planetf1.com

Laz_T800 wrote:The problem with that is we have no benchmark at all to judge Vandoorne as an F1 driver.

Well, we have one, which is Alonso - kind of two, if you include his one-off in Bahrain alongside Button.

But benchmarks aside, I dispute your statement that it's just as likely for Vandoorne to be totally useless. A driver with his junior record is highly unlikely to be useless. Has there, in fact, ever been a driver who was as successfull getting to F1 who turned out to be not just unspectacular, but useless? Vandoorne could be the first, but it's much more likely that he's not.

Exediron wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote:The problem with that is we have no benchmark at all to judge Vandoorne as an F1 driver.

Well, we have one, which is Alonso - kind of two, if you include his one-off in Bahrain alongside Button.

But benchmarks aside, I dispute your statement that it's just as likely for Vandoorne to be totally useless. A driver with his junior record is highly unlikely to be useless. Has there, in fact, ever been a driver who was as successfull getting to F1 who turned out to be not just unspectacular, but useless? Vandoorne could be the first, but it's much more likely that he's not.

Useless was the wrong word. Off the pace was more what I was trying to say.
By his own admission Vandoorne has struggled to adapt to F1.
That makes it difficult for me to over enthuse about Alonso's performances in the Mclaren.
Are they exceptional or is he just getting it to it's potential?

Laz_T800 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote: Whenever you try to judge driver performance all you are really doing is comparing them to their team mate.
That's why when you do get a direct comparison it's always more useful.

I'm not comparing him to Vandoorne. Even assuming Alonso has equal speed to those around him you couldn't place the Mclaren better than equal 5th quickest with Haas. Ignore Vandoorne if you like. Although I don't see Vandoorne being useless as anything like as likely as him being competent. Alonso is making him look like Fissichella, Massa or Raikkonen. Hardly useless drivers.

I'm confused. It seems to me that you are judging the Mclaren as a car on what Vandoorne is able to do.
As Alonso is getting better results than Vandoorne you are then using this to say Alonso is making the difference?
So essentially you are comparing him to Vandoorne?
The problem with that is we have no benchmark at all to judge Vandoorne as an F1 driver.

No I'm comparing him to other drivers around him. E.G. Hulkenberg, Magnussen etc

If I was using Vandoorne as the bench Mark I'd probably be putting McLaren as the 8th quickest car.

Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

Alonso makes just as much mistakes as the others, but it is overlooked and people go on about what he would do in certain cars, this is a myth.

Alonso is a fan of the underdog mentality, hence the I don't want a car ahead I need a car just close to the front running car, in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

What areas has Vettel been poor asides the lock up in Baku exactly?

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

Alonso makes just as much mistakes as the others, but it is overlooked and people go on about what he would do in certain cars, this is a myth.

Alonso is a fan of the underdog mentality, hence the I don't want a car ahead I need a car just close to the front running car, in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

What areas has Vettel been poor asides the lock up in Baku exactly?

Yeah the whole "Alonso would do this" or "Alonso would do that" thing has been tired for years. People talk about what he would have done in such and such a situation as if they know it for a fact. Alonso is performing very well this year IMO for the record but he is far and away the best driver among the midfield teams he is racing against. It makes him look even better than he is. If he were up front, he'd be up against guys who are on his level and he would have to be much more on the limit. We do NOT know how he would be doing right now were he up there on one of those teams.

sandman1347 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

Alonso makes just as much mistakes as the others, but it is overlooked and people go on about what he would do in certain cars, this is a myth.

Alonso is a fan of the underdog mentality, hence the I don't want a car ahead I need a car just close to the front running car, in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

What areas has Vettel been poor asides the lock up in Baku exactly?

Yeah the whole "Alonso would do this" or "Alonso would do that" thing has been tired for years. People talk about what he would have done in such and such a situation as if they know it for a fact. Alonso is performing very well this year IMO for the record but he is far and away the best driver among the midfield teams he is racing against. It makes him look even better than he is. If he were up front, he'd be up against guys who are on his level and he would have to be much more on the limit. We do NOT know how he would be doing right now were he up there on one of those teams.

