planetf1.com

Covalent wrote: From this you can say with a 100% certainty that when they were teammates with Ricciardo the car was built around Max?

You are clutching at straws quite frankly.

What is this? Since when is anything posted on a public discussion forum has to have 100% certainty? There are no f1 insiders here.

Why do you seem to have such a problem with this? It is very strange as I recall you having a similar viewpoint with Alonso while many members disagreed with you, myself not included. But now you are basically jumping ships. Bizarre.

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote: Personally I think Ricciardo ran away from Verstappen and this beating Max 2 out of 3 seasons is a bit bogus, the first season Max joined mid season, the second season Max was clearly quicker but lost a lot of points with mechanical problems, I know Ricciardo did too in the second half of the season but nominally Max would run in front of Ricciardo when he retired, Ricciardo would run behind Max when he retired.

The third season after Max stopped crashing early in the season started to become a walkover for Max, I know again that Ricciardo again had a lot of mechanical issues later in the season but these mechanical issues for both drivers in 2017 and 2018 I think are a nice camouflage for Ricciardo.

But now that we have seen Albon and Gasly perform next to Max and he is making them look like formula 3 drivers can't we understand Ricciardo's decision to leave a little better?

The Redbull car is built around Max, that much is clear. If Ricciardo realized that and decided to pack his bags we cannot fault him for that. I am really starting to believe that not even Hamilton could beat Max in the Redbull, but if Max came to Mercedes he wouldn't be able to touch Lewis.

How exactly is that clear?

It is clear. At least to me. I have explained it in the first sentence of my post yet you seem to think it is somehow outlandish. Redbull has also stated it in the past. So again, legitimate F1 drivers like Albon and Gasly have trouble driving the Redbull, Ricciardo is an elite driver and he was not that close to Max. So to me at least, it is obvious that that car is built around Max. Not that hard to understand my view point to be honest.

Outperformimg Albon and Gasly just proves he's better than them, nothing more. And red bull have not stated it.

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote: From this you can say with a 100% certainty that when they were teammates with Ricciardo the car was built around Max?

You are clutching at straws quite frankly.

What is this? Since when is anything posted on a public discussion forum has to have 100% certainty? There are no f1 insiders here.

Why do you seem to have such a problem with this? It is very strange as I recall you having a similar viewpoint with Alonso while many members disagreed with you, myself not included. But now you are basically jumping ships. Bizarre.

Have I claimed that anything posted here has to be 100%? If something is posted as fact it just needs to be provable.
Prolonged agendas and spreading of disinformation I have a problem with yes. I'm not even a fan of Max so have no vested interest in this.
I don't know why you want to bring up some old discussions about Alonso, that's a completely different case and circumstances isn't it? And way of topic.

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote: From this you can say with a 100% certainty that when they were teammates with Ricciardo the car was built around Max?

You are clutching at straws quite frankly.

What is this? Since when is anything posted on a public discussion forum has to have 100% certainty? There are no f1 insiders here.

Why do you seem to have such a problem with this? It is very strange as I recall you having a similar viewpoint with Alonso while many members disagreed with you, myself not included. But now you are basically jumping ships. Bizarre.

Have I claimed that anything posted here has to be 100%? If something is posted as fact it just needs to be provable.
Prolonged agendas and spreading of disinformation I have a problem with yes. I'm not even a fan of Max so have no vested interest in this.
I don't know why you want to bring up some old discussions about Alonso, that's a completely different case and circumstances isn't it? And way of topic.

Well yeah because you are the one who brought up that it needs to be 100% factual. When someone posts stuff it's their opinion and opinion only. If you disagree you can provide counter arguments, not "witty" one liners that are meant to be nothing but disrespectful. So please stop that rubbish.

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote: Personally I think Ricciardo ran away from Verstappen and this beating Max 2 out of 3 seasons is a bit bogus, the first season Max joined mid season, the second season Max was clearly quicker but lost a lot of points with mechanical problems, I know Ricciardo did too in the second half of the season but nominally Max would run in front of Ricciardo when he retired, Ricciardo would run behind Max when he retired.

