Rantbox

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

I made the same comparison a few months back, Wizzie, but now that I think about it again, this now means Fernando Alonso is Jean Alesi?

[TomWazzleshaw]

I made the same comparison a few months back, Wizzie, but now that I think about it again, this now means Fernando Alonso is Jean Alesi?

No. It means Fernando Alonso is Alain Prost and therefore will be sacked with one race to go. You heard it here first.

[Aerond]

Why can't they go to Mugello (appart from the fact that Ferrari "own" it, or do they?)

I don't think Ferrari own it, not like they own Fiorano at least. They use it heavily for testing (obviously less than they used to), but it is not a private track and the annual MotoGP race leads me to believe F1 could find a home there.
The fastest lap was set by 'Big' Alex Zanardi twenty years ago, in F3000 I think - a 1:38.6. Any ideas what this would roughly be in a modern F1 car, anyone?

Massa did 1.23.98 on January 2009; probably it would be around 1:20s on a Grand Prix weekend with a higher asphalt temperature.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

I made the same comparison a few months back, Wizzie, but now that I think about it again, this now means Fernando Alonso is Jean Alesi?

No. It means Fernando Alonso is Alain Prost and therefore will be sacked with one race to go. You heard it here first.

Ah! So Jules Bianchi will get his break soon, and become the next Jean?

[Klon]

Now here's two for the price of one:

- F1 is unfair, one of the five best drivers on the grid has to work with an absolutely horrendous car

- McLaren need to focus on one of their drivers only (no matter whom) and they need to do it very soon or else that little fighting chance left against Vettel will be gone quickly.

[dinizintheoven]

Jules Bianchi needs a season and a half with Tyrrell/BAR/Honda/Brawn... hang on, we'll get there in a mo... Mercedes first, with a seemingly watertight contract that needs to be broken. And also has to flirt with signing for Williams.

[Salamander]

Jules Bianchi needs a season and a half with Tyrrell/BAR/Honda/Brawn... hang on, we'll get there in a mo... Mercedes first, with a seemingly watertight contract that needs to be broken. And also has to flirt with signing for Williams.

Which also means Ferrari will have a miserable few years until they recruit a double World Champion racing for Benetton/Renault and half of their staff, as well to replace Bianchi, and a British driver who had some success at Jordan/Midland/Spyker/Force India.

Kubica/Di Resta at Ferrari in 2016, anyone?

[watka]

- F1 is unfair, one of the five best drivers on the grid has to work with an absolutely horrendous car

I take it you're referring to Timo Glock rather than Narain Karthikeyan.

[Klon]

- F1 is unfair, one of the five best drivers on the grid has to work with an absolutely horrendous car

I take it you're referring to Timo Glock rather than Narain Karthikeyan.

Matter of fact I was referring to Rubens Barrichello. But Glock has got a bad hand as well.

[dr-baker]

- F1 is unfair, one of the five best drivers on the grid has to work with an absolutely horrendous car

I take it you're referring to Timo Glock rather than Narain Karthikeyan.

Matter of fact I was referring to Rubens Barrichello. But Glock has got a bad hand as well.

I was assuming first four were Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton and Button, with Schumi being the fifth (you know, being the 5 world champs on the grid...). But ignoring Schumi is fine by me!

[Klon]

I was assuming first four were Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton and Button, with Schumi being the fifth (you know, being the 5 world champs on the grid...). But ignoring Schumi is fine by me!

The day I accept Jenson Button as a better driver than Rubens Barrichello is the day when I'm dead meat buried five feet under.

[dr-baker]

I was assuming first four were Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton and Button, with Schumi being the fifth (you know, being the 5 world champs on the grid...). But ignoring Schumi is fine by me!

The day I accept Jenson Button as a better driver than Rubens Barrichello is the day when I'm dead meat buried five feet under.

Fair enough. But Jenson did beat Rubens in equal equipment in 2009, with more wins if I remember correctly. And Rubens is rather talented...

[DanielPT]

I was assuming first four were Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton and Button, with Schumi being the fifth (you know, being the 5 world champs on the grid...). But ignoring Schumi is fine by me!

The day I accept Jenson Button as a better driver than Rubens Barrichello is the day when I'm dead meat buried five feet under.

Fair enough. But Jenson did beat Rubens in equal equipment in 2009, with more wins if I remember correctly. And Rubens is rather talented...

He also did it in 2006 and 2007. Rubens was better only in 2008. I don't blame Button for the lack of motivation though...

[Klon]

Fair enough. But Jenson did beat Rubens in equal equipment in 2009, with more wins if I remember correctly. And Rubens is rather talented...

