planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:1. Vettel is a far better driver than Hamilton. (I only believe comparisons are fair in a winning drive, so that is my basis).
2. Young drivers that are considered "hot shots" are given a lot of rope to hang themselves and usually do, to the detriment of the more experienced drivers.
3. I am bored of Mercedes supremacy. I am willing to give the reverse grid a try so long as it means that we get some competition.
4. The best team boss, hands down, is and is likely to ever be, Christian Horner.

1. Well I think that's been somewhat squashed these past 3 years.
3. At last someone who supports reverse grids has actually admitted that.

Willing to have a go is different to support

We're trying semantics now?

It's not semantics. There's a very real difference between being willing to give something a try and actually supporting it. Only in our current era of ultra-partisanship could the two be conflated.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:1. Vettel is a far better driver than Hamilton. (I only believe comparisons are fair in a winning drive, so that is my basis).
2. Young drivers that are considered "hot shots" are given a lot of rope to hang themselves and usually do, to the detriment of the more experienced drivers.
3. I am bored of Mercedes supremacy. I am willing to give the reverse grid a try so long as it means that we get some competition.
4. The best team boss, hands down, is and is likely to ever be, Christian Horner.

Did you watch the last three races?

This doesn't undo the first 10 races though. The WDC was pretty much sewn up half way through the season. Can't hold it against someone if they do a superb job, but I understand if people want to see something new

Mercedes having sown up the WDC and WCC in the first half does not mean their supremacy is still in effect, something the last 3 races (well, the last 7 races) would show no longer exists. Having had 5 dominant races (Australia, China, Baku, France, Silverstone) at the start of season does not equate to them still being dominant. In fact it is very much past tense now.

Motor racing isn't as good as it was 25 years ago.

F1 was hardly going through a vintage period then, but WRC, DTM, BTCC were good. CART was entering a good era and even Le Mans/sports cars were better.

All the money has gravitated to the top and the lower series are worse for it..... and ironically the top series are worse because of it.

Badgeronimous wrote:Motor racing isn't as good as it was 25 years ago.

F1 was hardly going through a vintage period then, but WRC, DTM, BTCC were good. CART was entering a good era and even Le Mans was better.

All the money has gravitated to the top and the lower series are worse..... and ironically the top series are worse because of it.

This is a good one.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:1. Vettel is a far better driver than Hamilton. (I only believe comparisons are fair in a winning drive, so that is my basis).
2. Young drivers that are considered "hot shots" are given a lot of rope to hang themselves and usually do, to the detriment of the more experienced drivers.
3. I am bored of Mercedes supremacy. I am willing to give the reverse grid a try so long as it means that we get some competition.
4. The best team boss, hands down, is and is likely to ever be, Christian Horner.

Did you watch the last three races?

This doesn't undo the first 10 races though. The WDC was pretty much sewn up half way through the season. Can't hold it against someone if they do a superb job, but I understand if people want to see something new

Mercedes having sown up the WDC and WCC in the first half does not mean their supremacy is still in effect, something the last 3 races (well, the last 7 races) would show no longer exists. Having had 5 dominant races (Australia, China, Baku, France, Silverstone) at the start of season does not equate to them still being dominant. In fact it is very much past tense now.

No, and I didn't say it is still in effect so I'm not sure why you say that. It is more similar to Brawn in 2009 if you want. Or maybe bourbon19 meant the whole 6 years of Mercedes titles kind of supremacy.

Edit - stupid mistake corrected!

Giovinazzi has improved a lot over the season and after two years out he was always going to take time to get back up to speed.

In my opinion he deserves another season and it wouldn't surprise me to see him look quicker, if not outscore, Kimi in 2020.

mikeyg123 wrote:Giovinazzi has improved a lot over the season and after two years out he was always going to take time to get back up to speed.

In my opinion he deserves another season and it wouldn't surprise me to see him look quicker, if not outscore, Kimi in 2020.

Interesting point. I think I'm inclined to agree, although Hulkenberg is still a much better option if available. Otherwise, I don't see anyone else they could put in who would do a better job next year.

mikeyg123 wrote:Giovinazzi has improved a lot over the season and after two years out he was always going to take time to get back up to speed.

In my opinion he deserves another season and it wouldn't surprise me to see him look quicker, if not outscore, Kimi in 2020.

Completely agree. The camera seems to pan to the two Alfas running together very often.

If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

Mansell must have been an absolute monster then!!!

tootsie323 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

Mansell must have been an absolute monster then!!!

