Webber signs five-year Porsche deal?

[Sir Tim]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Zeppo Marx]

On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>

I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
RBR. What would be the reason to get him? RBR cannot win two WDC's in
one season and - if car allows it - SV is good for another one. At
least. SV will stay with RBR for another year or two. And Kimi would
never play #2 in those years, just to drive RBR. RBR needs a younger but
promising driver for years after SV moves on or loses his mojo. Kimi is
way older than SV. So, no - I cannot see Kimi move to RBR.

[Mark]

I don't entirely disagree, but let me play devil's advocate here...

Your whole post appears predicated on the assumption that SV wouldn't be
challenged by KR. I'm not sure that's true. It also assumes that KR
would assume he'd be #2 if he moved. IF (and it's a big if) RBR are
being honest in not declaring #1/#2, I could see the two of them
fighting hard and keeping one-another honest.

I think KR just likes to drive, and drive hard. The RBR is still way
ahead of Lotus, and that's likely to continue. I can see why Kimi -
particularly (as you say) because he is older - might want to jump into
the faster car. Whether SV (or RBR) are ready for a situation where
he's regularly challenged or beaten is a different matter.

Just playing DA, of course. ;-)

[larkim]

Not sure you can stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" based on the season so far. Kimi's Lotus just outqualified and out-raced SV's RBR in dry conditions with a damaged nose.

Matt

[Mark]

larkim <matthew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure you can stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" based
> on the season so far. Kimi's Lotus just outqualified and out-raced
> SV's RBR in dry conditions with a damaged nose.

I can't stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" at _every_ event,
but I still feel fairly confident that over the season and across all
conditions, it is way ahead.

YMMV.

[Zeppo Marx]

On 15.04.13 15:11, Mark wrote:
> I don't entirely disagree, but let me play devil's advocate here...

Sure, it's a discussion (well, sometimes) forum. :)

> Your whole post appears predicated on the assumption that SV wouldn't be
> challenged by KR. I'm not sure that's true. It also assumes that KR
> would assume he'd be #2 if he moved. IF (and it's a big if) RBR are
> being honest in not declaring #1/#2, I could see the two of them
> fighting hard and keeping one-another honest.

No, I do not assume SV is better than KR. I even think KR would give SV
run for his money. But what's in it for RBR? Swap one (3 times, and then
even possibly 4 times) WDC for another, with less titles? It wouldn't
bring them much. Except bad blood and constant fights (which they
already enjoy) within the team? Nah!

I don not believe RBR that there are no #1/#2 drivers in the team. Full
stop. I respect those who trust them. I simply do not.
As of "both fighting, keeping each other honest": do you really believe
that SV would accept (after 3 or even 4 WDC's) to fight his ass off
against his own team mate even before he can start to fight other 4-5
(6-7) title contenders? Never ever. And not because I believe that SV is
a spoiled brat who thinks sun is coming up solely for him but because he
thinks that his team is there to support him and not to make his life
more difficult. And, after he won 3 (maybe 4) WDC's, I can accept that.
He earned his place.

> I think KR just likes to drive, and drive hard. The RBR is still way
> ahead of Lotus, and that's likely to continue. I can see why Kimi -
> particularly (as you say) because he is older - might want to jump into
> the faster car. Whether SV (or RBR) are ready for a situation where
> he's regularly challenged or beaten is a different matter.

I truly enjoy Kimi, his driving style and even his on- and off-track
mannerisms. But I don't think his hard driving and wish for a faster car
would play any role for RBR in a possible RBR/Kimi equation. They have a
very good car and a driver who is able to utilize it to the max. All
those WDC's and WCCS's are hard facts and a proof for that. So, why
pissing him off by hiring someone who would make his life very hard? Or
even beat him. And with nothing to gain out of the situation. More than
one WDC and one WCC per season cannot happen.

RBR does not have the Merc situation, where there is a good driver but
who never was able to outshine the car. And didn't won much with it. So,
you get a driving beast, who is able to outdrive anyone and any car, and
hope for the best. The worst risk you are running into is that your old
driver becomes the road kill for the new one. But the new one has what
it takes to win a WDC, even if you don't give him a 100% car. So, this
scenario I can grasp. Merc has something to win and nothing to lose by
hiring Ham. But RBR?

