The curious case of Sebastian Vettel

[Andres125sx]

Moral of the story is, sucks to be a Vettel fan nowadays. But no worries, he'll come out stronger for it... or retire.

Best post of the thread

[Phil]

I do believe this is where a “managed and spoiled” driver will always be at a disadvantage sooner or later: if you are never properly tested or challnged by an equal or better team-mate, how will there be room to grow, to learn to become better?

Driving now days f1 cars is as much about raw talent than it is about versatility and experience.

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

For the first time he is facing a team mate wo might be quicker on raw pace, that he is forced to adapt and learn to become better. This season will only make him a better driver, and i think we are already seeing signs of it, with the strong race pace he has shown so far.

[Jolle]

I do believe this is where a “managed and spoiled” driver will always be at a disadvantage sooner or later: if you are never properly tested or challnged by an equal or better team-mate, how will there be room to grow, to learn to become better?

Driving now days f1 cars is as much about raw talent than it is about versatility and experience.

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

For the first time he is facing a team mate wo might be quicker on raw pace, that he is forced to adapt and learn to become better. This season will only make him a better driver, and i think we are already seeing signs of it, with the strong race pace he has shown so far.

Mhoa, don't think so yet. Monza he ffed up massively, Singapore he was handed the win after they miscalculated giving him first pit stop and undercut and in Russia he went against the team. He's been out qualified quite badly for nine times in a row.

Leclerc has the upper hand in points, speed, race pace and now team trust as well.

[NathanOlder]

I do believe this is where a “managed and spoiled” driver will always be at a disadvantage sooner or later: if you are never properly tested or challnged by an equal or better team-mate, how will there be room to grow, to learn to become better?

Driving now days f1 cars is as much about raw talent than it is about versatility and experience.

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

For the first time he is facing a team mate wo might be quicker on raw pace, that he is forced to adapt and learn to become better. This season will only make him a better driver, and i think we are already seeing signs of it, with the strong race pace he has shown so far.

Mhoa, don't think so yet. Monza he ffed up massively, Singapore he was handed the win after they miscalculated giving him first pit stop and undercut and in Russia he went against the team. He's been out qualified quite badly for nine times in a row.

Leclerc has the upper hand in points, speed, race pace and now team trust as well.

Yeah, last weekend was a big moment in Vettels Ferrari career IMO. He has damaged it quite badly

[GPR-A]

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

Or it is perfectly possible that, he WAS as quick as Verstappen and Leclerc are NOW in his early career and that is why he outperformed Webber and won those titles. He most likely has lost a bit of the raw pace that he had, due to age, stage of life that he is in, equipment not to his perfect liking OR that there is reduced desire to achieve which was there in the early career. A lot might have culminated in a very unconscious manner.

Even Schumacher's record against Rosberg wasn't representative of his early career. Even Niki Lauda struggled against a hot shot upstart in 1984 for raw pace. Does that mean, Niki was never challenged in his early career? May be Vettel has reached that stage earlier than most would have imagined, but was he slow when he won those titles because Webber couldn't challenge him? That's an absolute NO. His race craft was probably never in the elite league, which is now visible in more pronounced manner.

It does not often happens that a driver moves into thirties and retains that raw single lap pace and for that, Hamilton has been an exception.

[Phil]

As much as i like Vettel, i never thought he was as adaptable as some other drivers, i.e. Hamilton or Alonso. I used to put it down to “narrow operating window”. Give a driver like that the perfect car to his liking and he will perform extraordinary. To a certain degree, Button was just like that too. The only difference is Button had that car to hinself for a little more than half a season in 2009 - Vettel had it for most of his career at RedBull.

That car was so planted, the blown diffusor era just suited his style perfectly. Mean while, you would see drivers like Hamilton and Alonso seemingly over driving their cars to miraculously split or beat the dominant RedBulls to pole.

In 2014 for the first time, we saw Vettel driving a completely different car and his team mate beat him. I’d also argue that these last few years (2017 and beyond), the car was also not quite a perfect match for Vettels driving style, hence the overdriving and costly mistakes..

