Bahrain Grand Prix
- Thread starter 306XT
- Start date
I thought Webber was disappointing - he folded under the pressure from Kimi by spinning off whilst in 3rd.
He did, however, probably do the right thing when he spun in not braking. In Saturday free practice, Ralf did exactly the same thing at exactly the same corner but braked...he flat spotted his tyres so badly that caused them to puncture - so in hindsight, probably a smart move by Webber.
First time Ferrari's new car has not won on debut since 1998 - they have a fair bit to catch up.
Looking at the lap data, the McLaren's definitely have the pace and are more-or-less equal to Toyota (averaging 40 fastest laps of each driver). Renault slightly ahead. In Bahrain, Trulli was on average much faster than Ralf, and Kimi faster than de la Rosa.
He did, however, probably do the right thing when he spun in not braking. In Saturday free practice, Ralf did exactly the same thing at exactly the same corner but braked...he flat spotted his tyres so badly that caused them to puncture - so in hindsight, probably a smart move by Webber.
First time Ferrari's new car has not won on debut since 1998 - they have a fair bit to catch up.
Looking at the lap data, the McLaren's definitely have the pace and are more-or-less equal to Toyota (averaging 40 fastest laps of each driver). Renault slightly ahead. In Bahrain, Trulli was on average much faster than Ralf, and Kimi faster than de la Rosa.
oh you must be watching something different - I though Fisi was in a Sauber last year!!
come on, mechanical reliability is no measure of driver consistency. To score points in 4 out of 10 finishes in any of the bottom four teams is good, and 7 out of 11 finished for 2003 was extraordinary.
come on, mechanical reliability is no measure of driver consistency. To score points in 4 out of 10 finishes in any of the bottom four teams is good, and 7 out of 11 finished for 2003 was extraordinary.
306XT said:
Billy said:
I believe in " you dont have anything good to say dont say anything at all " but only to a certain point
You think Heidfeld deserved to go to McLaren more than Kimmi????
True, but Gees that feeling was dashed, im sure Ron Dennis would agree..
Trulli may be temperamental (or may have been...) but his race pace IS improving. But Webber does NOT have Trulli's pedigree, sorry to disagree. Get more out of his team? Consistent? He's been the best bar Renault/Alonso, taken yoda to their first podium....and its no good coimparing drivers to team mates in relation to other drivers as each driver has a different team mate with different abilities..
Maybe Webber is better than Fisi, if you want. Patriotism has driven many before us to believe in extreme ideologies....i think Webber could be the hungrier....rather than swapping drives, the best stage to compare this Fisi vs Webber everyone's got on their minds is for them to be team mates
Why are we talking about Webber when we're witnessing a star in the making (not WEBBER no!
)His name is Fernando Alonso and is the reason why Mark was shown the door at Renault
I apologise for hurting people's feelings/ego's but sometimes things have gotta be straightened out
Last edited:
Heidfeld beat Kimi the year they were together at Sauber. More overall points, and he usually finished ahead of him.
Ron decided that Kimi had more 'raw talent' but there is no doubting Heidfelds ablity.
Make-or-break year for Webber this seasons. Button will most likely be back at Willliams at 2006... so Mark has to put in a good show... so that even if BMW lean on Frank to keep Heidfeld, he can be picked up by another decent team.
Ron decided that Kimi had more 'raw talent' but there is no doubting Heidfelds ablity.
Make-or-break year for Webber this seasons. Button will most likely be back at Willliams at 2006... so Mark has to put in a good show... so that even if BMW lean on Frank to keep Heidfeld, he can be picked up by another decent team.
i agree with renaulturbo, i think a lot of people get caught up in Mark Webbers "hype" because he's australian. I've also tryed to say this here before, and that is if Mark Webber wasn't australian, what would you think of him.
Pug-a-lug said:
Martin Brundle also was a match for Senna in F3
Its when the stakes are raised that 'raw talent' materialises. Senna's bloomed as he made a meteoric transition into F1, into a good team and straight to the top. Raikkonnen's blooming. Brundle's obviously dwindled.
Heidfeld is yet to prove himself, not forgeting that he once was a McLaren future prodigy....Who better to asses the potential development of Nick Heidfeld than McLaren themselves ?
Hakkinnen conviced Ron by "If u wanna win, go with the Finn"!
renaulturbo said:
Let the record also show that Brundle matched Schumacer while they were both at Benetton. Indeed, he outscored and out-raced him in the second half of the '92 season.