The third season after Max stopped crashing early in the season started to become a walkover for Max, I know again that Ricciardo again had a lot of mechanical issues later in the season but these mechanical issues for both drivers in 2017 and 2018 I think are a nice camouflage for Ricciardo.

But now that we have seen Albon and Gasly perform next to Max and he is making them look like formula 3 drivers can't we understand Ricciardo's decision to leave a little better?

The Redbull car is built around Max, that much is clear. If Ricciardo realized that and decided to pack his bags we cannot fault him for that. I am really starting to believe that not even Hamilton could beat Max in the Redbull, but if Max came to Mercedes he wouldn't be able to touch Lewis.

How exactly is that clear?

It is clear. At least to me. I have explained it in the first sentence of my post yet you seem to think it is somehow outlandish. Redbull has also stated it in the past. So again, legitimate F1 drivers like Albon and Gasly have trouble driving the Redbull, Ricciardo is an elite driver and he was not that close to Max. So to me at least, it is obvious that that car is built around Max. Not that hard to understand my view point to be honest.

We don't have a lot of data on Albon yet but the speed difference to Gasly isn't far off what you'd expect based on the Verstappen - Ricciardo - Kvyat comparison.

It would put Gasly slightly behind Kvyat. Hardly unbelievable. Gasly was finishing so far behind because he was terrible at racing. Got stuck in the midfield and couldn't get out of it.

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:

pokerman wrote: Personally I think Ricciardo ran away from Verstappen and this beating Max 2 out of 3 seasons is a bit bogus, the first season Max joined mid season, the second season Max was clearly quicker but lost a lot of points with mechanical problems, I know Ricciardo did too in the second half of the season but nominally Max would run in front of Ricciardo when he retired, Ricciardo would run behind Max when he retired.

The third season after Max stopped crashing early in the season started to become a walkover for Max, I know again that Ricciardo again had a lot of mechanical issues later in the season but these mechanical issues for both drivers in 2017 and 2018 I think are a nice camouflage for Ricciardo.

But now that we have seen Albon and Gasly perform next to Max and he is making them look like formula 3 drivers can't we understand Ricciardo's decision to leave a little better?

The Redbull car is built around Max, that much is clear. If Ricciardo realized that and decided to pack his bags we cannot fault him for that. I am really starting to believe that not even Hamilton could beat Max in the Redbull, but if Max came to Mercedes he wouldn't be able to touch Lewis.

How exactly is that clear?

It is clear. At least to me. I have explained it in the first sentence of my post yet you seem to think it is somehow outlandish. Redbull has also stated it in the past. So again, legitimate F1 drivers like Albon and Gasly have trouble driving the Redbull, Ricciardo is an elite driver and he was not that close to Max. So to me at least, it is obvious that that car is built around Max. Not that hard to understand my view point to be honest.

We don't have a lot of data on Albon yet but the speed difference to Gasly isn't far off what you'd expect based on the Verstappen - Ricciardo - Kvyat comparison.

It would put Gasly slightly behind Kvyat. Hardly unbelievable. Gasly was finishing so far behind because he was terrible at racing. Got stuck in the midfield and couldn't get out of it.

I don't know how you can say that. The trio of drivers Gasly, Kvyat and Albon look like a bunch of bums if you consider their relative gap to verstappen. Now Kvyat is a guy that could outqualify Ricciardo on merit sometimes, so I believe he is at the very least F1 material. Albon was pretty much equal to Kvyat in speed, so he is F1 material too. Gasly was never on the same planet as Max and often more than half a second off, but he is now beating Kvyat on pace, so he must also be F1 material. But yet Albon and Gasly's gap to Verstappen doesn't make much sense. It is far too big and far too prevalent every weekend. So to me it has to be that the car is just not suited to them. There is a gulf in talent between Verstappen and those guys for sure but it is nowhere as big as it looks at the moment. Because if it was, those guys definitely shouldn't be in F1. I think I've read somewhere that the gap between the fastest and slowest driver in F1 is usually around half a second. Verstappen is very quick, but he shouldn't be able to consistently outpace even the slowest guy on the grid by half a second every weekend. I don't think that's humanly possible. People make mistakes. Verstappen also makes mistakes. I watch plenty of Verstappen onboard laps and he regularly misses apexes but still gets away with it, still is fast. He is quite unique in his driving style but the gap to his teammate is not just down to talent. That again is clear TO ME.