It is tiring to read, "if Alonso was in the Redbull I have no doubt in my mind he would be winning the championship" Martin Brundle, Vettel in the car won four straight.
Now one has to ask himself what is the point of the statement if not to diminish Vettel's achievements, what we hear is Vettel won because of blown diffuser considering Alonso won his championships based on Mercedes engines being unreliable and the mass damper advantage the double speak is hilarious to see.

Rockie wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

Alonso makes just as much mistakes as the others, but it is overlooked and people go on about what he would do in certain cars, this is a myth.

Alonso is a fan of the underdog mentality, hence the I don't want a car ahead I need a car just close to the front running car, in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

What areas has Vettel been poor asides the lock up in Baku exactly?

Tbh i should have worded that better, with Vettel I did mean luck as he has been the best. Verstappen crash happy, Ricciardo doesn't quite have the pace, Hamilton's struggling, Bottas doesn't quite have the race pace and killer instinct, Kimi makes mistakes. Alonso would defiantly be in there, it would only take someone to be consistent to be right up there, with luck they are leading the championship and that's what's happening now.

Rockie wrote:in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

I seriously doubt that's true.

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

I seriously doubt that's true.

Then feel free to correct with an example of such taking place.

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

I seriously doubt that's true.

Rockie's sentence is why drivers are so rarely perceived to beat faster cars. For some If car B beats car A then car B must have been faster. Fortunately I believe it's a little more interesting than that.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

I seriously doubt that's true.

Rockie's sentence is why drivers are so rarely perceived to beat faster cars. For some If car B beats car A then car B must have been faster. Fortunately I believe it's a little more interesting than that.

What you are saying here makes no sense, lets go by the consensus of some here Hamilton>Vettel, Hamilton was in a slower car and Vettel in the faster car at what point in the race was the faster driver in the slower car going to beat the slower driver in faster car?

I don't care how fast you are, you are not beating a faster car under normal circumstances.

Rockie wrote:What you are saying here makes no sense, lets go by the consensus of some here Hamilton>Vettel, Hamilton was in a slower car and Vettel in the faster car at what point in the race was the faster driver in the slower car going to beat the slower driver in faster car?

I don't care how fast you are, you are not beating a faster car under normal circumstances.

That's just a bizarre thing to say. If the car is enough faster, sure, you won't. But what if the car is only maybe 2-3 tenths faster? There are plenty of driver pairings you can find on the grid with a bigger gap between them than that. If you put Hulk and Palmer from last year in two different cars, you could reasonably expect that Hulk would beat Palmer even if Palmer's car was a fair bit faster.

If what you're really trying to say is that nobody can beat a dominant car, that's pretty obvious. But it's not the same thing as nobody can beat a faster car.

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:What you are saying here makes no sense, lets go by the consensus of some here Hamilton>Vettel, Hamilton was in a slower car and Vettel in the faster car at what point in the race was the faster driver in the slower car going to beat the slower driver in faster car?

I don't care how fast you are, you are not beating a faster car under normal circumstances.

That's just a bizarre thing to say. If the car is enough faster, sure, you won't. But what if the car is only maybe 2-3 tenths faster? There are plenty of driver pairings you can find on the grid with a bigger gap between them than that. If you put Hulk and Palmer from last year in two different cars, you could reasonably expect that Hulk would beat Palmer even if Palmer's car was a fair bit faster.

If what you're really trying to say is that nobody can beat a dominant car, that's pretty obvious. But it's not the same thing as nobody can beat a faster car.

Why use a driver who is poor to gaslight the issue.

Allowing this are you saying if Palmer was in the Mercedes, Alonso will beat him in the Mclaren as it is now even as poor as he is?

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:in the history of F1 no one has beaten a faster car without reliability helping them out!

I seriously doubt that's true.