I reckon that with today’s weight regulations, Mansell would have beaten Prost.

Sorry for going off topic but can someone explain the the pre-95 weight regs and post-95 weight regs?

Was it that pre-95 just the car had to be above a certain weight? (which is why Prost being so small was an advantage). And post-95 the driver+car had to be a certain weight so a smaller driver had to carry more weight in the car?

Also, was there some changes to the weight calculations a couple of years ago? I seem to remember it being suggested Hulk would have benefited?

KingVoid wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

Mansell must have been an absolute monster then!!!

I reckon that with today’s weight regulations, Mansell would have beaten Prost.

Just a few thoughts:
- Qualifying wasn't the be all and end all of F1 racing when Prost was active. How often do we hear these days of drivers sacrificing qualifying to continue working on the race set-up? The answer is simple enough, and with good reason. While qualifying well was always helpful, it wasn't crucial.
- Prost raced for the championship, Senna wanted to win everything, all the time.
- One of the advantages of that era was the possibility of setting the car up for the race until the very last moment before the start. Reportedly, when Mansell and Prost were at Ferrari together, Mansell made a remark to team members that Prost seemed to think that the car had to do the work (instead of the driver). When related to Prost, he simply confirmed that idea. One thread title on our forum now confirms the notion that the car is all-important. The professor knew, as any intelligent driver did.

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

I think you have to remember that in that era the drivers were not pushing the car the same way they are sometimes now. And of course there were a lot more variables that effected the cars speed than there are in modern times. Weight was a factor but their were a lot more factors. Speeds were a lot more variable with big swings from circuit to circuit.

Also sometimes a physical advantage is just that. It's not something that gets factored out when discussing greats in other sports so why should it in F1?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

I think you have to remember that in that era the drivers were not pushing the car the same way they are sometimes now. And of course there were a lot more variables that effected the cars speed than there are in modern times. Weight was a factor but their were a lot more factors. Speeds were a lot more variable with big swings from circuit to circuit.

Also sometimes a physical advantage is just that. It's not something that gets factored out when discussing greats in other sports so why should it in F1?

Alain Prost is the Wilt Chamberlain of Formula 1.

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

Prost was 7-8 kg lighter than Senna and gained about 3 tenths per lap as a result (around an average track). He was almost 15 kg lighter than Mansell and gained around 5-6 tenths per lap as a result.

mikeyg123 wrote:Also sometimes a physical advantage is just that. It's not something that gets factored out when discussing greats in other sports so why should it in F1?

Because if Prost drove today, he wouldn’t have that physical advantage anymore.

KingVoid wrote:

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

Prost was 7-8 kg lighter than Senna and gained about 3 tenths per lap as a result (around an average track). He was almost 15 kg lighter than Mansell and gained around 5-6 tenths per lap as a result.

Oh man this is hilarious. What's your source on the time gained/lost due to weight? This is the hottest take I've ever seen made seriously on any F1 community so you probably need to show your working!

KingVoid wrote:

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:

KingVoid wrote:If Alain Prost drove today, he would be nothing special.

His main advantage over his competitors in the 80s was being 7-15 kilos lighter than the average man, while driving in an era where driver weights did not count with the total weight of a car.

If pre-1995 weight regulations were still in effect today, Felipe Massa would have been one of the greatest drivers of all time, purely because of how small he was. Massa was about 7-8 kg lighter than Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen.

Pre-95 weight regulations, Massa would be 3 tenths quicker than he actually was. That means he’d be very close to Schumacher, absolutely destroy Raikkonen, and be an absolute match for Alonso. He would have won the title in both 2007 and 2008 easily.

The fact that Prost was 0.643s slower than Senna on average in qualifying despite being so much lighter does not exactly reflect well on him.

Apart from Senna, Schumacher and Hakkinen - I don’t think that any driver who made his debut before 1995 would fare that well nowadays. I think that the grid today is just so much more talented and better than in the old days.

I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

Prost was 7-8 kg lighter than Senna and gained about 3 tenths per lap as a result (around an average track). He was almost 15 kg lighter than Mansell and gained around 5-6 tenths per lap as a result.

Was this weight difference in the beginning of Senna's F1 career, or after he started his serious physical training? I remember seeing both Senna and Prost at Zolder in 1984, and I couldn't say how much it would have been. Mansell was also there and he was taller, but far less bulky than he appeared to be when driving for Williams.
In fact, I passed a string of drivers in the pitlane that day, including Prost, Arnoux, Piquet and Rosberg. It struck me how most of the drivers I saw were little. And I'm not tall to begin with.