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:
But now that we have seen Albon and Gasly perform next to Max and he is making them look like formula 3 drivers can't we understand Ricciardo's decision to leave a little better?

The Redbull car is built around Max, that much is clear. If Ricciardo realized that and decided to pack his bags we cannot fault him for that. I am really starting to believe that not even Hamilton could beat Max in the Redbull, but if Max came to Mercedes he wouldn't be able to touch Lewis.

How exactly is that clear?

It is clear. At least to me. I have explained it in the first sentence of my post yet you seem to think it is somehow outlandish. Redbull has also stated it in the past. So again, legitimate F1 drivers like Albon and Gasly have trouble driving the Redbull, Ricciardo is an elite driver and he was not that close to Max. So to me at least, it is obvious that that car is built around Max. Not that hard to understand my view point to be honest.

We don't have a lot of data on Albon yet but the speed difference to Gasly isn't far off what you'd expect based on the Verstappen - Ricciardo - Kvyat comparison.

It would put Gasly slightly behind Kvyat. Hardly unbelievable. Gasly was finishing so far behind because he was terrible at racing. Got stuck in the midfield and couldn't get out of it.

I don't know how you can say that. The trio of drivers Gasly, Kvyat and Albon look like a bunch of bums if you consider their relative gap to verstappen. Now Kvyat is a guy that could outqualify Ricciardo on merit sometimes, so I believe he is at the very least F1 material. Albon was pretty much equal to Kvyat in speed, so he is F1 material too. Gasly was never on the same planet as Max and often more than half a second off, but he is now beating Kvyat on pace, so he must also be F1 material. But yet Albon and Gasly's gap to Verstappen doesn't make much sense. It is far too big and far too prevalent every weekend. So to me it has to be that the car is just not suited to them. There is a gulf in talent between Verstappen and those guys for sure but it is nowhere as big as it looks at the moment. Because if it was, those guys definitely shouldn't be in F1. I think I've read somewhere that the gap between the fastest and slowest driver in F1 is usually around half a second. Verstappen is very quick, but he shouldn't be able to consistently outpace even the slowest guy on the grid by half a second every weekend. I don't think that's humanly possible. People make mistakes. Verstappen also makes mistakes. I watch plenty of Verstappen onboard laps and he regularly misses apexes but still gets away with it, still is fast. He is quite unique in his driving style but the gap to his teammate is not just down to talent. That again is clear TO ME.

The actual speed gap to Gasly was around 4 tenths.

This hardly seems an unrealistic gap to me given how unproven Gasly is. I'm not saying your wrong. I just don't understand how it can be clear to anyone based on the cross driver comparison.

mikeyg123 wrote:
The actual speed gap to Gasly was around 4 tenths.

This hardly seems an unrealistic gap to me given how unproven Gasly is. I'm not saying your wrong. I just don't understand how it can be clear to anyone based on the cross driver comparison.

I assume you are using that average gap number again. That's the thing. A lot of you guys put a lot of credibility in this average gap number. The average gap number gets skewed because of too many factors. I doubt the real gap is 4 tenths. But there is no accurate way to measure the real gap in my opinion. All we know is that they are nowhere close to him in that car, while in the only other car he has even driven in F1 he struggled to beat Carlos Sainz comfortably. But yeah le'ts put it all down to Verstappen improvement. Ok.

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
The actual speed gap to Gasly was around 4 tenths.

This hardly seems an unrealistic gap to me given how unproven Gasly is. I'm not saying your wrong. I just don't understand how it can be clear to anyone based on the cross driver comparison.

I assume you are using that average gap number again. That's the thing. A lot of you guys put a lot of credibility in this average gap number. The average gap number gets skewed because of too many factors. I doubt the real gap is 4 tenths. But there is no accurate way to measure the real gap in my opinion. All we know is that they are nowhere close to him in that car, while in the only other car he has even driven in F1 he struggled to beat Carlos Sainz comfortably. But yeah le'ts put it all down to Verstappen improvement. Ok.