Although he was outqualifed - the last world champion to have this happening to him since Alain Prost in 1989. And while I would love to not get called insane for putting Barrichello and Senna on the same level, I just cannot do it unless I wish to lose that little bit of reputation I have - and only matched Barrichello's number of FLAPs. This even ignores the fact that a number of Button's wins over Barrichello in the races were the result of good fortune or a slightly conspicious change in strategy. So the only thing I really have to accept is that Button is luckier than Barrichello.

[DanielPT]

Fair enough. But Jenson did beat Rubens in equal equipment in 2009, with more wins if I remember correctly. And Rubens is rather talented...

Although he was outqualifed - the last world champion to have this happening to him since Alain Prost in 1989. And while I would love to not get called insane for putting Barrichello and Senna on the same level, I just cannot do it unless I wish to lose that little bit of reputation I have - and only matched Barrichello's number of FLAPs. This even ignores the fact that a number of Button's wins over Barrichello in the races were the result of good fortune or a slightly conspicious change in strategy. So the only thing I really have to accept is that Button is luckier than Barrichello.

Erm... No... Rubens had about 5 years in championship contender cars while Button was stuck with awful cars most of his career. The first time he had a WDC contender on his hands he won it. And don't say he lucked in, since without Button, RB would have probably lost the WDC to Vettel. And in 2004, RB almost lost the second place in the WDC for Button in what was a vastly superior car. So no, I don't consider Button lucky.

[Klon]

Erm... No... Rubens had about 5 years in championship contender cars while Button was stuck with awful cars most of his career. The first time he had a WDC contender on his hands he won it. And don't say he lucked in, since without Button, RB would have probably lost the WDC to Vettel. And in 2004, RB almost lost the second place in the WDC for Button in what was a vastly superior car. So no, I don't consider Button lucky.

Well, could it possibly be that Button deserved to be in those "awful cars for most of his career" because he's not good enough at developing them (or at least worse than Barrichello is) and/or talented enough to actually earn a good car? The premise of Brawn losing the WDC to Vettel if Button wouldn't have been there is questionable at best. Oh and regarding 2004: last time I checked my definition of the term, finishing in said second place thirty points in front of third-placed Button is not "almost losing". Oh, the argument with "because Ferrari let him win the races to get away from Button" is invalid, too: before he even won his first race of that season he already was twenty points ahead.

[DanielPT]

Erm... No... Rubens had about 5 years in championship contender cars while Button was stuck with awful cars most of his career. The first time he had a WDC contender on his hands he won it. And don't say he lucked in, since without Button, RB would have probably lost the WDC to Vettel. And in 2004, RB almost lost the second place in the WDC for Button in what was a vastly superior car. So no, I don't consider Button lucky.

Well, could it possibly be that Button deserved to be in those "awful cars for most of his career" because he's not good enough at developing them (or at least worse than Barrichello is) and/or talented enough to actually earn a good car?

If this was true and depended heavily on drivers (which is my interpretation of your argument, but feel free to correct me ), then this year McLaren should be a dog of a car and the Williams a contender...

The premise of Brawn losing the WDC to Vettel if Button wouldn't have been there is questionable at best.

I didn't said Brawn, I said Rubens. Rubens effectively finished third in that year championship.

Oh and regarding 2004: last time I checked my definition of the term, finishing in said second place thirty points in front of third-placed Button is not "almost losing". Oh, the argument with "because Ferrari let him win the races to get away from Button" is invalid, too: before he even won his first race of that season he already was twenty points ahead.

Your first sentence: Point for you .
Your second sentence part 1: I never used that argument.
Your second sentence part 2: That is why I said vastly superior car. Button recovered a lot of points in the second part of the championship and yet his car was still inferior compared to Ferrari.

[Ferrim]

In my opinion, Barrichello is probably more talented than Button. Let's say Barrichello is 9/10 and Button 8,5/10.

It happens that Barrichello has been 9/10 in just a few moments during his racing career, and certainly not when it mattered (the Brawn year). Button has been relatively closer to his limit most of the time, and was absolutely at his best during the first races of 2009, while Barrichello was far away from what he could really do.

Now that I'm thinking about it, it's similar to Räikkönen and Alonso, but in a lower level. While Räikkönen was very talented, Alonso has been more successful because he managed to be more consistent.

[Klon]

If this was true and depended heavily on drivers (which is my interpretation of your argument, but feel free to correct me ), then this year McLaren should be a dog of a car and the Williams a contender..

Not heavily, but drivers can and should make an impact on it. Take Williams last year. Their car, at the start of the season was not too good either. At best, it was able to battle Sauber and Toro Rosso. Barrichello's developing aid came to fruition though and we know how that turned out - at the end they were clearly best behind the top five and on the right day able to challenge even Renault and Mercedes. I also believe that Barrichello will help turn the 2011 car into something useable, at least in terms of performance. Reliability is, unfortunately, another ball game. Now, on the other hand McLaren did not really up their game, actually, they dropped just a little bit after Silverstone. Admittedly though, my comparison has a slight problem because at top teams the driver's influence is not as significant as it would be for a struggling Williams.