> Just playing DA, of course. ;-)
>

That's OK in my book. :)

[larkim]

I can live with "ahead" but not "way ahead". "Way ahead" would be "unbeatable on any dry F1 track without mechanical failures".

Semantics, I accept.

Matt

[Bobster]

On Apr 15, 5:20 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 April 2013 15:30:12 UTC+1, Mark Conmy  wrote:

> > larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not sure you can stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" based
>
> > > on the season so far.  Kimi's Lotus just outqualified and out-raced
>
> > > SV's RBR in dry conditions with a damaged nose.
>
> > I can't stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" at _every_ event,
>
> > but I still feel fairly confident that over the season and across all
>
> > conditions, it is way ahead.
>
> > YMMV.
>
> I can live with "ahead" but not "way ahead".  "Way ahead" would be "unbeatable on any dry F1 track without mechanical failures".
>
> Semantics, I accept.

Kimi has already been making noises about Lotus/Genii's budget IE that
they don't have enough of it. Over the season I'd expect the RBR to
prevail.

More recently: "I want to work with a good team and sit in a good car.
Red Bull is a good team, they have been world champions and won
everything in the past years. Basically, there are not many top teams
to think about. With Lotus, we are not yet where Ferrari, McLaren and
Red Bull are."
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f1-kimi-raikkonen-flattered-by-red-bull?artid=154590

So he sees other teams as being better than his current team.

I think he's done his reputation no harm since his come back. There
might be questions about his motivation.

[Mike P]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:59:53 +0200, Zeppo Marx wrote:

> On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
>> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>>
>>
> I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
> RBR. What would be the reason to get him?

Ferrari want Vettel, that's no secret. Kimi has worked with Newey in the
past. Makes sense. Gives them a good number 1 if Vettel leaves to lead
one of their up-and-comers from Torro Rosso, or whoever is next in line.




--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:11:02 +0000, Mark wrote:

> Zeppo Marx <zeppo...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>>
>> I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
>> RBR. What would be the reason to get him? RBR cannot win two WDC's in
>> one season and - if car allows it - SV is good for another one. At
>> least. SV will stay with RBR for another year or two. And Kimi would
>> never play #2 in those years, just to drive RBR. RBR needs a younger
>> but promising driver for years after SV moves on or loses his mojo.
>> Kimi is way older than SV. So, no - I cannot see Kimi move to RBR.
>
> I don't entirely disagree, but let me play devil's advocate here...
>
> Your whole post appears predicated on the assumption that SV wouldn't be
> challenged by KR. I'm not sure that's true.

How can it be true, seeing as Kimi is already ahead of Vettel in the WDC
in a supposedly inferior car?

I think that if Kimi could (and I think he will) get back to his 2005
levels of speed, he'd have the upper hand over Vettel by a fair margin. I
think Kimi, when he is in the mood, is the fastest driver in the field.
He's like Mika Hakkinen. Absolutely unbeatable if everything is how he
wants it, bored shitless if it's not.


--
Mike P

[AC]

Sir Tim wrote:
> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>

Sounds like a very good deal for both Webber and Porsche. I hope its true.

Don't care much for the conspiracy angle, but lets face it Webber is
well past his F1 prime, and the No2 driver slot would be way better
filled by a new young driver. This sounds absolutely perfect for him if
he wants to keep racing.

--
AC

[AC]

I completely agree. On the face of it, its no better than Lewis, and
they didn't want SV destabilised. IMHO, Lewis' personality is not the
problem, its his speed. Kimi only goes to RBR if he thinks he can beat
SV, and that, as we see, is not something SV reacts well too. As you
say, give SV the car, and he will win, so, what is the point of a fast,
reliable No2?

I also think it would be to much of a slap in the face to the Red Bull
young drivers program. After all these years, they still can't fill the
no2 seat with a young driver?

Still, F1 can be bat shit mental at times, so even though I cant see it
either, it would not surprise me to see Kimi there. Possibly, if he
fails at Lotus and wants to stay driving in F1, I can see Bernard
encouraging it to happen. Of course, I assume he wanted Lewis there, and
failed.

