mentioned.

[mnmracer]

1992 and 2011 is not great proof of a great driver in Mansell or Vettel, it is more a proof of a overpowered car in my opinion. That is not to say Vettel or Mansell are not great drivers, but they had the deck stacked greatly in their favor in the years mentioned.

I am a bit more open to Schumi in 2004, but Rubens finishing second by such a hefty margin over the likes of Kimi, JPM and Button makes me think that was more the car also.

Please help me understand:
Rubens finishes second with a hefty margin, and "it might not be the car", while Mark coming in 3rd, is "proof of an overpowered car"?

I should have said "I would be more open to Schumi in 2004" if it was not for the fact that Rubens finished so far ahead of the drivers mentioned.

So you do believe a driver can have an amazing performance, regardless of their car?

[sennafan24]

So you do believe a driver can have an amazing performance, regardless of their car?

Yeah.

But it can be hard to determine. I think Senna in 1993 is a crown example to most of great performances being down to the driver rather than the car. Schumi in 2000 is another example.

I cannot say the same about Vettel in 2011 or Mansell in 1992, I think that was more a overpowered car rather than drivers merit.

[mnmracer]

So you do believe a driver can have an amazing performance, regardless of their car?

Yeah.

But it can be hard to determine. I think Senna in 1993 is a crown example to most of great performances being down to the driver rather than the car. Schumi in 2000 is another example.

I cannot say the same about Vettel in 2011 or Mansell in 1992, I think that was more a overpowered car rather than drivers merit.

But other then your dislike for Vettel, what exactly gives you that idea?
What other 'overpowered car' had a team-mate finish 3rd in the championship with 1 gifted win?

[sennafan24]

So you do believe a driver can have an amazing performance, regardless of their car?

Yeah.

But it can be hard to determine. I think Senna in 1993 is a crown example to most of great performances being down to the driver rather than the car. Schumi in 2000 is another example.

I cannot say the same about Vettel in 2011 or Mansell in 1992, I think that was more a overpowered car rather than drivers merit.

But other then your dislike for Vettel, what exactly gives you that idea?
What other 'overpowered car' had a team-mate finish 3rd in the championship with 1 gifted win?

Mansell almost, as I stated above.

It is not just my dislike of Vettel, I like Schumi but I am not willing to rate his 2004 triumph as being doing to driving ability. To turn the question around, what makes you think it was not the car in 2011? Keeping in mind the Mansell/Patrese similarity to Vettel/Webber

[mnmracer]

It is not just my dislike of Vettel, I like Schumi but I am not willing to rate his 2004 triumph as being doing to driving ability.

That's the thing isn't it?
The triumph, no, but the size of the triumph was very much Schumacher.
If I used that argument, I could say Senna only won everything he did in 88/89 because of the car, but I won't, because even in a good car, an outstanding driver can do an outstanding performance.

To turn the question around, what makes you think it was not the car in 2011? Keeping in mind the Mansell/Patrese similarity to Vettel/Webber

That's the thing, they are not similar.
To quote F1Fanatic:

Vettel’s largest advantage was much smaller – 0.778s, less than Mansell’s average margin as a pole sitter.

That high-water mark for Vettel came in the first race of the season at Melbourne. Since then his superiority in qualifying has been gradually eroded. Some of his most recent pole positions have been achieved by very slim margins – 0.141s in Abu Dhabi and 0.009s in Japan.

Mansell could make a mistake in qualifying and still grab pole position.
They had one-and-a-half time as many front-row lock-outs, and they were not two of the best qualifiers on the grid. They had twice as many 1-2 finishes. Partrese retired the last race and still beat Schumacher.
To say they are similar, is so overly simplistic. The FW14B was fast enough that drivers could make mistakes and still win and take pole. Vettel had the advantage of being just in front in qualifying, not to make mistakes. And that's the thing, he rarely did.

[sennafan24]

I think the race pace advantage Red Bull had was similar though to the race pace Williams had. Even if the qualifying margin was not as significant.

I am not knocking Vettel's performances as such, but Webber himself says his worst year was 2011 as he could not adapt to the tyres. Even then Webber beat Alonso that year, that signals that it was the car as no way was he outperforming Alonso.

Senna in 1988/1989 had Prost as a teammate, both Mansell and Vettel had drivers who were aging and firmly had the measure of.

In 2004, amazingly Rubens scored around 70-80 percent of the points Schumi did, I believe that is the closest Rubens got to Schumi. So the "size" is not as impressive as it might appear.

[mnmracer]

Even then Webber beat Alonso that year, that signals that it was the car as no way was he outperforming Alonso.

You are again reverting to the first error in your train of thought.
I am not arguing the car did not have an advantage.
I am saying that winning the way he did, with the margins he did, was down to a perfect performance. Just like with Schumacher in 2004.

The Red Bull in essence, most certainly in 2011, is a car that doesn't work in dirty air, so anyone not being able to put in those blistering qualifying laps, would have already not been able to get those race performances.

[sennafan24]

Okay fair enough.

I am not going to knock Vettel's performances in 2011, I get what you are saying a bit more now. I still think Lewis and maybe Alonso could have done the same with their qualifying talents , but we will never know.

This is not backhanded, but 2011 does indeed prove Vettel is a good front runner and as I have always said is good under pressure.

[SectorOne]

Let's raise some hands how many people think Mercedes have a dominant car?
Hmm.. one would almost start to think judging a car's dominance based on qualifying is a little simplistic

And yet you felt compelled to compare it with the RB7...

Like I said, you might want to read up a bit.

Thank you for proving my point!

Not bad considering it´s up against a car with active suspension, something the RB7 could not enjoy over it´s competitors.
And considering the competitiveness these days are far greater with such locked in regulations.
All those seconds from the Williams is straight from the active suspension. RB7 had a different exhaust basically..

I´m still amazed that some glaze over the sheer dominance of the RB6 and RB7 had over it´s competitors.
The cars could take some things flat while other cars could not. There´s not skill involved in that, just time..

[mnmracer]

Let's raise some hands how many people think Mercedes have a dominant car?
Hmm.. one would almost start to think judging a car's dominance based on qualifying is a little simplistic

And yet you felt compelled to compare it with the RB7...

To illustrate what a non-argument qualifying pace is.

The cars could take some things flat while other cars could not. There´s not skill involved in that, just time..

This mantra is repeated over and over for the last 2 years, yet when asked about it, no one ever knows what "things" could be taken flat-out that others could not, apart from 1 corner (last in Barcelona).
So please, for the quality of this discussions, as I trust that you know what you are talking about, please tell us what corners other than turn 16 in Barcelona, could Red Bull take flat out where others could not?

[JimClarkFan]

Guys...you're gonna get my thread locked

Except that you have differences of opinions and leave it there please [-o<