Of course he would improve. He was a 17 year old kid with just 1 year of car racing experience.

Would it be possible for Verstappen to comfortably beat a team mate and you not put it down to the car being designed around him? If so what would you need to see to make you believe that?

I've reached the point where I can't see this thread without wondering who took Verstappen's watch.

The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

The Red Bull driver program is in terrible shape.
I think if Max leaves in 2021, they might try and get Dan to come back.

On other comments above, some drivers can’t handle the spotlight.
Maybe Gasly is a quick driver, but could not perform at Red Bull. Maybe he can at Toro Rosso. So saying Max is quicker than Gasly, therefore much quicker than Kyvat is impossible to conclude.

Kyvat has redeemed himself From his confidence issues from the past and I think he should have been given the Red Bull Seat over Albon.

Ruste13 wrote:I must be borderline dyslexic, everytime I read this thread title I see, "Verstappen needs his watch back"

The clock is ticking

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Covalent wrote: From this you can say with a 100% certainty that when they were teammates with Ricciardo the car was built around Max?

You are clutching at straws quite frankly.

What is this? Since when is anything posted on a public discussion forum has to have 100% certainty? There are no f1 insiders here.

Why do you seem to have such a problem with this? It is very strange as I recall you having a similar viewpoint with Alonso while many members disagreed with you, myself not included. But now you are basically jumping ships. Bizarre.

Have I claimed that anything posted here has to be 100%? If something is posted as fact it just needs to be provable.
Prolonged agendas and spreading of disinformation I have a problem with yes. I'm not even a fan of Max so have no vested interest in this.
I don't know why you want to bring up some old discussions about Alonso, that's a completely different case and circumstances isn't it? And way of topic.

Well yeah because you are the one who brought up that it needs to be 100% factual. When someone posts stuff it's their opinion and opinion only. If you disagree you can provide counter arguments, not "witty" one liners that are meant to be nothing but disrespectful. So please stop that rubbish.

Ok since you're starting to get personal I think it's time for me to bow out.

There's nothing wrong with opinions and you've made it clear now that your initial comment was just that (you added the to me part) , whereas Randine refused to acknowledge it as such. At least by my understanding if something isn't supposition it's fact.

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

In fairness you would expect Albon and Gasly to be a lot closer to the finished article in their debut years that Verstappen.

Gasly had 7 years of car racing under his belt before his first full season. Albon also had 7 years under his belt before making his debut.

Verstappen had 1 year racing cars.

That's not to say you wouldn't expect Gasly or Albon to improve though. As a rule I tend to not give a drivers 1st season a lot of weight in assessing their careers as a whole.

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

Randine wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

The Red Bull driver program is in terrible shape.
I think if Max leaves in 2021, they might try and get Dan to come back.

On other comments above, some drivers can’t handle the spotlight.
Maybe Gasly is a quick driver, but could not perform at Red Bull. Maybe he can at Toro Rosso. So saying Max is quicker than Gasly, therefore much quicker than Kyvat is impossible to conclude.

Kyvat has redeemed himself From his confidence issues from the past and I think he should have been given the Red Bull Seat over Albon.

I ventured this myself, if Verstappen ever left Red Bull then surely they would have to look outside their driver program?

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

And I wouldn't write off Norris. Matching a middling F1 driver in a rookie season isn't bad at all.

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

And I wouldn't write off Norris. Matching a middling F1 driver in a rookie season isn't bad at all.

At this stage it's no longer fair to claim that Norris is matching Sainz. Honestly, this season is starting to alter Sainz's status as well. It's not just that he has been seemingly quite quick; it's that he has been very consistent. I'd argue that consistency is actually the thing that has been missing from Sainz's game.

But yeah, it's possible that Russell and Norris might be of the same caliber as Max and/or Charles but they have yet to prove it.

wrong thread

sandman1347 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

And I wouldn't write off Norris. Matching a middling F1 driver in a rookie season isn't bad at all.

