Is Seb. Vettel One Of The All Time Great Drivers ?

[rodders47 2]

With his 4th consecutive grand prix title looming do you think that maybe he is one of the best drivers we have seen, certainly in the current era. Mark Weber is no slouch but Vettel always seems to be able to go one hell of a lot better with what one would assume is an identical race car. And he seems to be able to drive hard and fast and save the car, making him, IMHO the best of the drivers racing in F1 today.

[Quiet One 15]

Long story short. Nah.

Not there yet. Top 5, but still Alonso owns him, Kimi as well and probably Hamilton.

That he beat a disgruntled Webber is as much of a feat as is Alonso kicking Massa's a## ("Massa's a##"...I like it! The words, not the a## per se) who is no slouch either, almost WDC and recognized as a very fast qualifier back in his days, yet I don't think there's much pride to get from it.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Long story short. Nah.

Not there yet. Top 5, but still Alonso owns him, Kimi as well and probably Hamilton.

That he beat a disgruntled Webber is as much of a feat as is Alonso kicking Massa's a## ("Massa's a##"...I like it! The words, not the a## per se) who is no slouch either, almost WDC and recognized as a very fast qualifier back in his days, yet I don't think there's much pride to get from it.

wha?

[Quiet One 15]

wha?

[Emmcee 0]

Long story short. Nah.

Not there yet. Top 5, but still Alonso owns him, Kimi as well and probably Hamilton.

That he beat a disgruntled Webber is as much of a feat as is Alonso kicking Massa's a## ("Massa's a##"...I like it! The words, not the a## per se) who is no slouch either, almost WDC and recognized as a very fast qualifier back in his days, yet I don't think there's much pride to get from it.

I would have to agree with this, as seb is definatly "one" of the best of today's drivers but as one of the all time greats,is hard to say as kimi,alonso and Hamilton could all do the same in his car. As I said before weather you like it or not,every car he had could and nearly did win a gp. The 2008 tr was the best ever rosso built IMO, 2007 BMW sauber was also a very fast car. I do Beleive he still isn't on the same level as alonso and still just a tad shy of lewis. He is a pure racer though and as much as I dislike him, his passion towards the sport is senna like, but the question is, would he be just as good or better than alonso or Hamilton in a merc,Ferrari or Mclaren, as the either one of the 3 as his teammate.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

Long story short. Nah.

Not there yet. Top 5, but still Alonso owns him, Kimi as well and probably Hamilton.

That he beat a disgruntled Webber is as much of a feat as is Alonso kicking Massa's a## ("Massa's a##"...I like it! The words, not the a## per se) who is no slouch either, almost WDC and recognized as a very fast qualifier back in his days, yet I don't think there's much pride to get from it.

Yep, I agree, but I would add Button in 4th. No way he is an all time great, at least not yet.

[Massa 0]

Well, I already wrote a huge, long essay about this last night, but I'll take another angle here:

Let's say Vettel is the fourth or fifth best driver in F1 as some believe, and let's say Red Bull is the best team in F1 as most believe.

Red Bull can take two stances: we need a driver good enough to win the WDC/WCC or we need the absolute best driver.

Red Bull, because they are the best team in F1, can sign anyone they want.

If Red Bull only need someone good enough, why extend Vettel for more years, as they have? Surely, if the car is so good, they can hire someone much cheaper to do the same job.

If Red Bull want the absolute best driver, why extend Vettel for more years, as they have? If there are three or four better drivers, a team like Red Bull could get anyone they want to lead.

I assume Red Bull have a desire to field the best team possible, and to always get better. They know that there may come a year when the car is not the best, so I do believe they want the best drivers they can have. They can have any driver in F1; you know Alonso or Räikkönen or Button or Hamilton could go there no matter the contracts they are currently in if they wanted to and if they were offered. They chose Vettel.

The fact is this: Vettel is dominating in what is the most competitive era of Formula One racing ever. He's dominating as the FIA regulations work against Red Bull (whether it is closing loopholes Red Bull exploited first, or by having the tires function such that they take away Red Bull's key advantage). Did you guys see the wing on his car at Spa? We call that "trimmed out" in American racing, and I can promise you quite a few drivers would not be able to turn that car with so little wing. Vettel can. Look at who he's beating! Look at how many constructors can win Grands Prix now! It's so competitive, and Vettel still wins.