As I allude (see, I learn!!!) to, I would prefer the No2 seat to be
filled by either a Torro Rosso driver or another young driver.

--
AC

[AC]

Mike P wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:11:02 +0000, Mark wrote:
>
>> Zeppo Marx <zeppo...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>>>
>>> I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
>>> RBR. What would be the reason to get him? RBR cannot win two WDC's in
>>> one season and - if car allows it - SV is good for another one. At
>>> least. SV will stay with RBR for another year or two. And Kimi would
>>> never play #2 in those years, just to drive RBR. RBR needs a younger
>>> but promising driver for years after SV moves on or loses his mojo.
>>> Kimi is way older than SV. So, no - I cannot see Kimi move to RBR.
>>
>> I don't entirely disagree, but let me play devil's advocate here...
>>
>> Your whole post appears predicated on the assumption that SV wouldn't be
>> challenged by KR. I'm not sure that's true.
>
> How can it be true, seeing as Kimi is already ahead of Vettel in the WDC
> in a supposedly inferior car?
>
> I think that if Kimi could (and I think he will) get back to his 2005
> levels of speed, he'd have the upper hand over Vettel by a fair margin.

Bold call.

> I
> think Kimi, when he is in the mood, is the fastest driver in the field.
> He's like Mika Hakkinen. Absolutely unbeatable if everything is how he
> wants it, bored shitless if it's not.
>
>

Hmmm, not 100% sure Kimi is faster now than SV, but add in experience
and race craft, it gets interesting.

Now, I really want to see it happen!!!


--
AC

[Mike P]

Kimi also fits the Red Bull image perfectly - the fun, extreme sports bit
of it anyway..



--
Mike P

[John Briggs]

On 15/04/2013 18:21, Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 15, 5:20 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 April 2013 15:30:12 UTC+1, Mark Conmy wrote:
>>> larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not sure you can stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" based
>>
>>>> on the season so far. Kimi's Lotus just outqualified and out-raced
>>
>>>> SV's RBR in dry conditions with a damaged nose.
>>
>>> I can't stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" at _every_ event,
>>
>>> but I still feel fairly confident that over the season and across all
>>
>>> conditions, it is way ahead.
>>
>>> YMMV.
>>
>> I can live with "ahead" but not "way ahead". "Way ahead" would be "unbeatable on any dry F1 track without mechanical failures".
>>
>> Semantics, I accept.
>
> Kimi has already been making noises about Lotus/Genii's budget IE that
> they don't have enough of it. Over the season I'd expect the RBR to
> prevail.
>
> More recently: "I want to work with a good team and sit in a good car.
> Red Bull is a good team, they have been world champions and won
> everything in the past years. Basically, there are not many top teams
> to think about. With Lotus, we are not yet where Ferrari, McLaren and
> Red Bull are."

McLaren aren't either...
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

And mixing it with vodka...
--
John Briggs

[Zeppo Marx]

But there is a big *if* in my view: "if Vettel leaves". I don't think
Seb will move as long as there is a good chance to win another WDC with
RBR/Newey. And with Seb in the team, I really don't see what why RBR
would hire Kimi.
Don't get me wrong, if I would call the shots in a team without both of
them, I would probably choose Kimi over Seb. However, in my view it just
doesn't make sense to do so if you have Seb already and all the jointly
won WDC's and WCC's.

[AC]

What, Mr one word man? Nah, don't see that. I sort of do understand what
you mean, but to me its kinda 50/50.

Weird one Kimi. I do like his attitude, but its not exactly media
friendly. Heh, I guess that is why I like him. But to me Red Bull is
about bright energetic exciting youthy type things, and that aint our Kimi.

Who does he fit with? No one I can see. I actually think he works pretty
well where he is. IMHO, the ideal thing is for Lotus to step it up and
give him a winning car, or at least a car he can win in.

--
AC

[AC]

Yeah, what Vettel does is the most interesting bit. I didn't consider
Vettel leaving in my other posts at all, and that possibility changes
everything.