Using the Brundle-Senna comparison isn't necessarily the best, as Brundle was without a doubt the most under-rated driver of his generation and made a living driving rubbish cars very quickly.
I'm not saying that Brundle was a better driver than Senna. But in the right car he would have won races, and possibly a championship.
BTW I've been following Webber's career since he was in Mercedes Sports Cars. IMO my judgement of of his isn't clouded by his nationality. Webber IMO is not the fastest driver in the world, nor is he the most talented. But he does have the following going for him :
a) Technical feedback / knowledge. Engineers speak highly of his abilty to develop cars and work-around problems.
b) Determination/ambition. Unlike several F1 drivers who turn very soft once they get accustomed the Private Jets and glamour, Webber still has that steely edge to him. Of couse.. 'cause he hasn't won a race yet! :joker: So you'd hope that he is still hungry for success.
But like all Aussies... you don't relocate your whole life to the other side of the planet unless you are seriously committed, and doing something that you are very passionate about.
Succeeding in F1 is often more about 'raw speed'. They are plenty of quick drivers in the paddock, but not all of them have the mental agility and toughness required to succeed. There is a bit of 'street fighter' about Mark... his intangible qualities mean that he is greater than 'the sum of the parts.'
Look, if Webber was really useless Frank wouldn't have hired him. And lets not forget, when he first test drove for Benetton years ago, Pat Symonds said "I heard that he was good, but I didn't know he was that good'
I think potentially Webber could reach an 'old-school Damon Hill' level of success. But this season is critical.
Thats right - Brundle in the right car wouldve won races. Its the getting 'in the right car' he didnt achieve...im not quite sure what asset he didnt have to attract a good drive.
Thats why it IS a good comparison....until now that Heidfeld WILL have the chance to prove himself
Senna started at F1 Toleman and Brundle at Tyrell...Senna was able to work his way up to World Champion from there. Brundle after all his promise, never gave the top teams a reason to recruit him...Ok sometimes luck plays a part JEAN ALESI comes to mind, strongly Poor Jean :disappr:
I also question Brundle making any sort of impression on Schumacher in 92...continue to 93 season with Michael getting a bit more experienced...
I agree, i'd put Webber in Damon Hill's school
Thats why it IS a good comparison....until now that Heidfeld WILL have the chance to prove himself
Senna started at F1 Toleman and Brundle at Tyrell...Senna was able to work his way up to World Champion from there. Brundle after all his promise, never gave the top teams a reason to recruit him...Ok sometimes luck plays a part JEAN ALESI comes to mind, strongly
Poor Jean :disappr: I also question Brundle making any sort of impression on Schumacher in 92...continue to 93 season with Michael getting a bit more experienced...
I agree, i'd put Webber in Damon Hill's school
renaulturbo said:
Yes, maybe true but the Finn needs also a winning car.
French cars and Finns are already legend. Raikkonen has this half-mclaren one-quarter-mercedes, one-quarter-ilmor and that simply isn't good enough.
For the championship I must say that drivers champion will drive either Ferrari or Renault this year. Ferrari won't win contructors championship.
Pug-a-lug said:Look, if Webber was really useless Frank wouldn't have hired him. And lets not forget, when he first test drove for Benetton years ago, Pat Symonds said "I heard that he was good, but I didn't know he was that good'
I agree. And Webber has consistently demolished his teammates. Hasn't had one faster than him yet. He sent Yoong crying. Everyone thought he'd get done by Pizzonia in the first year at Jag, and Jag ended up ditching him too. He creamed Klien last year except for one or two races, and look how well he (Klien) is doing this year.
He's definitely not the fastest driver, but he has just about every other quality that is required for success - drive and determination, technical nous, etc, etc. If he had the raw speed too, he'd be the next schu.
LookingforMi16 said:
What a quality list of victims
Yoong - Didnt he pay for his ride?
Pizzonia - Rookie....
Klien - Rookie..........