I didn't said Brawn, I said Rubens. Rubens effectively finished third in that year championship.

Got the RB's mixed up there. My bad.

Your first sentence: Point for you .
Your second sentence part 1: I never used that argument.
Your second sentence part 2: That is why I said vastly superior car. Button recovered a lot of points in the second part of the championship and yet his car was still inferior compared to Ferrari.

Your first sentence: Thanks
Your second sentence: It was just a precaution, that argument occasionally gets used when it comes to Barrichello's Ferrari result.
Your third sentence: Button was actually very consistent in 2004, so he couldn't really recover much if he already had it - after USA the advantage always was in the 15-20 point range until Barrichello's wins. The point about the superior Ferrari is perfectly valid, though.

[DemocalypseNow]

For a microsecond last Sunday, I was afraid I'd have to eat my words (Nick Heidfield is a complete waste of space that will never win a race, because he doesn't have the pace (becuase I'm a f***ing poet apparently)).

[mario]

Erm... No... Rubens had about 5 years in championship contender cars while Button was stuck with awful cars most of his career. The first time he had a WDC contender on his hands he won it. And don't say he lucked in, since without Button, RB would have probably lost the WDC to Vettel. And in 2004, RB almost lost the second place in the WDC for Button in what was a vastly superior car. So no, I don't consider Button lucky.

Well, could it possibly be that Button deserved to be in those "awful cars for most of his career" because he's not good enough at developing them (or at least worse than Barrichello is) and/or talented enough to actually earn a good car?

If this was true and depended heavily on drivers (which is my interpretation of your argument, but feel free to correct me ), then this year McLaren should be a dog of a car and the Williams a contender...

True - although drivers do still have some influence of guiding development, and Rubens is said to be pretty strong when it comes to set up work and detailed feedback, the engineers at Honda said that Button was also fairly good in that area.

But, these days, the influence of the driver is significantly reduced from what it once was, and in reality wind tunnel, CFD and computer simulation work has a far greater bearing on the performance of the car, and Honda did suffer from calibration problems with both their wind tunnel and CFD software (since erroneous results from the wind tunnel meant that they were feeding flawed data and designs into their CFD models). The RA107, and the RA108, were both flawed aerodynamically (both cars suffered from braking instability problems, and there were suggestions that the aero balance was too rearward on both cars - Honda spent a lot of effort trying to introduce winglets and downforce generating devices at the front of both cars).
To give you an idea of how botched the aerodynamics were, at one point the team found that increasing the angle of attack on the front wing of the RA107 was causing an overall drop in downforce, but still carried a higher drag penalty - and the engineers couldn't explain what was going on. Added to that, the Honda engine wasn't especially strong either, even when development on the V8's was unrestricted, and the engine freeze effectively locked in a major power disadvantage for them - they were behind almost everybody apart from Toyota.

So, even if you are giving your engineers great feedback, it isn't going to magically give you an extra 20 bhp or a 5% increase in downforce by itself - and neither can your engineers if they misinterpret your information.

[Phoenix]

Your second sentence part 2: That is why I said vastly superior car. Button recovered a lot of points in the second part of the championship and yet his car was still inferior compared to Ferrari.

That is wrong, my friend...

2004 had 18 races. So, the 2nd half of the championship begins at the French GP, tenth race of the season, right?

Rubens Barrichello scored 52 points at these races; Jenson Button, "only" 41. So, Button actually lost quite some ground to Barrichello at the 2nd half of the championship.

[DanielPT]

Your second sentence part 2: That is why I said vastly superior car. Button recovered a lot of points in the second part of the championship and yet his car was still inferior compared to Ferrari.

That is wrong, my friend...

2004 had 18 races. So, the 2nd half of the championship begins at the French GP, tenth race of the season, right?

Rubens Barrichello scored 52 points at these races; Jenson Button, "only" 41. So, Button actually lost quite some ground to Barrichello at the 2nd half of the championship.

Yep, you are right . I mistook 2004 for 2006 where in the last 7 races of the season Button won more points than almost everyone else (Schumi, by 2 points, excepted). My bad. Apologies to Klon for my mix-up.

Anyway, his team-mate that season was RB and, counting only the races were both finished, he lost 10 out of 12 in overall race standings, amassing a grand total of almost half the points Button ended up with. But I accept that Rubens had just arrived to what was really Button's team and had a rough year. Such difference between them never happened again even though Button usually had the measure of Rubens in race trim more often than not. Because of this and the other arguments I think Button is actually better than Rubens (McLaren seems to think that too, by the way )!

