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

[Massa 0]

I agree; Champ Car does not translate to F1 because the cars are vastly different, and many of the drivers in those fields are not very qualified.

However, Bourdais was a different scenario, for a few reasons:

1. He won the International F3000 championship. People who win F3000/GP2 titles typically become F1 drivers. Montoya was in this same situation, though Bourdais was away longer.

2. Vettel was a rookie, too. Bourdais had years of experience in auto racing, and he did race in Champ Car's fastest era of road/street racing (though Tomas Schectker says that the oval racing, not the road/street racing, is closest to F1...I always found that interesting...well, hey, Bourdais dominated a lot of oval races, too). Both were adjusting; Vettel had more time in an F1 car from BMW-Sauber and the 2007 stint, but he had less high-downforce, high-power experience than Bourdais.

3. Despite the differences between Champ Car and F1, Bourdais had proven in his races in a stock car all-star series and in sports cars that he was very adaptable to different types of cars. He was extremely versatile; there's no reason he couldn't handle the adjustment.

No, it isn't rookie Hamilton tying with Alonso in 2007, by any means. Vettel should have beaten Bourdais, but still, by that much...so impressive.

Bourdais is also useful in showing that the 2008 STR wasn't the best car they ever built. Bourdais was more accomplished than Liuzzi, also an International F3000 champion, and Speed, who was a winner in nothing. Bourdais scored the same kinds of results those two did. To me, that implies the 2008 car was very similar to the 2006-2007 cars; I just can't see Bourdais as a worse F1 driver than those two (Liuzzi, like Bourdais, was overpowered by a rookie teammate, that being Ricciardo at HRT).

As for Andrés, one day he will have a worse car...again. Just like in 2008. He was young then, new to the sport, and scoring impressive results in the races in which driver plays the supposed biggest role (the ones in wet weather), and still scoring results STR had never seen before in dry, normal races in a car that could not have been significantly better than the 2006-07 cars. He's a better driver now; fewer mistakes. I have no doubts that Vettel would impress in any situation. Simply put, he's dominating an era of F1 that's impossible to dominate, one in which more WDCs race than ever before, one in which more constructors win races than ever before, one in which tires and technical regulations (DRS, banning diffusers, aero changes to reduce turbulence) are specifically designed to curtail dominance and promote competition...credit to Red Bull, for sure, but the rules won't allow Red Bull to run away too much, and in that, there must be credit to Vettel (which I know you give, Andrés, but others here do not).

It's funny to note that I was Vettel's first ever detractor on this forum...he's not the driver I support, but I've never been more impressed by one, personally.

[Jean-Pierre 0]

, but I've never been more impressed by one, personally.

Seriously?

[Massa 0]

Seriously?

I've only been watching motor racing since 2000 (excluding what I'm told I watched in the early 90s) and F1 since 2006.

[Emmcee 0]

I agree; Champ Car does not translate to F1 because the cars are vastly different, and many of the drivers in those fields are not very qualified.

However, Bourdais was a different scenario, for a few reasons:

1. He won the International F3000 championship. People who win F3000/GP2 titles typically become F1 drivers. Montoya was in this same situation, though Bourdais was away longer.

2. Vettel was a rookie, too. Bourdais had years of experience in auto racing, and he did race in Champ Car's fastest era of road/street racing (though Tomas Schectker says that the oval racing, not the road/street racing, is closest to F1...I always found that interesting...well, hey, Bourdais dominated a lot of oval races, too). Both were adjusting; Vettel had more time in an F1 car from BMW-Sauber and the 2007 stint, but he had less high-downforce, high-power experience than Bourdais.

3. Despite the differences between Champ Car and F1, Bourdais had proven in his races in a stock car all-star series and in sports cars that he was very adaptable to different types of cars. He was extremely versatile; there's no reason he couldn't handle the adjustment.

No, it isn't rookie Hamilton tying with Alonso in 2007, by any means. Vettel should have beaten Bourdais, but still, by that much...so impressive.

Bourdais is also useful in showing that the 2008 STR wasn't the best car they ever built. Bourdais was more accomplished than Liuzzi, also an International F3000 champion, and Speed, who was a winner in nothing. Bourdais scored the same kinds of results those two did. To me, that implies the 2008 car was very similar to the 2006-2007 cars; I just can't see Bourdais as a worse F1 driver than those two (Liuzzi, like Bourdais, was overpowered by a rookie teammate, that being Ricciardo at HRT).