Teams hired the fast drivers, not necessarily short ones. And while weight is one factor, driving position is another. Look at the difference between Prost and Senna in the MP4/4. I'm sure that had an aerodynamic consequence. And from memory, Arnoux's position was even more forward-leaning. Advantages and disadavantages to every driver, I would say.

What I definitely would not say, is that Prost would now be "nothing special". That is frankly laughable. What might be a handicap for him now is the "just run everybody off the track"-mentality. It certainly was then.

Something to consider when discussing driver weight advantage in the 80s / early 90s. This cars took a lot more physical handling and, making an assumption that weight and strength would have some correlation, one may (partially at least) offset the other.
I'll stress that this is an assumption!

https://www.planetf1.com/news/max-verst ... n-Leclerc/

Max reckons he's about 2 tenths quicker than Leclerc and Hamilton. Is this a hot take - an unpopular take - or the bare naked truth of the matter?

YOU decide.

Invade wrote:https://www.planetf1.com/news/max-verst ... n-Leclerc/

Max reckons he's about 2 tenths quicker than Leclerc and Hamilton. Is this a hot take - an unpopular take - or the bare naked truth of the matter?

YOU decide.

If he didn't believe he was he wouldn't be very ambitious in terms of becoming a WDC one day. I'm sure that most of the drivers out there think that, if they just had the car to show it, they could be the quickest.
Edit: my opinion? I think that he could be, but by 2 tenths..?

Invade wrote:https://www.planetf1.com/news/max-verst ... n-Leclerc/

Max reckons he's about 2 tenths quicker than Leclerc and Hamilton. Is this a hot take - an unpopular take - or the bare naked truth of the matter?

YOU decide.

I wondered when Leclerc's form would start to grate with Verstappen, I suspect he doesn't want to be out of the limelight, so by that logic if Albon gets within 2/10ths of his team mate then Albon is as fast as Hamilton if they swap cars.

When it comes to shooting his mouth off he is easily the fastest, and by more than 2 tenths...

Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

FormulaFun wrote:Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

I've heard this a couple times on this forum but have yet to see any evidence, do you have an article etc? I've not been as hot as I used to be on F1 news but I doubt I would have missed something as big as that.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

I've heard this a couple times on this forum but have yet to see any evidence, do you have an article etc? I've not been as hot as I used to be on F1 news but I doubt I would have missed something as big as that.

Various sites quote Lauda that mercedes wanted to sign him - dunno the rules around posting links but they're easy to find. Not 100% sure on the rep of those sites but I always believe no smoke without fire, and there's a lot of smoke

I don't even blame him, he has little to gain from that match up but if you are gonna talk smack then you gotta walk the walk too

FormulaFun wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

I've heard this a couple times on this forum but have yet to see any evidence, do you have an article etc? I've not been as hot as I used to be on F1 news but I doubt I would have missed something as big as that.

Various sites quote Lauda that mercedes wanted to sign him - dunno the rules around posting links but they're easy to find. Not 100% sure on the rep of those sites but I always believe no smoke without fire, and there's a lot of smoke

I don't even blame him, he has little to gain from that match up but if you are gonna talk smack then you gotta walk the walk too

Lauda also wanted to supply Red Bull with Mercedes engines. At the end of the day, he didn’t have the final say.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

I've heard this a couple times on this forum but have yet to see any evidence, do you have an article etc? I've not been as hot as I used to be on F1 news but I doubt I would have missed something as big as that.

Several links to it: Lauda reveals Mercedes approach for Verstappen

Option or Prime wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

FormulaFun wrote:Max thinks he's 2 tenths quicker and the best thing since sliced bread but turned down contract with merc... Hmmmmmm

Max believing his own hype men, that guy should stay grounded he's accomplished nothing and possibly an unpopular opinion but I think Leclerc will be the next new WDC and I'm not so sure Verstappen will be follow immediately in that accomplishment

I've heard this a couple times on this forum but have yet to see any evidence, do you have an article etc? I've not been as hot as I used to be on F1 news but I doubt I would have missed something as big as that.

Several links to it: Lauda reveals Mercedes approach for Verstappen

From that quote it doesn't sound like Mercedes offered him a contract. He says "Helmut Marko was faster, Verstappen knew exactly what he had there and then he signed".