It undermines the entire point of awarding a WDC to pay no respect to the winner of it, and it undermines the entire point of race-viewership to not pay attention to the overtakes or the absolute win-at-all-costs attitude Vettel exhibits.

Yes, Vettel has had a good situation, but people forget that, in F1 more than in real life, you can get into those situations by being the best. It would be so easy for Red Bull to replace Vettel. No driver wouldn't consider a number one seat at Red Bull. It's not offered to them because they can't do more than Vettel does.

Beating Bourdais in the way he did really gets underrated; people just assume Bourdais was garbage. He's actually one of the most versatile drivers in the world. Few have ever won races in IndyCar, stock cars, Formula 3000, prototypes of two varieties, and V8 Supercars like Bourdais has. He was a champion of F3000; Vettel was not on track win the similar Formula Renault 3.5 title. He had far more racing experience in general, and was absolutely dominant in road, street, and oval racing here. His sheer command over Bourdais is taken too lightly, I think. Yes, the adjustment for Bourdais to F1 was a large one, but hardly larger than that of someone like Hamilton coming from GP2 if you consider Bourdais' level of experience as an equalizer for his lack of recent European racing time (2002 being his last season with the F3000 title) after years in Champ Cars (closer to F1 than IndyCars, but still more reliant on mechanical grip and inferior in braking).

Statistics, not our biases, are more likely to endure, and that would make Vettel an all-time great, for sure. But deep down, watching the races, ignoring the numbers, I think you really ought to get to the same outcome: that the guy is so, so good. Maybe when Vettel becomes the "old guard" he'll have the same nostalgic favoritism the others are afforded.

Obviously, I don't want to discredit Alonso, Hamilton, Räikkönen, or Button. I hope it's not taken that way. They all impress me, too. I just think they get favored as the familiar, around for more time (or, in Hamilton's case, introduced to us much earlier than Vettel as a future WDC) drivers and as the "victims" of someone else's dominance...

...and then I still think, after writing all that, that there is no way to isolate or allocate, and accordingly have no idea.

[Quiet One 15]

Statistics, not our biases, are more likely to endure, and that would make Vettel an all-time great, for sure.

According to statistics G.Villeneuve was an also-ran, Stirling Moss a full-time loser, and Jean Alesi...who?

Statistics are one part of the story. But there's something else, that "je ne sais quoi" that made them unforgettable.

*WARNING: boring Alonsosteric stuff ahead*

Alonso won 2 championships in a rather dominant car (not anywhere close to a RBR or Schumi's Ferrari but still pretty much on top). Was he universally considered class of the field as now? Nope.

2007: The best car was the McLaren, had they chosen a clear number one, either him or Lewis would have won that WDC by a country mile.

2008: McLaren and Ferrari the class of the field. He still managed to win two races (I don't wanna hear the babblings about Singapore so if you don't like it, you can count that out and still have japan)

2009: Worst car he ever had since the MInardi days. Still manages a podium at Singapore and quite a few 5th places.

2010-2013: You know the story the only consistent threat to Red Bull's domination.

* END OF*

You have a guy that except for 2009 was always a protagonist no matter what car, what contenders, what conditions. For a guy that hasn't won in 7 years that says something more than mere statistics say (even if they agree in this case).

I talk about Alonso because he is the driver whose history I'm more familiar with. Any Kimi lover, any Lewis lover can tell you similar stories and any journo knows that these guys are different.

We all know that Vettel is great. Like I already said, he has the best instrument, yes, but he plays it prefectly. Webber cannot, and even if that's because the car is better tuned for Seb than for Mark, I have no doubts that if Mark got a car that fits him like a glove he wouldn't be as good as Vettel in his ideal car (which he already drives)

But you see how good these guys are only when the car is not the best. Alonso earned more respect at his nadir than at the top of the world. The Lewis of 2008 was not as respected as the Lewis of 2013 in a second rate car. Kimi in 2007 was a lucky winner, closer to a 3rd place than a WDC. Kimi these days in the moody Lotus is praised everywhere.