Heidfeld - Unproven
I'll say one thing - he does know how to flip sports cars at 300 km/h
Frank Williams also thought Zanardi was gonna be goodPug-a-lug said:
...is Franks faith gospel? Do drivers that get hired for top teams always make it? Coulthard was as good as Hill when he began at Williams as a rookie...he's never gonna be World Champion however. Webber could be world champion one day
Ala Damon Hill 1996 i reckon
Agreed..nothing special there.renaulturbo said:
Ah..but a very highly rated rookie. He was super-fast with Williams in pre-season testing in 2003, and everyone rated Pizzonia very highly. He was expected to be the #1 driver at Jaguar, and no-one gave Mark much of a chance. Webber got the drive at Williams mainly because of his dominance over Pizzonia, whom Frank and Patrick were previouisly impressed with.renaulturbo said:
Agreed....but his relative speed against Coulthard this season shows that either he's progressed a lot in his second season, or maybe that he was never that slow to begin with.renaulturbo said:
Not true. Champion in lower catergories and a McLaren protege. And as has been discussed previously, scored more points (and usually beat) Raikkonen when they were together at Sauber in 2001.renaulturbo said:
renaulturbo - you think that most of us have got our 'aussie-coloured-glasses' on when discussing Mark, but I think you've almost got your 'anti-aussie-glasses' on. Just because he's an Aussie, it doesn't mean he's rubbish!!
Remember guys like Mick Doohan, Wayne Gardner and Alan Jones. You can be an Australian and be a top-rate driver/rider in motorsport!
Remember Jan Magnussen? Touted the next Senna? FLOP!
Highly rated rookie does not translate into Highly successful Formula 1 Driver....Heidfeld could have been 7 time World karting champion, won F3 and F3000 4 times each but the question will STILL beckons to every single driver who reaches F1:
Will he cut it in F1?
Actually, if Heidfeld would have won all that in junior categories, i wouldve backed him .....
Please no comparing of Webber with Doohan please. Alan Jones, Wayne Gardner; ye oright
Until delivery, everything is speculation
Highly rated rookie does not translate into Highly successful Formula 1 Driver....Heidfeld could have been 7 time World karting champion, won F3 and F3000 4 times each but the question will STILL beckons to every single driver who reaches F1:
Will he cut it in F1?
Actually, if Heidfeld would have won all that in junior categories, i wouldve backed him
.....Please no comparing of Webber with Doohan please. Alan Jones, Wayne Gardner; ye oright
Until delivery, everything is speculation
renaulturbo said:
Coulthard never had his cards fall the right way, nor was he ever the number 1 driver in any team he raced for that i can remember. If he were the number 1 driver for Mclaren whilst he was at Mclaren i believe he could have won the world championship, but it would have had to have been the year hakkinen won it. IMO Coulthard is equally as good a driver as Hill, but he falls foul in being a second driver. There have been many drivers in his situation, including Barrichello. Now that that's said lets not specualte how many world championships Barrichello would have won without Schumacher in front of him
.IMHO in a lot ways winning a world championship in modern F1 comes down to being in the best car, and being the best driver for that team, rather then being the best driver in the championship.
That’s my
worth anyway.Edit: what i mean in this if it's a bit long winded and hard to understand, is that you no longer have to be the worlds best driver, you just have to be in the right team at the right time.
Last edited:
orestes said:
Coulthard was never officialy number two at McLaren; Hakkinen was just more consistently successfull than Coulthard, which would make him the better driver
Coulthard WAS in the right team at the right time but just couldnt beat his team mate ala Barrichello
You know what F1 drivers say: the first person you have to beat is your team mate....
that still doesn't defy my point in saying the car not the driver wins modern F1 races if you put any driver that's quicker then Barrichello or for that matter just left Barrichello as the fastest driver in a ferrari over the past few seasons they would have won as many championships as schumacher.
Modern F1 is a 1 horse race, at least the last however many championships that Michael won have been, and i beleive that if you took Michael out of the equation, Rubens would have won the titles for Ferrari, maybe not with such a championship margin but still he would of probably won
if you put any driver that's quicker then Barrichello or for that matter just left Barrichello as the fastest driver in a ferrari over the past few seasons they would have won as many championships as schumacher. Modern F1 is a 1 horse race, at least the last however many championships that Michael won have been, and i beleive that if you took Michael out of the equation, Rubens would have won the titles for Ferrari, maybe not with such a championship margin but still he would of probably won
Last edited:
orestes said:that still doesn't defy my point in saying the car not the driver wins modern F1 races
Modern F1 is a 1 horse race, at least the last however many championships that Michael won have been, and i beleive that if you took Michael out of the equation, Rubens would have won the titles for Ferrari, maybe not with such a championship margin but still he would of probably won
Obvious isnt it? Not only modern, applies back to Fangio's days