[Klon]

Yep, you are right . I mistook 2004 for 2006 where in the last 7 races of the season Button won more points than almost everyone else (Schumi, by 2 points, excepted). My bad. Apologies to Klon for my mix-up.

No need to apologise, everyone makes mistakes.

Such difference between them never happened again even though Button usually had the measure of Rubens in race trim more often than not. Because of this and the other arguments I think Button is actually better than Rubens (McLaren seems to think that too, by the way )!

That actually is a valid point, he had the upper hand in race trim. Although I still think Barrichello's performance from 2008 onwards was simply more convincing to me in most cases. That might be personal preference though. I guess, we've to agree to disagree.

(McLaren seems to think that too, by the way )!

Oh please, there are really a number of reasons I could think of McLaren hired Button aside from sheer talent.

*********************************

Now for something completely different: even if this or the next season remain literally pointless for Williams, the only thing that could kill this team would be a rise of budgets which is very unlikely for the next 10 to 15 years.

[DanielPT]

That actually is a valid point, he had the upper hand in race trim. Although I still think Barrichello's performance from 2008 onwards was simply more convincing to me in most cases. That might be personal preference though. I guess, we've to agree to disagree.

And I agree to this indeed!

Oh please, there are really a number of reasons I could think of McLaren hired Button aside from sheer talent.

Now I'm curious. Name one please!

[Klon]

Oh please, there are really a number of reasons I could think of McLaren hired Button aside from sheer talent.

Now I'm curious. Name one please!

Reason One: British national team - jingoism rules.

Reason Two: Button is quite handy with sponsors as the "cool guy".

Obviously these are not the only reasons they hire Button but it sure hasn't hurt his chances either.

[Tealy]

Oh please, there are really a number of reasons I could think of McLaren hired Button aside from sheer talent.

Now I'm curious. Name one please!

Reason One: British national team - jingoism rules.

Reason Two: Button is quite handy with sponsors as the "cool guy".

Obviously these are not the only reasons they hire Button but it sure hasn't hurt his chances either.

Could argue for - Reason Three: His experience and driving style could benefit McLaren's main driver

Although I think McLaren signed Button because of his talent (ie. good but not better than Lewis) and his nationality (All British team looks good in UK media)

[Phoenix]

Besides, he was the reigning WDC. McLaren running numbers 1 and 2 sounds good, right?

[WeirdKerr]

Besides, he was the reigning WDC. McLaren running numbers 1 and 2 sounds good, right?

This!

[J Washburn Stoker]

I notice someone else on this forum has "copied" my avatar. I admit it was inevitable... but rantbox is here it be used, right?

[Rocks with Salt]

Sorry about that, mate. Had no idea you were first; I'll change it immediately. Now I gotta find my old avatar or get a new one.

[Rocks with Salt]

There we go, the Hurst Floor Shifter Special; a "unique" enough car to warrant its own avatar. Heck, I didn't even know it even existed until yesterday! Pity it couldn't qualify for the '64 Indy 500; who knows what kind of speed it could have had if the driver didn't slam it into a wall?

[Klon]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

[DonTirri]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

AAAND you just pissed off every single scotsman who happens to frequent this forum.
I too actually watched the race with BBC commentary (being stuck at work and forced to find a feed sucked) and I gotta say I wasn't bothered by it. I find the scottish accent charming.

[J Washburn Stoker]

Sorry about that, mate. Had no idea you were first; I'll change it immediately. Now I gotta find my old avatar or get a new one.

No worries, it's a small thing. I'll probably change mine, too, in a few days - it's too predictable. I had it up and posting within minutes of the event, and was still surprised no one else had done it already.

[Glennerz]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

I don't like you anymore.

[Klon]

I don't like you anymore.

Somebody liked me. I'm touched.
No, seriously, he is very good in terms of knowledge, really nothing to say against that. He just needs to tone that accent down a little bit. I mean, one of my university lecturer is Scottish as well and his accent is nowhere near as thick. Although one could argue that he's "no true Scotsman" - with a name like Von Schilling.

[Cynon]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

Listen to the SpeedTV feed then.

[WeirdKerr]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

I don't like you anymore.

och aye the noo me an aaaw.....

[shinji]

I am in favour of David Coulthard commentating no more...

No, wait, hear me out, you can put me in the straight-jacket directly afterwards: his commentating itself is good and he's very informative, but his accent is absolutely horrendous. Bugs me to no end. I had the pleasure of watching the Malaysia Grand Prix with BBC commentary and I thought my own English would never be spoken "properly" again because Coulthard's accent was etched on my memory.

Gaelic solidarity - he's not too bad, beyond Heidfield, which is the most annoying thing I have encountered in quite a while.