As for Andrés, one day he will have a worse car...again. Just like in 2008. He was young then, new to the sport, and scoring impressive results in the races in which driver plays the supposed biggest role (the ones in wet weather), and still scoring results STR had never seen before in dry, normal races in a car that could not have been significantly better than the 2006-07 cars. He's a better driver now; fewer mistakes. I have no doubts that Vettel would impress in any situation. Simply put, he's dominating an era of F1 that's impossible to dominate, one in which more WDCs race than ever before, one in which more constructors win races than ever before, one in which tires and technical regulations (DRS, banning diffusers, aero changes to reduce turbulence) are specifically designed to curtail dominance and promote competition...credit to Red Bull, for sure, but the rules won't allow Red Bull to run away too much, and in that, there must be credit to Vettel (which I know you give, Andrés, but others here do not).

It's funny to note that I was Vettel's first ever detractor on this forum...he's not the driver I support, but I've never been more impressed by one, personally.

Another great analysis, your seriously good at these, I think the 2008 tr was the best they have built, bourdais wasn't as lucky as Vettel, he found himself in alot more difficult situations due to early contact and such, Vettel to me seems like Redbull needed to pick ONE person to throw all the money behind and to me that seems like Vettel. Just seems drivers like liuzzi who are well established drivers, liuzzi is almost unbeatable in a kart, 7x world karting champion I Beleive, and couldnt get the results, but did he really get the same go as vettel? karting is the closest thing to an f1 car steering response wise, that's why they most still race karts as its a perfect solution around the testing ban that's has a similar feel, simulators don't show or feel small bumps and humps in the road, you only find from driving. I Beleive Vettel has had an easier and more trouble free run to the top and that just snowballs into bigger and better things, almost immediately. The point iam trying to make is that, Vettel is quick but to me I think it's been an easier road than some one like webber who did nothing but retire from almost every gp for the first 7yrs of his career.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

...but I think this illustrates that the 2008 car probably wasn't as good as some have indicated it may have been.

That must have been because of the 2008-spec rear wing.....

[Emmcee 0]

This the same toro rosso that was a rocket in a straight line? Cough cough cosworth

[Jean-Pierre 0]

I've only been watching motor racing since 2000 (excluding what I'm told I watched in the early 90s) and F1 since 2006.

ah! Now I understand, you're not yet a connaiseur yet, able to distinguish the true champions

You know this is a joke, right? You probably know more than me about F1, as numbers do not appeal to me at all. I only watch races and look up numbers occasionally,

I'm just checking because jokes can be perceived differently from one country to another.

[Massa 0]

Yes. The joke's appreciated, too. I drown this forum in walls of words sometimes. Humor breaks it up.

[Emmcee 0]

Yes. The joke's appreciated, too. I drown this forum in walls of words sometimes. Humor breaks it up.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Yes. The joke's appreciated, too. I drown this forum in walls of words sometimes. Humor breaks it up.

And donkeys.... especially donkeys.....

[Rainmaster 7]

Well this is a difficult question in ways that Eric went through at length, and I agree with his posts, but I would take a few different angles.

You can compare drivers in different ways, and people have done that in this thread. The first is the "any driver would do what he has done" style of argument. You could "compare" the first years of Vettel's actual career up to this date, with the hypothetical performance of another driver if they'd had his cars, at the same level of experience. So the question becomes, would Alonso (or Raikkonen, or Hamilton or whoever) have achieved what Vettel has, in their first years of F1 given they had the cars he had. Everybody will have their own opinion here which will just be influenced by our biases. I'm not that convinced for example that Kimi in his first years of F1 could have or would have done what Vettel did in those cars, but I think Alonso would have and some would argue he would have won in 2009, too.

At the end of the day, those kind of hypotheticals are useless and just a way of showing your preferences. The only important thing to say about them is the point about experience: it's no good comparing 2010 Alonso against 2010 Vettel in some hypothetical scenario where Alonso was in the that year's Red Bull, because 2010 Alonso had much more experience and he almost certainly would have been more convincing in terms of his points tally. If you're going to do a useless hypthetical thought experiment, at least hypothetically match up the experience levels. And don't tell me that it's fair to compare a 2010 Vettel (3rd year of F1) against a 2010 Alonso (9th? year of F1), based on the argument that all drivers are equal after a year or two years and experience doesn't matter that much, because that clearly isn't true as drivers improve well into their late 20's and sometimes 30's. Nobody would doubt for example that a 2012 Alonso was better than a 2006 one, and yet 2006 Alonso was hardly some rookie.