What SV does, when and why will tell us a lot about him. To keep winning
at Newey F1 is easy, but could he want the glory of winning in a
Ferrari? What counts as success or glory to Vettel? The statistics, or
history?

Anyway, if he did leave, Kimi is almost the no brainer choice as things
stand.

Cant remember, but was Kimi with McLaren while Newey was? That might
have some influence.

Hang on. April? 3 races in? Driver silly season already? Blimey!!!!

--
AC

[AC]

Yeah, but people assume McLaren will develop their way forward, where as
Lotus seem to fall back. That in its self is a massive indicator.

That said, IMHO, there is less reason to assume that this season.
McLaren do look weaker than before, and Lotus do look like they have
stepped up a notch. Of course that could be down to the efforts of Kimi.

Heh, perhaps Kimi bought 0.5sec to Lotus!!!!!!!

As for the difference between "ahead" and "way ahead", I don't know what
that means in F1 context any more. Everything seems much more random and
hard to gauge these days. Used to be 1sec (or whatever), but now a
consistent 0.2sec would be music to a driver or team's ears.

--
AC

[pltrgyst]

On 4/15/13 4:34 PM, AC wrote:

> What SV does, when and why will tell us a lot about him. To keep winning
> at Newey F1 is easy, but could he want the glory of winning in a
> Ferrari? What counts as success or glory to Vettel? The statistics, or
> history?

Hmmm ... why does does Valentino Rossi spring to mind? 8;)

-- Larry

[AC]

I don't know nearly enough about that to comment. I know he has done
some team swapping with varying success, but that is all I (think I) know.

--
AC

[Mike P]

I've no idea.

It might be more relevant if Vettel was Italian and wanted to win in an
Italian car, as Rossi wanted to win on a Ducati.

Pity the Ducati is/was utterly shite though.


--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:34:10 +0100, AC wrote:


>
> Cant remember, but was Kimi with McLaren while Newey was? That might
> have some influence

Yes, he was at McLaren all the way through Kimi's time with them.




--
Mike P

[Bobster]

Not this year, but they have the infrastructure in place to recover
from that.

But leave Kimi alone! He knows what he's doing.

[Bobster]

And the car wasn't good every year, so Kimi might not feel that it is
the case that if you've got Newey you don't need a Schuey. Towards the
end of his time there he observed that they seem to build a good car
every other year.

TBF, it does seem that Newey was not entirely in charge of car design,
especially after the MP4/18.

The key to RBR's success may be that they leave Newey alone.

[Bobster]

On Apr 15, 9:52 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Mike P wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:11:02 +0000, Mark wrote:
>

OK... here's a thought out of left field. What if RBR either think
that Vettel is going or have had enough of him? That gives him one
more year after this year. So maybe it makes sense to get Kimi on
board (there's no reason to think he'd be any less of a team player
that either of their current drivers) and then get an up-and-coming
driver in alongside him in 2014. Kimi looks to have a couple years in
him still, and you're right about his race craft.

[Bobster]

On Apr 15, 10:27 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Mike P wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:52:02 +0100, AC wrote:
>
> >> Mike P wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:11:02 +0000, Mark wrote:
>

Red Bull sponsored his rally drive.

[Bobster]

On Apr 15, 7:38 pm, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:59:53 +0200, Zeppo Marx wrote:
> > On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
> >>http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>
> > I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
> > RBR. What would be the reason to get him?
>
> Ferrari want Vettel, that's no secret.

Huh? Ferrari have Fred, and they have him for a couple more years yet.
If there's one team I would bet on not backing one driver and not
allowing anything that might rattle him it's Ferrari.

[Mark]

No - fair point.