Sound like Verstappen signed with Red Bull before a Mercedes offer was on the table. I strongly doubt Mercedes made any serious approach, though I have no doubt conversations took place. Similar conversations have almost certainly took place with Ferrari too.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Sound like Verstappen signed with Red Bull before a Mercedes offer was on the table. I strongly doubt Mercedes made any serious approach, though I have no doubt conversations took place. Similar conversations have almost certainly took place with Ferrari too.

Thats true, however, he knew he had interest from Mercedes yet plumped for RB depends on the offer of course but JV must have had a big say at the time. Not sure why, surely you would jump at the chance of being with the currently most successful team?

Option or Prime wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Sound like Verstappen signed with Red Bull before a Mercedes offer was on the table. I strongly doubt Mercedes made any serious approach, though I have no doubt conversations took place. Similar conversations have almost certainly took place with Ferrari too.

Thats true, however, he knew he had interest from Mercedes yet plumped for RB depends on the offer of course but JV must have had a big say at the time. Not sure why, surely you would jump at the chance of being with the currently most successful team?

Which is partly why I dont believe there was ever a serious offer made. Verstappen is undoubtedly top of Mercedes list as a replacement for Hamilton but for now Hamilton-Bottas gives them everything they need.

jono794 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Invade wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:

Invade wrote:
I'm quite sold.

The entire F1 paddock, past and present, isn't so sold on that though.

Ye that's what concerns me. Although, has that line of argument been put to drivers and pundits in such clear terms? Is it simply passed over? Because if true, that's an awful lot of speed gained by being the lightest driver around.

Prost was 7-8 kg lighter than Senna and gained about 3 tenths per lap as a result (around an average track). He was almost 15 kg lighter than Mansell and gained around 5-6 tenths per lap as a result.

Oh man this is hilarious. What's your source on the time gained/lost due to weight? This is the hottest take I've ever seen made seriously on any F1 community so you probably need to show your working!

The amount of time you lose or gain because of weight is well documented. Back the refuelling days, the saying was always “you lose 1 tenth per extra lap of fuel onboard”. The average lap would cost about 3.5 litres (2.5 kg) of fuel, so a driver who is 7-8 kg lighter would lose about 3 tenths because of his weight alone.

The weight regulations from 1995-2018 weren’t perfect either as lighter drivers can play more with ballast, but this advantage is nothing like Prost’s era where the heavier driver just had to carry more weight.

Apart from Senna, I don’t believe that any driver who made his debut before 1990 would be good enough to drive in Formula 1 today. Senna was the first ever “modern” driver, that’s why he looked so far above his peers.

Senna humiliated Prost in qualifying by the same margins Hulkenberg beat Palmer by. That was the difference between the best and second best driver of the 1980s.

The grid today is much closer and more competitive.

KingVoid wrote:Apart from Senna, I don’t believe that any driver who made his debut before 1990 would be good enough to drive in Formula 1 today. Senna was the first ever “modern” driver, that’s why he looked so far above his peers.

I'd go even further than that, to be honest. Senna would probably get humiliated by any driver on the grid today. It's just the reality of athletic/sports improvement over time.

I don’t think so personally. Senna began karting at the age of four. His fitness levels and dedication to the sport were above anyone else at the time. I think Senna was so far ahead of his time that he could compete with modern drivers.

The same goes for Schumacher. I mean, Barrichello was only slightly slower than Button as teammates. Schumi also held a bigger qualifying advantage over Massa than Alonso did. From those two comparisons alone, we can estimate how quick Schumacher was relative to the rest of the field.

I think that Senna, Schumacher and maybe Hakkinen are the only 90s drivers who would not look out of their depth today.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Option or Prime wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:Sound like Verstappen signed with Red Bull before a Mercedes offer was on the table. I strongly doubt Mercedes made any serious approach, though I have no doubt conversations took place. Similar conversations have almost certainly took place with Ferrari too.

Thats true, however, he knew he had interest from Mercedes yet plumped for RB depends on the offer of course but JV must have had a big say at the time. Not sure why, surely you would jump at the chance of being with the currently most successful team?

Which is partly why I dont believe there was ever a serious offer made. Verstappen is undoubtedly top of Mercedes list as a replacement for Hamilton but for now Hamilton-Bottas gives them everything they need.

Are we sure this is the case? Ocon looks set to return to Mercedes after his Renault contract, then over on the "McLaren to change engines again???" thread I read that Norris has now switched to Mercedes management. What can be be concluded from that I wonder?