My only feeling about this type of thought experiment "comparison" then, is that I think what Vettel achieved up to date in his first six years of F1 is exceptional, but some other drivers could have done it. So the "other drivers would have done it too" doesn't make it any less exceptional and gets you nowhere.

The two other common ways to compare drivers are statistics and subjective cues. Both of those have their problems too and a lot of that has already been covered. I don't think any driver (even in a hypothetical scenario) could have done that much more than what Vettel did, statistically speaking. I think he has that covered.

Subjective cues covers a lot things and can at times be measured quantitatively, like amount of places gained on the first lap is an example of something subjective called race-craft or spatial awareness or opportunism. Now most people's whole argument rests on the fact you don't have "subjective cues" in the case of Vettel because he has the best car, basically. Well, here again is the problem that once you don't rate Vettel as one of the best, you miss all the good things he does. There have been plenty of "little things" Vettel has done that show he has something extra and certainly worthy of mention in the same sphere of Alonso. Admittedly, he hasn't had as many opportunities to show those, but they are all there to see with open eyes. Just as they were they were there with Casey Stoner in 2007 when he dominated MotoGP and everybody said it was the bike (including me). Turned out he was one of the fastest/most gifted riders ever, but nobody believed that because he was 1) young and 2) beating all the established favourites (did you notice any similarities?).

The other thing about those kind of cues is like the whole "Alonso is political" thing mentioned not so long ago. Take Spa for example. Hamilton ran wide on the exit of Eau Rouge (despite the fact pole position is so easy to maintain!) giving Vettel a big advantage, and Vettel used his KERS in exactly the right places to take the lead. Hardly any mention of it. Reverse the roles and see how much flak Vettel takes for making a mistake from pole position and how much of a better "racer" Hamilton (or Alonso or whoever) is using their KERS! Nobody is interested in emphasising the "racer" nature of Vettel as they are with Hamilton, and on the same side of the coin you don't emphasis the mistakes of a "racer" like Hamilton because, hey, he's trying so hard.

Lastly, the best way in my opinion to think about drivers is by thinking about their strengths and weaknesses. Do that and in Vettel you should find the qualities you find in any of the greatest great drivers so far: meticulous preparation, a rage to win, technical capacity, determination, motivation, focus, extra capacity when driving, psychologically robust, very consistant high performer, etc. Only in Vettel and Alonso will you find all of those attributes extremely well nailed down, and in some of them, Vettel might even edge Alonso. That's the preparation/application part of the performance level of an F1 driver that Vettel obviously scores super strongly on, and don't think that all drivers or even all champions have it because they clearly don't. One of the comments Hamilton made recently about being team mate to Rosberg was how into the detail of the car Rosberg was and how he was impressed by that. Now you would never in a million years find Alonso or Vettel making that kind of comment because absolutely nobody pays more attention to the details than Alonso or Vettel, so they would never be impressed by another driver because they'd simply be working harder themselves.

The other part of performance is just pure talent. Only there can you possibly question Vettel, because maybe he isn't as good as Alonso in a "bad" car, a contention for which there's no evidence for yet, and arguably some evidence against (Toro Rosso, Sauber, etc). And maybe he's slightly slower than Hamilton in sheer pace on a qualifying lap (oh what, maybe a tenth?) - but obviously a lot better than Raikkonen who always struggles, and probably about level with Alonso.

So all in all, the guy doesn't have anything to hide from any of the other top guys. His biggest rival is Alonso, who history will show peaked at about 30/31 like most drivers do (that was last year, btw, sorry to break it to you Alonso fans but I doubt Alonso will ever be so impressive again ). Vettel is only 26 and he has time to make it to such a level and between him and Hamilton, I'd bet on Vettel being the next "samurai" F1 driver after Alonso. Whether he will do it is a different story, but theoretically he has a lot of time to get even better, and have experience of bad or non-championship cars to show his level (though I doubt he can have as much experience of that as Alonso seems be having).

[Quiet One 15]

M'kay...but I really think you should ellaborate, you know?

Seriously, I think you made a mistake: arguing with the premise that somebody here didn't recognise him as one of thee greatest. We all do, and everybody reckons that even if other drivers might have done what he did, what he did is still impressive.