When Vettel steps down from the mega Red Bull, he will be able to shine with his own light. Then we will see.

And no, his Toro Rosso days were an indication that he was very talented, but not an indication that he was the best ever. Alonso (again) was superb in 2001 in a Minardi. In Suzuka (one of his best races, ever) he finished ahead of Heinz Harald frenzen (from Prost), Panis in a BAR, Verstappen and Bernoldi from Arrows and of course Alex Yoong. All that in a car that was like this year's Marussia. But that was a hint of his talent, he needed a lot more than that.

So, Vettel one of the greatest? Stupid to deny that. The best? Not a chance. Perhaps one day he will be, but not now.

EDIT: BTW, I obviously concur with the thread's title, he is one of them.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

So, Vettel one of the greatest? Stupid to deny that.

EDIT: BTW, I obviously concur with the thread's title, he is one of them.

He is not even one of the three or four best right now. How can he be one of the greastest of all time? Give me a break! not even Kimi is one of the greatest. May be Alonso and Hamilton, but Vettel, come on!

He is good. How good? The future will tell.

I guess I'm stupid then. Well, what are you gona do!

[Quiet One 15]

He is not even one of the three or four best right now. How can he be one of the greastest of all time? Give me a break! not even Kimi is one of the greatest. May be Alonso and Hamilton, but Vettel, come on!

He is good. How good? The future will tell.

I guess I'm stupid then. Well, what are you gona do!

Well, sir, I regret to inform you that you will be beaten with a rubber chicken to death.

As for what takes to be one of the greatest, well, it all depends on how many are you willing to accomodate in that category. If we are talking about the top 5, then even I would find it hard to fit Alonso in there. If we are talking about the top 50, then maybe even Massa could make the cut.

Wait...that last phrase was stupid, I'm going to club myself to death with the rubber chicken.

[Massa 0]

According to statistics G.Villeneuve was an also-ran, Stirling Moss a full-time loser, and Jean Alesi...who?

Statistics are one part of the story. But there's something else, that "je ne sais quoi" that made them unforgettable.

That one sentence out of context doesn't function so well.

I was saying that statistics alone will cement Vettel as an all-time great, but that, for me personally, what I see in the races beyond that solidifies it. That was probably unclear.

Vettel is an all-time great. I could never say the best ever; I've not watched F1 since the start. I think there's a case he's the best out there, and the arguments used against Vettel, if fair/true at all, can all be turned around on the drivers people say are better than he is.

But even then, of course, it all gets back to my idea that none of them are fair or true, because driver and car are inseparable. We evaluate a driver relative to the car, but we only determine the car's supposed level of performance by what the drivers do in it. It's a circle. NASCAR likes circles, but they won't work in logic. Look at Alonso's shift in performance in 2006 when the mass damper was banned, or Button's in 2009 when Brawn could not keep developing the car at the same rate as Red Bull et al. No one uses it against them that they, like everyone else, benefitted from having the best cars. The best cars, in turn, benefit from having the best drivers. We (first person...myself, too) can't use them to keep justifying the other in an infinite loop and act like assertions about it are very well-grounded. Evaluations of cars rely on evaluations of drivers which rely on evaluations of cars which rely on evaluations of drivers...and that repeats forever...

Anyway, you'd see Vettel's vulnerabilities if the shoes were too big. I, personally, don't see many, and not anymore than I've seen in Alonso or Räikkönen or Hamilton or Button. Even if the Red Bull is so far superior to all the other cars (yet, with so many constructors winning in 2012-13, and Red Bull being hurt the most by tires/regulations clarifications, I'm not sure it's that big of an advantage), it will not mask poor driving. There's very little to be masked, with the exception of a small number of sloppier races he's done (as the others all have).

I think the only thing working against him, then, is that he rose quickly. The drivers who get romanticized seem to be the ones who you spend years watching and say, "why, yes, there's some potential there" with the weird flashes of Bottas-qualifying-P4-in-the-wet that come every once in a while until finally the opportunity is there and the points are scored. People seem to like progressions like that. Someone who comes right in, takes to it, gets to a top team very quickly, and wins will be penalized in perception by those who have a rigid notion, even just subconsciously, that drivers need to put in years of inconsistent "surprises" before they can be accepted.