Rockie's sentence is why drivers are so rarely perceived to beat faster cars. For some If car B beats car A then car B must have been faster. Fortunately I believe it's a little more interesting than that.

What you are saying here makes no sense, lets go by the consensus of some here Hamilton>Vettel, Hamilton was in a slower car and Vettel in the faster car at what point in the race was the faster driver in the slower car going to beat the slower driver in faster car?

I don't care how fast you are, you are not beating a faster car under normal circumstances.

What do you think the pace difference from the fastest to the slowest driver is?

If driver A is 2 tenths a lap on average faster than driver b he can overcome a - 0.1 car deficit.

Hell, just look at Alonso and Vandoorne. Alonso is beating people Vandoorne isn't. So either Alonso is beating faster cars or the drivers beating Vandoorne but not Alonso are.

Rockie wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Rockie wrote:What you are saying here makes no sense, lets go by the consensus of some here Hamilton>Vettel, Hamilton was in a slower car and Vettel in the faster car at what point in the race was the faster driver in the slower car going to beat the slower driver in faster car?

I don't care how fast you are, you are not beating a faster car under normal circumstances.

That's just a bizarre thing to say. If the car is enough faster, sure, you won't. But what if the car is only maybe 2-3 tenths faster? There are plenty of driver pairings you can find on the grid with a bigger gap between them than that. If you put Hulk and Palmer from last year in two different cars, you could reasonably expect that Hulk would beat Palmer even if Palmer's car was a fair bit faster.

If what you're really trying to say is that nobody can beat a dominant car, that's pretty obvious. But it's not the same thing as nobody can beat a faster car.

Why use a driver who is poor to gaslight the issue.

Allowing this are you saying if Palmer was in the Mercedes, Alonso will beat him in the Mclaren as it is now even as poor as he is?

But are you denying that Palmer was beaten by drivers in slower cars?

I believe they drove each other off at Monza 2 years running. Vettel to Alonso and Alonso back to Vettel the following year.

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

I think that some people look back at Alonso's time at the front with rose-tinted glasses.

Ferrari had the best car in the first 5 races of 2013, but Alonso wasn't leading the WDC after Spain, because of his crash in Malaysia.

Vettel was too greedy at the restart in Baku, but no one has been perfect so far this season.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Laz_T800 wrote: Whenever you try to judge driver performance all you are really doing is comparing them to their team mate.
That's why when you do get a direct comparison it's always more useful.

I'm not comparing him to Vandoorne. Even assuming Alonso has equal speed to those around him you couldn't place the Mclaren better than equal 5th quickest with Haas. Ignore Vandoorne if you like. Although I don't see Vandoorne being useless as anything like as likely as him being competent. Alonso is making him look like Fissichella, Massa or Raikkonen. Hardly useless drivers.

From what I read though Alonso makes it difficult for his teammates both on and off the track, apparently Alonso and Stoffel keep little secrets from one another, it's hard to imagine what secrets Stoffel keeps from Alonso and I wouldn't be expecting Stoffel to be receiving a 700 page dossier anytime soon.

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

Yeah he should be involved really, if he just wasn't such a political animal.

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: He already has though?

When?

The years I mentioned previously? Vettel 2011 was exceptional certainly his best year. His 2013 as an overall package I wouldn't say was his best work. He definitely managed to lock out what his car was a capable of in the second half of the season but I found the first half a bit lack lustre if we are judging it as right at the top end of brilliance.

Vettel is a great F1 driver. For me he stands on the precipice of the top 10 of all time so I'm honestly not trying to do him down. I just don't think over his career he has been as impressive as Alonso.

Over his career he has been head and shoulders above Alonso, except if viewed through rose tinted glasses.

Since '07 F1 has revolved around 2 drivers Vettel and Hamilton they were up n coming then, but now have 4 titles each when this era of F1 is written in future, Alonso is just going to be a footnote in it harsh but true.

Indeed most people will probably not realise that from 2009 onwards Vettel always had a better car than Alonso.

There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

KingVoid wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote: When?