[Mark]

Zeppo Marx <zeppo...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 15.04.13 15:11, Mark wrote:
>> I don't entirely disagree, but let me play devil's advocate here...
>
> Sure, it's a discussion (well, sometimes) forum. :)
>
>> Your whole post appears predicated on the assumption that SV wouldn't be
>> challenged by KR. I'm not sure that's true. It also assumes that KR
>> would assume he'd be #2 if he moved. IF (and it's a big if) RBR are
>> being honest in not declaring #1/#2, I could see the two of them
>> fighting hard and keeping one-another honest.
>
> No, I do not assume SV is better than KR. I even think KR would give SV
> run for his money. But what's in it for RBR? Swap one (3 times, and then
> even possibly 4 times) WDC for another, with less titles? It wouldn't
> bring them much. Except bad blood and constant fights (which they
> already enjoy) within the team? Nah!
>
> I don not believe RBR that there are no #1/#2 drivers in the team. Full
> stop. I respect those who trust them. I simply do not.
> As of "both fighting, keeping each other honest": do you really believe
> that SV would accept (after 3 or even 4 WDC's) to fight his ass off
> against his own team mate even before he can start to fight other 4-5
> (6-7) title contenders? Never ever. And not because I believe that SV is
> a spoiled brat who thinks sun is coming up solely for him but because he
> thinks that his team is there to support him and not to make his life
> more difficult. And, after he won 3 (maybe 4) WDC's, I can accept that.
> He earned his place.

I think one question is whether SV intends - as has been widely trailed
- to jump to Ferrari in a couple of seasons. If RBR believe he's going
(and I'm not convinced), there may be an attraction in getting another
WDC on board.

>> I think KR just likes to drive, and drive hard. The RBR is still way
>> ahead of Lotus, and that's likely to continue. I can see why Kimi -
>> particularly (as you say) because he is older - might want to jump into
>> the faster car. Whether SV (or RBR) are ready for a situation where
>> he's regularly challenged or beaten is a different matter.
>
> I truly enjoy Kimi, his driving style and even his on- and off-track
> mannerisms. But I don't think his hard driving and wish for a faster car
> would play any role for RBR in a possible RBR/Kimi equation. They have a
> very good car and a driver who is able to utilize it to the max. All
> those WDC's and WCCS's are hard facts and a proof for that. So, why
> pissing him off by hiring someone who would make his life very hard? Or
> even beat him. And with nothing to gain out of the situation. More than
> one WDC and one WCC per season cannot happen.
>
> RBR does not have the Merc situation, where there is a good driver but
> who never was able to outshine the car. And didn't won much with it. So,
> you get a driving beast, who is able to outdrive anyone and any car, and
> hope for the best. The worst risk you are running into is that your old
> driver becomes the road kill for the new one. But the new one has what
> it takes to win a WDC, even if you don't give him a 100% car. So, this
> scenario I can grasp. Merc has something to win and nothing to lose by
> hiring Ham. But RBR?

They probably need a driver RSN, and there isn't a clear contender from
the young drivers. Who do they go for?

[Bobster]

Oh my manglings! That should read "If there's one team I would be on
backing one driver" etc etc

[AC]

So did Williams, once...

--
AC

[AC]

Besides, I think most teams have the infrastructure. What they dont all
have is the right people. And McLaren have been losing good people.

--
AC

[AC]

Oh yeah, now you say it, I vaguely remember some one saying that on Sky.
Fair enough and all, but I personally still done see Mimi as "Red Bull",
but hey.

--
AC

[Mark]

Yep - and I'm with you on that. While Alonso is delivering the goods
(which is probably a cue for someone to claim Alonso isn't all that
good!), Ferrari are not going to bring in anyone to upset him.

[AC]

Yeah, why not.

I suppose then you have to wonder when Alonso will bore of Ferrari and
want to win again... Cheeky, and sure, he could well win this season,
but if he doesn't, when I can well see him pushing for a RBR drive.
Could be a bloody queue!!!!

Heh, maybe even Lewis might still want a drive there. That would
actually make more sense to me from a RBR perspective. Younger,
groovier, etc.

Fuck it, fantasy time, and this is F1 after all.... what about Lewis and
Kimi at RBR?

Still, all a damning indictment (checked, yet still that word looks
wrong) of Marko's young driver set up, no?

Oh, all of this is predicated on the axiom that contracts aren't worth
shit if the cash flows.

--
AC

[AC]

I'd say its very hard to know. My main reason for thinking Newey is some
sort of F1 design god is the "coincidence" of all those winning cars
he's had something to do with. How the hell he best gets the job done is
pretty much unknown.