Maybe that's how Ferrari drivers became legends. None of them were "new" or "young" when they got there. You had years to be excited by them not because the driving was any better, but because it felt more surprising to see a good result from them. Vettel's runs were no surprise, so they are deemed inferior because it causes less of an emotional response to see a Red Bull win than to see a Minardi run tenth.

[Quiet One 15]

That one sentence out of context doesn't function so well.

I was saying that statistics alone will cement Vettel as an all-time great, but that, for me personally, what I see in the races beyond that solidifies it. That was probably unclear.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Anyways, I see this will get us nowhere because the initial premise is accepted by everybody (Vettel is one of the great ones).

Well, everybody except for Jean Pierre...that stupid! (just kidding! )

From there, this will go between those who say: "No, he is not the best! Who said something like that???" and those who say "No he doesn't suck! WHo said something like that" when actually nobody said any of those phrases.

One last remark abouut your comments on the impossibility of separating the driver of the car is that my whole argument was against that.

Yes, you can't mathematically determine the incidence of each factor, but still you can have a very approximate picture of each drivers' talents.

Examples in the past years of drivers that never quite had the best cars yet impressed one way or another: Kubica, Kobayashi, Kovalainen (ironically, after pretty much sucking at McLaren), Trulli, Montoya, etc. None of them had the best car yet you know none of them were crap.

One more thing: You talk about Alonso after the mass damper was banned. Well, despite the big dip in performance of the car (built around the mass damper concept), he still managed another win, four second places and an almost win from 15th (in Hungary, until the wheelnut incident). Not bad. Compare Button in a similar situation in 2009 with a much more dominant car and how he almost completely disappeared in the second part.

Again, not putting a foot wrong while leading in a dominant car has its merits, in fact, that's the same old argument used in every DOD thread when voting for Vettel. But let's be frank, how many drivers in how many races do you recall screwing a dominant lead in a race? By their own errors (not counting car letting them down or other drivers). I can think of a couple of examples but still very very uncommon. Once you ignore the dominating drives there simply aren't enough legendary drives from him to justify his preeminence. There are some, of course, but still not enough.

And at the risk of repeating me. I am not saying he sucks, and I still think he is one of the top drivers, I merely doubt he is yet better than Alonso, Kimi or Hamilton. But he is surely one of the elite.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

Yes he's good. Top 5. How can he be an all time great if he was never the best driver in the field and won in most part because of his car!

Rubber chicken? I would not have thought of that!

As one said, this wil get us nowhere, no none wil

change his mind.

Cheers!

[rodders47 2]

This url does point out his achievementshttp://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/462204/Vettels_collection_fetish/

[Jean-Pierre 0]

Remember that any of the present top four drivers would have had the same achievements or better achievements in the same car vettel had and still have. It would be stupid to deny it (joke)!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Remember that any of the present top four drivers would have had the same achievements or better achievements in the same car vettel had and still have. It would be stupid to deny it (joke)!

Just remember that the other top drivers had the best and fastest car when they also won their championships....

[Emmcee 0]

Just remember that the other top drivers had the best and fastest car when they also won their championships....

Yeah they did,but not almost every year and that toro rosso he drove in 2008 is the best they've built so far and even the BMW sauber he drove was a very fast car capable of winning, vettel and hamilton have had a winning car almost every single season.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

Just remember that the other top drivers had the best and fastest car when they also won their championships....

yes, but they did have the best car for that many consecutive years, except for the Cheater, of course.

[Massa 0]

yes, but they did have the best car for that many consecutive years, except for the Cheater, of course.

Allegations that the car is carrying him are fine. I don't think that can be proven or disproven, but they're fine.

Allegations that he is cheating, however, are going to need a little more explanation. In what ways has he broken the rules of Formula One?

Yeah they did,but not almost every year and that toro rosso he drove in 2008 is the best they've built so far and even the BMW sauber he drove was a very fast car capable of winning, vettel and hamilton have had a winning car almost every single season.