The years I mentioned previously? Vettel 2011 was exceptional certainly his best year. His 2013 as an overall package I wouldn't say was his best work. He definitely managed to lock out what his car was a capable of in the second half of the season but I found the first half a bit lack lustre if we are judging it as right at the top end of brilliance.

Vettel is a great F1 driver. For me he stands on the precipice of the top 10 of all time so I'm honestly not trying to do him down. I just don't think over his career he has been as impressive as Alonso.

Over his career he has been head and shoulders above Alonso, except if viewed through rose tinted glasses.

Since '07 F1 has revolved around 2 drivers Vettel and Hamilton they were up n coming then, but now have 4 titles each when this era of F1 is written in future, Alonso is just going to be a footnote in it harsh but true.

Indeed most people will probably not realise that from 2009 onwards Vettel always had a better car than Alonso.

There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

It's unfortunate for Alonso but then again he brought many things on to himself.

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

The history books still remember Gilles and Ronny for starters and neither of them were 2x WDCs. However, as KingVoid pointed out in his post, today, we know Fangio more than we do Ascari, or Moss, both of whom I consider to have been at Fangio's level, if not better as drivers. Then there is the matter of familiarity as in we know so much more about the drivers today due to the incredible media coverage. The history books 30-40 years from now, and the Top 10 lists, will have less and less of the "old-timer" because they will be made of voters and writers who have no real idea of just how good those drivers were... and that may well include rating yet to come drivers ahead of Alonso, Vettel and Hamilon... perhaps all of them will be found far down the distant future lists.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

The history books still remember Gilles and Ronny for starters and neither of them were 2x WDCs. However, as KingVoid pointed out in his post, today, we know Fangio more than we do Ascari, or Moss, both of whom I consider to have been at Fangio's level, if not better as drivers. Then there is the matter of familiarity as in we know so much more about the drivers today due to the incredible media coverage. The history books 30-40 years from now, and the Top 10 lists, will have less and less of the "old-timer" because they will be made of voters and writers who have no real idea of just how good those drivers were... and that may well include rating yet to come drivers ahead of Alonso, Vettel and Hamilon... perhaps all of them will be found far down the distant future lists.

Well that's the point you know more about the drivers from the 50s and 60s and you're saying that Fangio was overrated whereas the likes of me see 5 titles plus all the plaudits he gets and take it that he was the standard bearer.

Today we know that Alonso has had inferior cars but in 50 years time the drivers with all the titles like Hamilton and Vettel are liable to get more of the plaudits.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

The history books still remember Gilles and Ronny for starters and neither of them were 2x WDCs. However, as KingVoid pointed out in his post, today, we know Fangio more than we do Ascari, or Moss, both of whom I consider to have been at Fangio's level, if not better as drivers. Then there is the matter of familiarity as in we know so much more about the drivers today due to the incredible media coverage. The history books 30-40 years from now, and the Top 10 lists, will have less and less of the "old-timer" because they will be made of voters and writers who have no real idea of just how good those drivers were... and that may well include rating yet to come drivers ahead of Alonso, Vettel and Hamilon... perhaps all of them will be found far down the distant future lists.

Do you really think this is the case? Gilles especially has a reputation far beyond any of his actual accomplishments, and Moss isn't too far behind in the circle of people who have some idea of what they are talking about. As time goes on, the tales about the originals in F1 will almost take on mythical proportions (and in regards to people like Moss, and especially Clark, i'd argue they already have) making future comparisons even more heavily weighted towards the days when drivers put their lives on the line in utterly non perfect machinery.

The comparison i'd make is the Pele one with football... the game has come so far to be almost alien to the one he played in his heydey, and were he to be dropped into todays game, with the advances in tactics, fitness and the like, I doubt he would make anything like the same splash, but as the standout product of his time and thus talked about since as a legend due to his stats, his reputation grows exponentially among those whose own parents weren't alive to see him play the game.

In the end I guess it is all down to perspective.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

Moss is not rated as highly as Fangio or Clark though, even as highly as Stewart.