There are two sides here: the "pro Vettel" and the "anti Vettel", trouble is, no one is actually addressing the other side's arguments.

This is because the "anti Vettel" side is not actually "anti Vettel". Isn't merely "pro Vettel" in the sense that they (we) do not believe he has done anything to prove he is the bestest of bestests. And I think at least some of the "pro Vettel" side don't think like that either, merely think he is "one of the greatest" and that's something everybody in here agree.

"Other drivers could have done it" isn't an argument against Vettel? Correct, but isn't an argument in his favor, either.

Has he all the things you mentioned? Yes, we "anti Vettels" have mentioned them too at one point or another.

The argument here is a repeat of the arguments with Schumi and Alonso in their days, And I think the real debate should be "Is it possible to show your talents while in an ultra dominant car?"

One last thing: I think Monza 2009 is a hint of greatness, but not a definitive proof. How many times have you heard me mentioning the 2003 Hungarian GP? And I have probably mentioned every single day of Alonso's life

Jensonites love to mention Hungary 2006 but he didn't do much until he got the 2009 BGP, and he hasn't exactly set the world on fire after that.

Massa beat them all not merely winning one freak race but almost a whole championship and...well...

BTW, I think Massa would be the perfect example on how a driver can win races without being that much of a driver. I don't think he was the next big thing until he got hit in the head, I think he was always more or less the same, in different circumstances.

['tis is silly seb 0]

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.

Jack Brabham won 3 wdc's and was not a great driver ,But drove superior equipment....like to see Seb win one in another car.

[Emmcee 0]

Jack Brabham won 3 wdc's and was not a great driver ,But drove superior equipment....like to see Seb win one in another car.

Amen to that, well except about jack brabham, that guy could drive.

['tis is silly seb 0]

web he could drive, but in his era he wasn't renown as a great driver, prolly more of a newey of his day.

[Emmcee 0]

web he could drive, but in his era he wasn't renown as a great driver, prolly more of a newey of his day.

So he would fit into the same category as jacques villeneuve?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

So he would fit into the same category as jacques villeneuve?

No, Jack Brabham never released a CD, the sound of which would make milk curdle.....

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

milk curdle.....

Or custard, for that matter

[Emmcee 0]

Or custard, for that matter

Lol, should play a game, try and make food dishes or anything for that matter out of f1 drivers names. For e.g.

Pastor Maldonado - Pasta Marinara. Lol

[Quiet One 15]

Free Practice 2 and a common scenario: the two RBRs faster than the rest by almost a second.

And Webber closely matching Vettel's speed, even if he is always trailing Seb.

So yes, the car still plays too big a part in Vettel's performance to properly compare him with the other big names.

[Emmcee 0]

Free Practice 2 and a common scenario: the two RBRs faster than the rest by almost a second.

And Webber closely matching Vettel's speed, even if he is always trailing Seb.

So yes, the car still plays too big a part in Vettel's performance to properly compare him with the other big names.

Yeah it certainly looks that way.

[Rainmaster 7]

M'kay...but I really think you should ellaborate, you know?

Seriously, I think you made a mistake: arguing with the premise that somebody here didn't recognise him as one of thee greatest. We all do, and everybody reckons that even if other drivers might have done what he did, what he did is still impressive.

There are two sides here: the "pro Vettel" and the "anti Vettel", trouble is, no one is actually addressing the other side's arguments.

This is because the "anti Vettel" side is not actually "anti Vettel". Isn't merely "pro Vettel" in the sense that they (we) do not believe he has done anything to prove he is the bestest of bestests. And I think at least some of the "pro Vettel" side don't think like that either, merely think he is "one of the greatest" and that's something everybody in here agree.

"Other drivers could have done it" isn't an argument against Vettel? Correct, but isn't an argument in his favor, either.

Has he all the things you mentioned? Yes, we "anti Vettels" have mentioned them too at one point or another.

The argument here is a repeat of the arguments with Schumi and Alonso in their days, And I think the real debate should be "Is it possible to show your talents while in an ultra dominant car?"

One last thing: I think Monza 2009 is a hint of greatness, but not a definitive proof. How many times have you heard me mentioning the 2003 Hungarian GP? And I have probably mentioned every single day of Alonso's life

Jensonites love to mention Hungary 2006 but he didn't do much until he got the 2009 BGP, and he hasn't exactly set the world on fire after that.