This is not to say that Vettel isnt an extraordinary driver when all the pieces fall into place. To me however, it is evident that he is not at one with the car he is driving now and he is facing a team mate who can just perform better with it. Give that Ferrari a more planted and stable rear, more downforce and Vettel will improve.

[lh13]

Nico didn't win because of Lewis' poor starts, he actually won because he himself made better starts, as clutch was problematic for both. So yeah, he didn't win because Lewis' starts were poor, he won because his own starts were better. There is a difference between saying these two things.

And there is not guarantee that Lewis would have won without that Sepang failure. If Lewis could have won in Sepang, the Nico might not have spun either, and finished second (Nico 291 points, Lewis 290 points), but let's just consider that Lewis won and Nico finished 4th (instead of the actual 3rd) Lewis would have had 290 points, and Nico 285. Nico could have won any of the last 4 races if he was not in safe mode, so yeah, it's not black and white that Nico won because of this or that.

1. the full catalogue for Lewis 2016 is: ERS failures in China Q1 and Sochi Q3, faulty engine mode in Baku, new PU=back of grid in Spa, hydraulics fault spoilt FP2 in Singapore, blown engine in lead in Sepang. 2. That's at least 40 points and is totally black and white how Rosberg got his title. He had one really bad start to Lewis' two, it wasn't much of a pattern.

of course ROS was good enough to be close enough to get that lucky, 3. but that wdc doesn't put him in the same class as Seb i don't think

1. All of that is true, but, in China, Lewis also tangled with a back-marker (he could have easily avoided that by being cautious during the first lap), had he avoided that, could have won the championship, event with all the failures, so it is still not black and white. And, the person I quoted, said there were two main reasons for Rosberg winning the title, and my response was intended for that post.

2. He lost ~56 points because of bad start and mistakes, which is more than what he lost because of reliability, so he wasn't perfect during 2016, and him winning the championship wasn't certain.

3. That's not what I was referring to.

[izzy]

1. All of that is true, but, in China, Lewis also tangled with a back-marker (he could have easily avoided that by being cautious during the first lap), had he avoided that, could have won the championship, event with all the failures, so it is still not black and white. And, the person I quoted, said there were two main reasons for Rosberg winning the title, and my response was intended for that post.

2. He lost ~56 points because of bad start and mistakes, which is more than what he lost because of reliability, so he wasn't perfect during 2016, and him winning the championship wasn't certain.

3. That's not what I was referring to.

56 points? Lol no that's way too creative, and the fact Lewis could've won by driving the first perfect season in history doesn't mean Rosberg isn't flattered by his wdc. Take that away and comparisons with Seb don't look so realistic. Not that I'm a fan especially, and Charles is looking faster and actually less error prone already, but he is better than Rosberg at least

[lh13]

1. 56 points? Lol no that's way too creative, and the fact Lewis could've won by driving the first perfect season in history doesn't mean Rosberg isn't flattered by his wdc. Take that away and comparisons with Seb don't look so realistic. Not that I'm a fan especially, and Charles is looking faster and actually less error prone already, 2. but he is better than Rosberg at least

1. Sorry, I was indeed too creative with 56 points figure.

Australia - Started 1st, finished 2nd (7 points lost)
Bahrain - Started 1st, finished 3rd (10 points lost)
China - Started last, finished 7th, could have finished 3rd without the first-lap incident (9 points lost)
Azerbaijan - Started 10th, finished 5th, could have finished at-least second without the qualifying mistake (8 points lost)
Italy - Started 1st, finished 2nd (7 points lost)
Singapore - Started 3rd, finished 3rd, should have been at-least 2nd in both qualification and race (3 points lost)
Japan - Started 1st, finished 3rd (10 points lost)

Even if we don't consider Singapore, that's 49 points lost due to mistakes and missed opportunities.