Strange though, thinking back to his McLaren time, he did seem to
actively want out. IIRC, he was due to move to Jag, which then became
RBR, but he got "persuaded" to stay a bit longer. But he did seem to not
want to be there, rather than having a hankering for another team. Um,
its want like when a driver want to drive for Ferrari. If that makes
sense...

--
AC

[Bobster]

Hmmm... McLaren have lost a lot of people over the years. Barnard,
Senna, Prost, Kimi, Murray, Nicol, Tombazis, Pat Fry, Newey .... yet
they always seems to spring back when everything falls into place for
them. Kind of like Benetton/Renault. They somehow retained the
knowledge of knack of how to win when you have everything you need to
win. Maybe that resides in the team principals (though Flav didn't
know a lot about racing and didn't come from a racing background).

Also no team is strong ALL the time over a long period of time.
Ferrari went over a decade without a championship until they hit that
long purple patch in the 2000s. McLaren, post Senna, went three years
without a win and then another when they had two wins but were never
really in the championship race, then won two on the trot. Right now
they're nowhere near what Williams have become, so I'm not writing
them off just yet.

But I take your point, eventually decline may become terminal.

[Bobster]

On Apr 16, 9:39 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
<snip>

> Yeah, why not.
>
> I suppose then you have to wonder when Alonso will bore of Ferrari and
> want to win again... Cheeky, and sure, he could well win this season,
> but if he doesn't, when I can well see him pushing for a RBR drive.
> Could be a bloody queue!!!!

Well in the 90s there were a lot of drivers who would have gone to
Williams if they had the chance. The number that Williams were
actually interested in was probably a lot smaller. If a seat did come
up at RBR (and I expect one to) it will be their market, not the
drivers.

>
> Heh, maybe even Lewis might still want a drive there. That would
> actually make more sense to me from a RBR perspective. Younger,
> groovier, etc.
>
> Fuck it, fantasy time, and this is F1 after all.... what about Lewis and
> Kimi at RBR?
>
> Still, all a damning indictment (checked, yet still that word looks
> wrong) of Marko's young driver set up, no?

I don't know so much. How much fruit have any of the driver
development programs borne? The most successful, and by far, it seems
to me, was Merc's in the late 80s early 90s which was outside of F1
but delivered M Schumacher, Frentzen and Wendlinger to F1. Ferrari
have got what to show? Massa and maybe Bianchi (too early to tell
yet). Oh, and Perez, but he went to McLaren and he doesn't look that
hot right now. McLaren have backed young drivers over the year, but so
far they have a total of one championship (Hamilton's) to show for
it.

I think it's the way these programs go. You back the likely looking
youngsters, groom them etc etc, but you don't really know how well
they're going to go when they get to F1. At each step they take the
talent gets more concentrated, you might clean up in your local kart
competition, but find it tougher going at national level and tougher
still at international.

And THEN everything has to fall into place in terms of the drive you
get - and there's only so many opportunities with the top teams in any
given year.

>
> Oh, all of this is predicated on the axiom that contracts aren't worth
> shit if the cash flows.

Yes. There's less malarkey with contracts these days, but I would
think that both sides have exit clauses they can take if certain
conditions prevail or if sufficient money changes hands as
compensation.

[AC]

Yeah, sure, I know all that. Could have argued that as a certain point
in Williams history, and look at them now.

The thing I think that might help or save McLaren is the depth of rich
ownership. I reckon that might make the difference. The other thing that
might well save their bacon is the alleged Honda deal. If it works out,
it could make a massive difference.

No, Im not saying McLaren are on the way out, and I certainly do not
write them off, but I can see the signs of a slowly weakening team.
Especially with Ferrari, Merc and Lotus improving bit by bit. While they
are doing that, McLaren seem to be going in the opposite direction.

--
AC

[Bobster]

On Apr 16, 9:30 am, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> On Apr 15, 7:38 pm, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> On Mon, 15 Apr <snip>

> >> > Ferrari want Vettel, that's no secret.
>
> >> Huh? Ferrari have Fred, and they have him for a couple more years yet.
> >> If there's one team I would bet on not backing one driver and not
> >> allowing anything that might rattle him it's Ferrari.
>
> > Oh my manglings! That should read "If there's one team I would be on
> > backing one driver" etc etc
>
> Yep - and I'm with you on that.  While Alonso is delivering the goods
> (which is probably a cue for someone to claim Alonso isn't all that
> good!), Ferrari are not going to bring in anyone to upset him.