Today we know the score, will people in 50 years time?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

Moss is not rated as highly as Fangio or Clark though, even as highly as Stewart.

Today we know the score, will people in 50 years time?

But is rated higher than numerous others who have won championships.

I wouldn't expect Alonso with his two WDC to be rated above Fangio or Clark. Probably not Stewart either.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

How does Alonso end up in the top 10 greatest ever humour me please.

Fangio Schumacher Senna Prost Stewart Clark Lauda Piquet

Who does Alonso knock out of this? as Vettel and Hamilton definitely getting in when they stop racing.

Rockie wrote:How does Alonso end up in the top 10 greatest ever humour me please.

Fangio Schumacher Senna Prost Stewart Clark Lauda Piquet

Who does Alonso knock out of this? as Vettel and Hamilton definitely getting in when they stop racing.

Top 5:
Fangio
Clark
Schumacher
Senna
Prost

6-10:
Stewart
Ascari
Alonso
Hamilton
Vettel/Lauda

(in no particular order)

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

How does Alonso end up in the top 10 greatest ever humour me please.

Fangio Schumacher Senna Prost Stewart Clark Lauda Piquet

Who does Alonso knock out of this? as Vettel and Hamilton definitely getting in when they stop racing.

well for starters it's at least debatable whether Hamilton or Vettel are better than Alonso. So I'd question the assumption that they'd get in while Alonso wouldn't.

But the question as a whole is a good one. The top ten is looking pretty crowded and it's quite hard to see who should drop out

KingVoid wrote:

F1_Ernie wrote:Alonso in one of the top 3 cars would be well in this title race, Vettel has been driving the best but his luck has been mixed specially while his had the slightly better car in the last 2 races. The rest have been poor in various areas, Alonso would be consistent, fast and picking up anything that comes his way, it's unfortunate his not involved.

I think that some people look back at Alonso's time at the front with rose-tinted glasses.

Ferrari had the best car in the first 5 races of 2013, but Alonso wasn't leading the WDC after Spain, because of his crash in Malaysia.

Vettel was too greedy at the restart in Baku, but no one has been perfect so far this season.

I think you're being rather economical with the truth there. Ferrari had the best car at 2 of the first 5 races (China and Barcelona) and that was only in terms of race pace.

Vettel had the best qualifying car and best race car in 3 of the first 4 races so far this season. In the other race he had the 2nd best car but was being outpaced by his teammate. Yet he is not leading the WDC.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: There are some people who watched both Fangio and Ascari drive, who claim that Ascari was the better driver. 50 years later, Fangio is placed well above Ascari in every "Top 20 Formula 1 drivers" list you can find. Fangio is usually in the top 3 while Ascari is lucky to be in the top 10.

Vettel is not better than Alonso, and neither is Hamilton, but they will likely be considered better than Alonso in 40 years time. It will be difficult for us to explain to our grandkids why Alonso was actually the best driver of the 2010s in an era where Hamilton and Vettel won everything.

I think this is more correct when thinking of greater rather than better. Although I don't think it will be that hard to explain TBH. Vettel and Hamilton had more success but drove more competitive cars. There, I've done it.

Well I think we all appreciate that, the point being mooted of course is will the history books care?

I don't really think it's relevant to the conversation we are having tbh. Moss didn't get any WDC but people still rate him higher than most that did. Regardless even if Hamilton and Vettel's achievements are remembered better it doesn't make Alonso a worse driver.

I think all three could end up in the 10 greatest ever anyway for my money two already are and the third is banging on the door.

Moss is not rated as highly as Fangio or Clark though, even as highly as Stewart.

Today we know the score, will people in 50 years time?

It's not about knowing the score today, it's about the fact questions will be asked in future like if he was the best as you claim why did he go and waste his time at a backmarker? or how was he better than a guy who won 4 straight titles or 9 consecutive races?

It's the same reason why Moss is respected but will not end up on the top ten greatest list.

Failure to achieve success is never rewarded on such list. Except with partisan fans.