At this stage it's no longer fair to claim that Norris is matching Sainz. Honestly, this season is starting to alter Sainz's status as well. It's not just that he has been seemingly quite quick; it's that he has been very consistent. I'd argue that consistency is actually the thing that has been missing from Sainz's game.

But yeah, it's possible that Russell and Norris might be of the same caliber as Max and/or Charles but they have yet to prove it.

Norris is every bit as quick as Sainz. He may not be as good as bagging the points but that will come.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

And I wouldn't write off Norris. Matching a middling F1 driver in a rookie season isn't bad at all.

He's doing alright I've just been more impressed by Russell thus far.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

His pre F1 record is pretty much the same as Leclerc's. He won GP3 and F2 back to back. Both in his first seasons at that level.

Hard to judge his current F1 season. All you can really do in his position is obliterate his team mate which he's done.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

His pre F1 record is pretty much the same as Leclerc's. He won GP3 and F2 back to back. Both in his first seasons at that level.

Hard to judge his current F1 season. All you can really do in his position is obliterate his team mate which he's done.

Thanks. His junior record is indeed impressive but haven't we learned that it doesn't always translate to F1 success. I really don't see how one can put him on the same level as Verstappen and Leclerc based on him beating Kubica.

Covalent wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote: I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

His pre F1 record is pretty much the same as Leclerc's. He won GP3 and F2 back to back. Both in his first seasons at that level.

Hard to judge his current F1 season. All you can really do in his position is obliterate his team mate which he's done.

Thanks. His junior record is indeed impressive but haven't we learned that it doesn't always translate to F1 success. I really don't see how one can put him on the same level as Verstappen and Leclerc based on him beating Kubica.

TBF Poker didn't claim he was. He just said he could have the potential to be.

Which I don't think is a particularly far out statement.

Yeah you can't really argue he hasn't performed reasonbly in the Williams. The only issue, that car being so slow & his team mate being in his first season back after serious accident, is that we don't have any idea of how well reasonably is - is he performing amazingly? We can't say how he would stack up against anyone on the grid really. I am really hoping that next season he has a decent yard stick and the Williams is decent. Then we will really know what praise he does or doesn't deserve. He is in a really unfortunate situation right now where by he is never going to get any recognition for his performances

Covalent wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

His pre F1 record is pretty much the same as Leclerc's. He won GP3 and F2 back to back. Both in his first seasons at that level.

Hard to judge his current F1 season. All you can really do in his position is obliterate his team mate which he's done.

Thanks. His junior record is indeed impressive but haven't we learned that it doesn't always translate to F1 success. I really don't see how one can put him on the same level as Verstappen and Leclerc based on him beating Kubica.

Yes. And IMO, Russell is more a Vandoorne than a Verstappen. But, of course, the judgement is still to be seen.

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:The interesting thing I notice is that the same people who don't count Max's first couple of years due to him being inexperienced and at a stage where he was improving; still want to count Gasly and Albon's first years...

Anyway, the idea that Max needs to watch his back is just false. At Red Bull, Max can do no wrong. Among young drivers there's really only Charles who is considered to be in the same league. In fact, the only driver on the entire grid who is considered better is 34 years of age (12 years older than Max) and not really in any direct competition with Max. One would assume that, as soon as Hamilton's run comes to an end, it will be either Max or Charles who rises to the fore. Any team will want to have one of those two guys and since Charles will be at Ferrari for the foreseeable future, I'd imagine that leaves Max in an extremely advantageous position. Who else could Mercedes call when the time comes to replace Lewis? Who on earth would Red Bull even consider replacing Max with?

He may need to display some patience in the short run but there is nothing that will prevent Max from being in a top car at some point in the near future. The question is; when and where; not if.

Well I would give a shout to George Russell, potentially he could be in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park.

I don't really understand the Russell hype, is it because of him beatingKubica or based on the junior formula merits? Haven't followed him prior to F1.
Just haven't seen anything that would put him in the Verstappen/Leclerc ball park. Not saying he isn't though, just don't see what others are seeing.

Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

That's your take on my reply, anyone that's only seen Russell drive in F1 would perhaps have a similar view, that's all I'm saying.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Covalent wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well if you've only seen him drive the slowest car on the grid against a handicapped Kubica then I understand why.

So instead of answering the question you just decided to be witty.

Someone else care to answer?

His pre F1 record is pretty much the same as Leclerc's. He won GP3 and F2 back to back. Both in his first seasons at that level.

Hard to judge his current F1 season. All you can really do in his position is obliterate his team mate which he's done.

Thanks. His junior record is indeed impressive but haven't we learned that it doesn't always translate to F1 success. I really don't see how one can put him on the same level as Verstappen and Leclerc based on him beating Kubica.

TBF Poker didn't claim he was. He just said he could have the potential to be.

Which I don't think is a particularly far out statement.

Indeed and let's not forget the hype surrounding Leclerc when he was beating the unrated Ericsson, there are a lot of similarities between Russell and Leclerc.

FormulaFun wrote:Yeah you can't really argue he hasn't performed reasonbly in the Williams. The only issue, that car being so slow & his team mate being in his first season back after serious accident, is that we don't have any idea of how well reasonably is - is he performing amazingly? We can't say how he would stack up against anyone on the grid really. I am really hoping that next season he has a decent yard stick and the Williams is decent. Then we will really know what praise he does or doesn't deserve. He is in a really unfortunate situation right now where by he is never going to get any recognition for his performances

Yeah and it's not really set to change next season when he's up against another rookie in Latifi.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Yes. And IMO, Russell is more a Vandoorne than a Verstappen. But, of course, the judgement is still to be seen.

Why do you judge him as a vandoorne? This can only be based on nothing... What the hell are you actually basing this on. Adding this to the pot of F1 Racers verdict of albon

FormulaFun wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Yes. And IMO, Russell is more a Vandoorne than a Verstappen. But, of course, the judgement is still to be seen.

Why do you judge him as a vandoorne? This can only be based on nothing... What the hell are you actually basing this on. Adding this to the pot of F1 Racers verdict of albon

Well, I have witnessed his performance in F3 closely at the tracks and followed his years in GP3 and F2 through the media. That is the base of my opinion. (And of course it is an opinion.)

I referred to Vandoorne as someone who
- also had an excellent record on paper in the feeder categories,
- was also hailed as the next big thing by many forumers (like you, right?),
- and ended up showing good but not excellent promise in F1 ( as I predicted at the time because - like with Russell - I actually watched his feeder performances).

And what has Albon to do with that?

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Yes. And IMO, Russell is more a Vandoorne than a Verstappen. But, of course, the judgement is still to be seen.

Why do you judge him as a vandoorne? This can only be based on nothing... What the hell are you actually basing this on. Adding this to the pot of F1 Racers verdict of albon

Well, I have witnessed his performance in F3 closely at the tracks and followed his years in GP3 and F2 through the media. That is the base of my opinion. (And of course it is an opinion.)

I referred to Vandoorne as someone who
- also had an excellent record on paper in the feeder categories,
- was also hailed as the next big thing by many forumers (like you, right?),
- and ended up showing good but not excellent promise in F1 ( as I predicted at the time because - like with Russell - I actually watched his feeder performances).

And what has Albon to do with that?

Just out of interest what did you see from Leclerc in feeder categories that you didn't see from Russell?

Leclerc impressed with his driving, like Verstappen and Norris did. Russell (and Vandoorne) impressed with their results but not so much ( of course there were still very good) with their driving. They benefited a lot from circumstance.

Russell, for instance, is very good if everything runs his way. However, if he has to fight adverseries, his performance fades away (like Vandoorne), whereas Verstappen, Leclerc and Norris exactly excelled in such situations. Russell will be the ideal man if you have a dominant car and a weaker/ inconsistent teammate. Then you can rely on him bringing it home. But nothing more.

Mind you, I could be wrong about him. But my opinion is definitely not based on "nothing" like some suggested.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Leclerc impressed with his driving, like Verstappen and Norris did. Russell (and Vandoorne) impressed with their results but not so much ( of course there were still very good) with their driving. They benefited a lot from circumstance.