2. I am not even arguing who is better than who.

[izzy]

1. 56 points? Lol no that's way too creative, and the fact Lewis could've won by driving the first perfect season in history doesn't mean Rosberg isn't flattered by his wdc. Take that away and comparisons with Seb don't look so realistic. Not that I'm a fan especially, and Charles is looking faster and actually less error prone already, 2. but he is better than Rosberg at least

1. Sorry, I was indeed too creative with 56 points figure.

Australia - Started 1st, finished 2nd (7 points lost)
Bahrain - Started 1st, finished 3rd (10 points lost)
China - Started last, finished 7th, could have finished 3rd without the first-lap incident (9 points lost)
Azerbaijan - Started 10th, finished 5th, could have finished at-least second without the qualifying mistake (8 points lost)
Italy - Started 1st, finished 2nd (7 points lost)
Singapore - Started 3rd, finished 3rd, should have been at-least 2nd in both qualification and race (3 points lost)
Japan - Started 1st, finished 3rd (10 points lost)

Even if we don't consider Singapore, that's 49 points lost due to mistakes and missed opportunities.

2. I am not even arguing who is better than who.

Oz Rosberg pushed him off in T1, Bahrain Valtteri took him out, China a backmarker came back on into him, Baku he had a mode fault, etc etc, and your whole idea is that he was supposed to be perfect, which nobody ever is. and if you're not arguing about Seb what are you doing exactly?

[lh13]

Oz Rosberg pushed him off in T1, Bahrain Valtteri took him out, China a backmarker came back on into him, Baku he had a mode fault, etc etc, and your whole idea is that he was supposed to be perfect, which nobody ever is. and if you're not arguing about Seb what are you doing exactly?

No he wasn't, it's just that he lost more points because of himself than he lost because of the failures.

I was trying to talk to this person:

Nico won for 2 main reasons.

1. Lewis's ICE failure in Sepang
2. Lewis did not getting on top of his starts (AUS, BHR, ITA, JAP).

Nico didn't win because of Lewis' poor starts, he actually won because he himself made better starts, as clutch was problematic for both. So yeah, he didn't win because Lewis' starts were poor, he won because his own starts were better. There is a difference between saying these two things.

And there is not guarantee that Lewis would have won without that Sepang failure. If Lewis could have won in Sepang, the Nico might not have spun either, and finished second (Nico 291 points, Lewis 290 points), but let's just consider that Lewis won and Nico finished 4th (instead of the actual 3rd) Lewis would have had 290 points, and Nico 285. Nico could have won any of the last 4 races if he was not in safe mode, so yeah, it's not black and white that Nico won because of this or that.

Now what exactly were You doing quoting me for something I was not even talking about?

[ENGINE TUNER]

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

Or it is perfectly possible that, he WAS as quick as Verstappen and Leclerc are NOW in his early career and that is why he outperformed Webber and won those titles. He most likely has lost a bit of the raw pace that he had, due to age, stage of life that he is in, equipment not to his perfect liking OR that there is reduced desire to achieve which was there in the early career. A lot might have culminated in a very unconscious manner.

Even Schumacher's record against Rosberg wasn't representative of his early career. Even Niki Lauda struggled against a hot shot upstart in 1984 for raw pace. Does that mean, Niki was never challenged in his early career? May be Vettel has reached that stage earlier than most would have imagined, but was he slow when he won those titles because Webber couldn't challenge him? That's an absolute NO. His race craft was probably never in the elite league, which is now visible in more pronounced manner.

It does not often happens that a driver moves into thirties and retains that raw single lap pace and for that, Hamilton has been an exception.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 743308.stm

This accident changed Webber, he was never as good after it, as he was before, and even still on some days he soundly beat Vettel, even on one of those rare error free days for Vettel. Webber was always at a disadvantage as he was one of the bigger, heavier drivers, while Vettel was one of the lightest. Webber was never a true test for Vettel, so in actuality we have no way of knowing just how fast Vettel really ever was. Vettel may not have slowed down, he may have just never been that fast.

I have no doubt that Webber after that bicycle accident vs Vettel, was not the same caliber as the Webber who outpaced young Rosberg regularly.

Examine Vettel's first F1 start. After impressing people with his Friday pace all season testing for BMW, when he stepped in for Kubica, Heidfeld absolutely smashed him. And Webber was usually faster in 2008 than Vettel in very similar team(RBT) cars, but with the STR having a better engine(Ferrari).

I see more proof that Vettel wasn't truly challenged until RIC, then that he has slowed down. Also, these cars have much more power than the anemic frozen V8s, and Vettel has struggled with having to control all this power with less grip.