He only ran one race for BMW-Sauber, so casting that aside, I'll look at the rest:

He still had a P4 in the wet at China in 2007, and two more brilliant variable-weather drivers in 2008 (Monza and São Paulo). Certainly, having the right setup for the conditions is helpful, but saying the Toro Rosso was a winning car when it never even saw a podium finish in the dry seems a bit misleading. It was a winning car with Vettel driving it in the right conditions. However you want to allocate the credit is up to you, but all those factors are there.

Was the 2008 Toro Rosso the best they ever built? Certainly, it scored the most WCC points, but I offer this:

Sébastien Bourdais scored 4 points. Admittedly, he was one lap away from a podium finish at Spa in the wet, but was on the wrong tires and fell to seventh. The same happened to Vettel, who only fell from fourth to fifth on the same tires. Once again, we see that the car was strong in the wet (perhaps by drivers, setup, strategy, or whatever), but not so in the dry.

Anyway, Bourdais scored 4 points, 2 in the wet and 2 in a heavy-retirement race (Melbourne). Now, Bourdais struggled in F1, sure, but remember that he was coming into F1 as an International F3000 champion, a four-time Champ Car champion, a very competitive sports car racer, and an IROC stock car race winner against a bunch of NASCAR drivers. His ability to adapt to diverse cars was, without a doubt, unquestionable. He was an obviously better driver than Scott Speed, in terms of accomplishments, and barely did much better than he had done. Bourdais only scored 4 points, and never in standard conditions, it seemed...

...so compare that to Toro Rosso 2006-present. In 2006, Liuzzi scored in a heavy-retirement race (Indianpolis). In 2007, Vettel and Liuzzi scored in the wet (China). In 2009, Bourdais scored in two heavy-retirement races, and Buemi scored in three such races. Buemi also scored in one "normal" race (Abu Dhabi). In 2010, the car only had one top 8 finish, Buemi in Canada. In 2011, Alguersuari had top 8 finishes in Valencia, Korea, and India, all of which were "normal" races weather and retirement-wise. Buemi had no such "normal" top 8 finishes. In 2012, Vergne's P8 in Korea was the only "normal" race in which the car finished P8 or better. In 2013, Ricciardo (China and Britain) and Vergne (Canada) logged top 8 results in "normal" conditions.

What's my point?

Well, in 2008, the Toro Rosso did most of its scoring (holding a top 8 points system constant) in the wet, or when many other cars retired. Which is absolutely no different from 2006-present. This even applies to Vettel; most of Vettel's points-scoring races in 2008 were wet/variable weather, heavy on retirements, or in the obviously illegitimate Singapore race. Vettel scored in perhaps two "normal" races that year.

What, then, do we conclude from that? Well, when it was wet/variable weather or heavy on retirements, such that an STR could score, Vettel scored much, much more than any other STR driver ever did. Typically, the STR drivers would get to P7 or P8 or so. Vettel would get closer to P5, sometimes P4, even P1 once.

Was that the car or the driver? Hard to say, but given that the car itself did not score top 8 finishes under circumstances any different than it ever really has 2006-present, it seems that there is a case it was the driver, and that the Toro Rosso was not a "winning car" by the standard of "able to win races without weather/retirements aiding." It was rarely able to finish top 8 in races like that.

[Quiet One 15]

One thing that statistics can never reveal:

Lewis and Nando sitting on a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

[Jean-Pierre 0]

Allegations that the car is carrying him are fine. I don't think that can be proven or disproven, but they're fine.

Allegations that he is cheating, however, are going to need a little more explanation. In what ways has he broken the rules of Formula One?

.

I was refering the the Cheater, Shumacher, who had the best car for MOST of his carreer.

PS: I know some of you guys like him, and I know he was one of the great ones, so I'm just pulling your leg here by calling him the Cheater. So he was a cheater, as we all know, but that did stop him from becoming a great one.

[Massa 0]

Sorry, Jean-Pierre. I misunderstood! My bad.