Russell, for instance, is very good if everything runs his way. However, if he has to fight adverseries, his performance fades away (like Vandoorne), whereas Verstappen, Leclerc and Norris exactly excelled in such situations. Russell will be the ideal man if you have a dominant car and a weaker/ inconsistent teammate. Then you can rely on him bringing it home. But nothing more.

Mind you, I could be wrong about him. But my opinion is definitely not based on "nothing" like some suggested.

You clearly didn't watch the F2 season, Russell's ability to overtake cars was far better than that of Norris, this kind of sounds made up.

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Leclerc impressed with his driving, like Verstappen and Norris did. Russell (and Vandoorne) impressed with their results but not so much ( of course there were still very good) with their driving. They benefited a lot from circumstance.

Russell, for instance, is very good if everything runs his way. However, if he has to fight adverseries, his performance fades away (like Vandoorne), whereas Verstappen, Leclerc and Norris exactly excelled in such situations. Russell will be the ideal man if you have a dominant car and a weaker/ inconsistent teammate. Then you can rely on him bringing it home. But nothing more.

Mind you, I could be wrong about him. But my opinion is definitely not based on "nothing" like some suggested.

You clearly didn't watch the F2 season, Russell's ability to overtake cars was far better than that of Norris, this kind of sounds made up.

Russell was very good with the very specific F2 tyres. Much of the overtaking followed from differences in tyre management. In contrast, Russell looked much more ordinary when tyre management was less important like in F3. Obviously, being good at tyre management is a good competence for F1 (although in todays F2, the race engineer is almost as important as driver talent). But if Norris is able to learn this, then his superiour outright speed and talent will put him ahead of Russell.

To your last sentence: well, if you think so. You said the same when I doubted (based on my observation of the actual driving in the feeders) that Vandoorne is the next superstar - and still I was right.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Leclerc impressed with his driving, like Verstappen and Norris did. Russell (and Vandoorne) impressed with their results but not so much ( of course there were still very good) with their driving. They benefited a lot from circumstance.

Russell, for instance, is very good if everything runs his way. However, if he has to fight adverseries, his performance fades away (like Vandoorne), whereas Verstappen, Leclerc and Norris exactly excelled in such situations. Russell will be the ideal man if you have a dominant car and a weaker/ inconsistent teammate. Then you can rely on him bringing it home. But nothing more.

Mind you, I could be wrong about him. But my opinion is definitely not based on "nothing" like some suggested.

You clearly didn't watch the F2 season, Russell's ability to overtake cars was far better than that of Norris, this kind of sounds made up.

Russell was very good with the very specific F2 tyres. Much of the overtaking followed from differences in tyre management. In contrast, Russell looked much more ordinary when tyre management was less important like in F3. Obviously, being good at tyre management is a good competence for F1 (although in todays F2, the race engineer is almost as important as driver talent). But if Norris is able to learn this, then his superiour outright speed and talent will put him ahead of Russell.

To your last sentence: well, if you think so. You said the same when I doubted (based on my observation of the actual driving in the feeders) that Vandoorne is the next superstar - and still I was right.

In F3 you basically need to drive for Prema, it's no coincidence they finished this season 1-2-3.

Also you have to remember that version of F3 was not a spec series, Stroll for instance was having parts designed and made by the Williams F1 team, Russell was much better than his teammates and finished 3rd in the series in between the Prema drivers who finished 1-2-4.

That season was an arms race lead by the Billionaire Stroll family with many drivers complaining and some leaving the following year for GP3, Russell included, the FIA set about reducing the costs amid the complaints for the following season.

As for tyre management of the Pirelli tyres, you're not using tyre management in qualifying, in GP3 Russell managed 4/8 poles, in F2 that was 5/12 poles and he won both series easily.

In regards to Vandoorne it's true that I was totally sold on him only for him to disappoint but you can't label every driver that comes after him as being the same unless you're saying that was not the case with Leclerc, but then perhaps I would have to take your word on that one that you thought differently about Leclerc?