When I look at all the evidence, Vettel hasn't lost "IT", he never really had "IT" in the first place.

[ENGINE TUNER]

1. All of that is true, but, in China, Lewis also tangled with a back-marker (he could have easily avoided that by being cautious during the first lap), had he avoided that, could have won the championship, event with all the failures, so it is still not black and white. And, the person I quoted, said there were two main reasons for Rosberg winning the title, and my response was intended for that post.

2. He lost ~56 points because of bad start and mistakes, which is more than what he lost because of reliability, so he wasn't perfect during 2016, and him winning the championship wasn't certain.

#1 is patently false. That was the famous "you came in like a torpedo race" where Kimi half spun, Vettel hit him, Kimi went off track and then rejoined unsafely which caused a car to swerve to avoid him, that swerving car went into Hamilton who was starting from the back because of PU failure. That was in no way Hamilton's fault.

#2 ROS lost just as much and probably more because of bad starts and mistakes. The bad starts were a car problem, not on either one of the drivers, that doesn't mean that it effects each driver equally, just like they didn't have equal PU reliability.

[marvin78]

In my personal opinion, Vettel was never tested as much as he has been now. Not against Webber, not against Kimi. Possibly he was against Riccardo, but that year was full of mechanical issues and out of contention for wins (on merit) to have a big effect.

Or it is perfectly possible that, he WAS as quick as Verstappen and Leclerc are NOW in his early career and that is why he outperformed Webber and won those titles. He most likely has lost a bit of the raw pace that he had, due to age, stage of life that he is in, equipment not to his perfect liking OR that there is reduced desire to achieve which was there in the early career. A lot might have culminated in a very unconscious manner.

Even Schumacher's record against Rosberg wasn't representative of his early career. Even Niki Lauda struggled against a hot shot upstart in 1984 for raw pace. Does that mean, Niki was never challenged in his early career? May be Vettel has reached that stage earlier than most would have imagined, but was he slow when he won those titles because Webber couldn't challenge him? That's an absolute NO. His race craft was probably never in the elite league, which is now visible in more pronounced manner.

It does not often happens that a driver moves into thirties and retains that raw single lap pace and for that, Hamilton has been an exception.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 743308.stm

This accident changed Webber, he was never as good after it, as he was before, and even still on some days he soundly beat Vettel, even on one of those rare error free days for Vettel. Webber was always at a disadvantage as he was one of the bigger, heavier drivers, while Vettel was one of the lightest. Webber was never a true test for Vettel, so in actuality we have no way of knowing just how fast Vettel really ever was. Vettel may not have slowed down, he may have just never been that fast.

I have no doubt that Webber after that bicycle accident vs Vettel, was not the same caliber as the Webber who outpaced young Rosberg regularly.

Examine Vettel's first F1 start. After impressing people with his Friday pace all season testing for BMW, when he stepped in for Kubica, Heidfeld absolutely smashed him. And Webber was usually faster in 2008 than Vettel in very similar team(RBT) cars, but with the STR having a better engine(Ferrari).

I see more proof that Vettel wasn't truly challenged until RIC, then that he has slowed down. Also, these cars have much more power than the anemic frozen V8s, and Vettel has struggled with having to control all this power with less grip.

When I look at all the evidence, Vettel hasn't lost "IT", he never really had "IT" in the first place.

And it's all just guessing. What sense has a thread like this if no one has even 5 % of the data to make assumptions that are not just based on guessing? I'm not a fan of any driver but you will never really know who is better and who has it or who has it not. I always think that no team would pay a driver millions if he not had something that makes him good or a great asset. And they have data. Possibly enough to judge a driver. No one of us has that. It's proven by posts like the quotet one.

[Jolle]

I think Vettel is one of the best drivers on the grid, when he just arrived he could challenge Hamilton and Alonso but now, Hamilton has improved and the new kids are just on a new level. His three contenders (Hamilton, Leclerc and Verstappen) are super tough and focused on themselves. Vettel never displayed this focus and more important, self reflection. This also comes up in situations like Russia. He believes he’s right, even when he’s not.