For all, here are some weird graphs I made:

"Team" shows the highest-finishing non-Vettel driver in an entirely dry Grand Prix in which 75% or more of the cars were classified. Vettel shows Vettel's non-retirements in those races. The lines show the season-long median of the data. Races in which both Toro Rossos retired are not included.

This graph shows us that:

1. Vettel struggled to get acclimated to the car in 2007, but that can be attributed to his young age and lack of time in the car (he had been testing the BMW-Sauber, not the Toro Rosso).

2. Vettel, when he did not retire, raced well ahead of the team median for 2008, which would have been Bourdais' median.

3. Though the median finish for the Toro Rosso with Bourdais was slightly better than in 2006 and 2007, it is not the best median a Toro Rosso has ever had, casting doubt on the Toro Rosso from 2008 being the best STR ever. 2010 and 2013, in terms of race median, stand out as better cars, though those driver lineups were different. What we can say, though, is that Bourdais is not a worse driver than Liuzzi and Speed based on accomplishments and experience, and yet he did about the same as Liuzzi and Speed did. Accordingly, the 2008 car does not appear to have been much better in dry, low-retirement races.

This graph shows the same information, but instead for the remaining races. These races were wet/variable conditions, or featured many retirements. Races in which both Toro Rossos retired were not included.

This graph tells us:

1. Vettel capitalized on wet weather, or other cars retiring, more than any other Toro Rosso driver has.

2. Bourdais capitalized on such conditions far less than the best-of-the-race did for Toro Rosso the other years. This does not necessarily mean Bourdais did a worse job, as no other median shows just one, single driver, but rather the best of that race.

3. Many of Toro Rosso's best results come in these types of conditions, indicating the car itself is not very good, and never has been.

The final one shows the team-best, non-Vettel qualifying effort for races in which qualifying was entirely dry.

1. Ricciardo and Toro Rosso are scoring very impressive qualifying results this year.

2. The 2008 car with Bourdais qualified about exactly the same as the 2006 and 2007 cars with Liuzzi and Speed, though there was definitely an improvement in the car at the end of 2008. This performance also matches the 2009-2010 and 2012 qualifying performances.

3. If nothing else, this graph shows how impressive of a season 2010 was for STR. Qualifying was no better than it ever was, yet the median best-result in "normal" races (dry, 75%+ cars classified) was the highest ever for a full season of non-Vettel STR (2013, so far, is the highest in the non-Vettel category, but not a full season).

Conclusively, we cannot say a ton, but I think this illustrates that the 2008 car probably wasn't as good as some have indicated it may have been. I don't think you can take 2008 away from Vettel as easily as some do. Moreover, he put in some qualitatively impressive (as in, not just good numbers) drives that year. São Paulo was mesmerizing in such tough conditions, and only losing one spot on dry tires in the wet at Spa (compared to Bourdais losing four) in that final lap is a good comparison.

[Massa 0]

And then, I offer a short post (finally):

What have Alonso, Hamilton, Räikkönen, and/or Button done that Vettel has had an opportunity to do, but could not?

If you think Vettel has never been in an inferior car, as some do, you cannot say Vettel has never won in an inferior car, whereas others have, because you do not know that he cannot do that if he's never been in one.

So, basically, what has Vettel been able to do, but couldn't do, that any of the other WDCs did do? I'm curious. It seems Vettel is being faulted for things he's never had a chance to do, at most.

[Quiet One 15]

What have Alonso, Hamilton, Räikkönen, and/or Button done that Vettel has had an opportunity to do, but could not?

Nobody questions Vettel for not doing something he could do. He is questioned precisely for the things he can't do, which would give a better measure of his talent compare with the others. You seem to think that we accuse him of being a failure, which at least I don't. I merely think he needs a test the others had to know just how good he is. ANd that test cannot happen not because he does something wrong, but because he is in the best car. One day perhaps he will be in a not so good car and we will see.

Again, that doesn't mean he is not that good, merely means that we cannot possibly know.

Leading in the best car. Who wouldn't? I am talking about those drivers you named. Webber and Massa do not count

Don't know how to put it more clearly, sorry.

[Emmcee 0]

Allegations that the car is carrying him are fine. I don't think that can be proven or disproven, but they're fine.