Majority of Redbulls success cannot be written without Vettel, First pole position first win first WDC and all four, not leaving out the only winner for Toro Rosso till date.

But won't let FACTS get in the way of emotions.

davidheath461 wrote:I think you're being rather economical with the truth there. Ferrari had the best car at 2 of the first 5 races (China and Barcelona) and that was only in terms of race pace.

Ferrari was better than Red Bull in Australia, China and Spain. That's 3 out of 5 races. Alonso wasn't leading the WDC after Spain because of what happened in Malaysia and Bahrain.

Vettel had the best qualifying car and best race car in 3 of the first 4 races so far this season. In the other race he had the 2nd best car but was being outpaced by his teammate. Yet he is not leading the WDC.

Vettel's last two results are indeed poor when you consider the quality of his car. There's not much he did wrong in China. Baku was his own fault.

pokerman wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

robins13 wrote:Whoops

https://twitter.com/Vetteleclerc/status ... 26880?s=19

It's not nice to see how little credit that Vettel gets from the likes of Alonso, you threw away the Ferrari seat Alonso.

Looks to me like Alonso is looking up while Vettel is looking down at the ground.

As for the Ferrari seat - it's 2018 now. Alonso's contract expired in 2016.

Vettel gives just as little credit to Alonso. It's a two way street.

I answered this before somewhere, Ferrari had a decent car in 2015, exactly were would Alonso have gone after 2016?

When does Vettel speak bad about Alonso, I've never heard him put Alonso's driving down?

Ferrari fell back to 3rd best car in 2016. I seriously doubt the partnership continues with 7 seasons without a title.

Your statement was "It's not nice to see how little credit that Vettel gets from the likes of Alonso". I never claimed Vettel speaks bad of Alonso. Just that he refuses to give Alonso credit which was most evident in 2012.

Zoue wrote: well for starters it's at least debatable whether Hamilton or Vettel are better than Alonso. So I'd question the assumption that they'd get in while Alonso wouldn't.

But the question as a whole is a good one. The top ten is looking pretty crowded and it's quite hard to see who should drop out

Winning four consecutive titles has only been achieved by 2 people in the history of this sport, MSC and Vettel.

Winning four straight from the first Vettel stands in a class of one.

Both guys are at the top of the record books, but emotionally some guy will get ahead of them based on what people think he should have achieved and not actual achievements.

I don't see how, people can say from now till thy kingdom come arguably Alonso is better than Vettel, that's where it will end.

Wait till Vettel wins a title for Ferrari.

KingVoid wrote: Ferrari was better than Red Bull in Australia, China and Spain. That's 3 out of 5 races. Alonso wasn't leading the WDC after Spain because of what happened in Malaysia and Bahrain.

We're talking about who had the best car, not Red Bull vs Ferrari. In Australia it's nearly impossible to overtake without a different strategy. Red Bull locked out the front row and that gave them a crucial advantage.

Vettel's last two results are indeed poor when you consider the quality of his car. There's not much he did wrong in China. Baku was his own fault.

He was unfortunate in China and should have got 2nd. His slow in lap lost him the lead though, but Ferrari should have been wise to the undercut.

davidheath461 wrote:

KingVoid wrote: Ferrari was better than Red Bull in Australia, China and Spain. That's 3 out of 5 races. Alonso wasn't leading the WDC after Spain because of what happened in Malaysia and Bahrain.

We're talking about who had the best car, not Red Bull vs Ferrari. In Australia it's nearly impossible to overtake without a different strategy. Red Bull locked out the front row and that gave them a crucial advantage.

Vettel's last two results are indeed poor when you consider the quality of his car. There's not much he did wrong in China. Baku was his own fault.

He was unfortunate in China and should have got 2nd. His slow in lap lost him the lead though, but Ferrari should have been wise to the undercut.

Is your post not ignoring the fact in '13 early in the season the cars were affected by the tyres considering Kimi won the first race stopping just once whilst the others stopped twice?