Massa beat them all not merely winning one freak race but almost a whole championship and...well...

BTW, I think Massa would be the perfect example on how a driver can win races without being that much of a driver. I don't think he was the next big thing until he got hit in the head, I think he was always more or less the same, in different circumstances.

Free Practice 2 and a common scenario: the two RBRs faster than the rest by almost a second.

And Webber closely matching Vettel's speed, even if he is always trailing Seb.

So yes, the car still plays too big a part in Vettel's performance to properly compare him with the other big names.

There we disagree. You can still compare him and even being super harsh find him as a top 5 driver. Being realistic, find him as a top 3 driver. Being right (), find him the joint best (with Alonso) in approach and application of his talents in terms of finding his highest performance level. It might be harder to hit your highest performance level in less good car, and Vettel's highest performance level in a less good car may well not be as good as Alonso's. At the moment that's just a speculation and in any case not a good reason to think he's in some way not worthy of the car he's in (which some people do seem to think).

Like I said, whether his ceiling is as high as Alonso or Hamilton I don't know, he might be 3rd in that category and some would put him behind Raikkonen or even Button. Personally I think at worst his "performance ceiling" might be lower than Alonso and Hamilton, but if it is it's only very slightly lower. Point being: there's no injustice in the fact Vettel is dominating in F1 and Alonso isn't, because the gap between them isn't as big as you or some people think (imo). Alonso doesn't "own" Vettel. That's why it doesn't frustrate me or annoy me to see Vettel winning and Alonso and Lewis not, because I don't think the gap is that big between any of those 3 as drivers. I know that personal preferences play a part in people not liking Vettel, but I think that perception that he "isn't quite as good" as Hammy or Alonso or whoever does too. I'm just saying even if he isn't as good as those two (which I'd entertain but wouldn't accept outright without evidence), it's a tiny difference in results terms.

As an example of where the gap was big and you could sort of be justified in your annoyance that "your man" (not your man Andres) wasn't winning, you can look at Massa in 2008: clearly not in Hamilton's league and yet almost beating him to a title. That would have been annoying and you could be legitimately annoyed.

[Quiet One 15]

There we disagree. You can still compare him and even being super harsh find him as a top 5 driver. Being realistic, find him as a top 3 driver. Being right (), find him the joint best (with Alonso) in approach and application of his talents in terms of finding his highest performance level. It might be harder to hit your highest performance level in less good car, and Vettel's highest performance level in a less good car may well not be as good as Alonso's. At the moment that's just a speculation and in any case not a good reason to think he's in some way not worthy of the car he's in (which some people do seem to think).

Like I said, whether his ceiling is as high as Alonso or Hamilton I don't know, he might be 3rd in that category and some would put him behind Raikkonen or even Button. Personally I think at worst his "performance ceiling" might be lower than Alonso and Hamilton, but if it is it's only very slightly lower. Point being: there's no injustice in the fact Vettel is dominating in F1 and Alonso isn't, because the gap between them isn't as big as you or some people think (imo). Alonso doesn't "own" Vettel. That's why it doesn't frustrate me or annoy me to see Vettel winning and Alonso and Lewis not, because I don't think the gap is that big between any of those 3 as drivers. I know that personal preferences play a part in people not liking Vettel, but I think that perception that he "isn't quite as good" as Hammy or Alonso or whoever does too. I'm just saying even if he isn't as good as those two (which I'd entertain but wouldn't accept outright without evidence), it's a tiny difference in results terms.

As an example of where the gap was big and you could sort of be justified in your annoyance that "your man" (not your man Andres) wasn't winning, you can look at Massa in 2008: clearly not in Hamilton's league and yet almost beating him to a title. That would have been annoying and you could be legitimately annoyed.

Oh, please!!!

Do you seriously believe any of that thing you wote there????

Because if you do...

I sorta agree with you

[rodders47 2]

Jack Brabham won 3 wdc's and was not a great driver ,But drove superior equipment....like to see Seb win one in another car. Jack Brabham drove not only with his arms and feet but his HEAD, a very smart driver, like Seb. I worked with Ron Tauranac, he was a smart cagy designer but he knew how to get the car to Jack's liking, which I think S. Vettel has the same input into his team. Remember Seb and Mark are supposed to driving the same equipment. If that's so then why is it that Mark is always playing catchup. Mark is no slouch !!!!!