Allegations that he is cheating, however, are going to need a little more explanation. In what ways has he broken the rules of Formula One?

He only ran one race for BMW-Sauber, so casting that aside, I'll look at the rest:

He still had a P4 in the wet at China in 2007, and two more brilliant variable-weather drivers in 2008 (Monza and São Paulo). Certainly, having the right setup for the conditions is helpful, but saying the Toro Rosso was a winning car when it never even saw a podium finish in the dry seems a bit misleading. It was a winning car with Vettel driving it in the right conditions. However you want to allocate the credit is up to you, but all those factors are there.

Was the 2008 Toro Rosso the best they ever built? Certainly, it scored the most WCC points, but I offer this:

Sébastien Bourdais scored 4 points. Admittedly, he was one lap away from a podium finish at Spa in the wet, but was on the wrong tires and fell to seventh. The same happened to Vettel, who only fell from fourth to fifth on the same tires. Once again, we see that the car was strong in the wet (perhaps by drivers, setup, strategy, or whatever), but not so in the dry.

Anyway, Bourdais scored 4 points, 2 in the wet and 2 in a heavy-retirement race (Melbourne). Now, Bourdais struggled in F1, sure, but remember that he was coming into F1 as an International F3000 champion, a four-time Champ Car champion, a very competitive sports car racer, and an IROC stock car race winner against a bunch of NASCAR drivers. His ability to adapt to diverse cars was, without a doubt, unquestionable. He was an obviously better driver than Scott Speed, in terms of accomplishments, and barely did much better than he had done. Bourdais only scored 4 points, and never in standard conditions, it seemed...

...so compare that to Toro Rosso 2006-present. In 2006, Liuzzi scored in a heavy-retirement race (Indianpolis). In 2007, Vettel and Liuzzi scored in the wet (China). In 2009, Bourdais scored in two heavy-retirement races, and Buemi scored in three such races. Buemi also scored in one "normal" race (Abu Dhabi). In 2010, the car only had one top 8 finish, Buemi in Canada. In 2011, Alguersuari had top 8 finishes in Valencia, Korea, and India, all of which were "normal" races weather and retirement-wise. Buemi had no such "normal" top 8 finishes. In 2012, Vergne's P8 in Korea was the only "normal" race in which the car finished P8 or better. In 2013, Ricciardo (China and Britain) and Vergne (Canada) logged top 8 results in "normal" conditions.

What's my point?

Well, in 2008, the Toro Rosso did most of its scoring (holding a top 8 points system constant) in the wet, or when many other cars retired. Which is absolutely no different from 2006-present. This even applies to Vettel; most of Vettel's points-scoring races in 2008 were wet/variable weather, heavy on retirements, or in the obviously illegitimate Singapore race. Vettel scored in perhaps two "normal" races that year.

What, then, do we conclude from that? Well, when it was wet/variable weather or heavy on retirements, such that an STR could score, Vettel scored much, much more than any other STR driver ever did. Typically, the STR drivers would get to P7 or P8 or so. Vettel would get closer to P5, sometimes P4, even P1 once.

Was that the car or the driver? Hard to say, but given that the car itself did not score top 8 finishes under circumstances any different than it ever really has 2006-present, it seems that there is a case it was the driver, and that the Toro Rosso was not a "winning car" by the standard of "able to win races without weather/retirements aiding." It was rarely able to finish top 8 in races like that.

I agree with most of what you said but I never said the 2008 tr was a race winning car i said it was tje best tr built and the bmw he drove was a front running car capable of winning gps, even if he did drive it for one race. if he was in a spyker that year i could gurantee his debut wouldnt have been as impressive. If you want to compare Vettel to bourdais, why don't you compare ralf Schumacher to Alex zanardi, of back to back cart titles, not a single point in 1999,we know zanardi is no slouch and is quick in almost anything. I think the point here is champcar drivers are simply just not on the level of f1 drivers. Except for the rare occassion in Montoya,villeneuve and glock. But IMO villeneuve had the quickest car for his first two seasons where all his best results came. No bagging Vettel, he is obviously an awesome talent but is just not there yet as an all time great IMO.