My impression is that Ferrari are keen for Vettel to SUCCEED Alonso,
but not necessarily to drive along side him. And that's not going to
happen any time soon unless Fred gets the hump and manages to find a
way out of his Ferrari deal.

[Mark]

Yes - I don't disagree.

I don't believe they'll take Vettel _while_ Alonso's there, but will be
very keen if he moves on.

For that to happen, though, either they dump him (unlikely right now) or
he decides (say) RBR is better for him than Ferrari...in which case
he'll be in direct competition with the other drivers for the better
car.

There are many reasons why people move, though. Look at Hamilton...

[Bobster]

On Apr 16, 10:25 am, Mark <mpco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, but Hamilton was a free agent. Fred and Seb, currently, are not.
I'm sure the contracts aren't absolutely unbreakable, but there will
be conditions.

AFAIK Vettel is tied to RBR until end of next year and Fred to Ferrari
until end 2017.

[Bobster]

On Apr 16, 10:15 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
<snip>

> No, Im not saying McLaren are on the way out, and I certainly do not
> write them off, but I can see the signs of a slowly weakening team.
> Especially with Ferrari, Merc and Lotus improving bit by bit. While they
> are doing that, McLaren seem to be going in the opposite direction.

They looked to be getting stronger the last couple of years. So two
forward, one back.

But the real loss (to the team, not the group) may be Dennis.

[AC]

Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:15 am, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> <snip>
>> No, Im not saying McLaren are on the way out, and I certainly do not
>> write them off, but I can see the signs of a slowly weakening team.
>> Especially with Ferrari, Merc and Lotus improving bit by bit. While they
>> are doing that, McLaren seem to be going in the opposite direction.
>
> They looked to be getting stronger the last couple of years. So two
> forward, one back.

OK.

>
> But the real loss (to the team, not the group) may be Dennis.
>

Im not so sure Dennis is as , er, lost as people are given to believe. A
mate of a mate, ha ha, reckons Dennis is pretty much as in charge as he
ever was.

--
AC

[Mike P]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:12:06 -0700, Bobster wrote:


> I don't know so much. How much fruit have any of the driver development
> programs borne? The most successful, and by far, it seems to me, was
> Merc's in the late 80s early 90s which was outside of F1 but delivered M
> Schumacher, Frentzen and Wendlinger to F1.

All young driver programmes are a load of cock really. They hardly ever
bring along a race winner. Schuey, Frentzen (he won one or two?) and
Hamilton are the only ones I can think of.

Odd how Minardi (as it was back then) produced more race-winners than all
those expensive young driver programmes eh? Webber, Alonso, Trulli, Fisi,
Nannini in F1 and Zanardi, Wilson, and Christian Fittipaldi have all won
over the pond in Champcar. Seems to me that you need talent for spotting
talent, rather than pots of cash. It's just a shame you need pots of cash
to keep them there once you spotted them!

--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:25:54 -0700, Bobster wrote:

> On Apr 16, 12:28 am, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:34:10 +0100, AC wrote:
>>
>> > Cant remember, but was Kimi with McLaren while Newey was? That might
>> > have some influence
>>
>> Yes, he was at McLaren all the way through Kimi's time with them.
>
> And the car wasn't good every year, so Kimi might not feel that it is
> the case that if you've got Newey you don't need a Schuey. Towards the
> end of his time there he observed that they seem to build a good car
> every other year.

Well, Kimi finished 2nd in the standings in 2 out of his 4 years at
McLaren.

What the hell has Schuey got to do with it? He did fuck all in his last 3
years. I think you're not giving Mr Byrne and Mr Brawn enough credit for
his Ferrari years..




--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:07:45 -0700, Bobster wrote:

> On Apr 15, 7:38 pm, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:59:53 +0200, Zeppo Marx wrote:
>> > On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
>> >>http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>>
>> > I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
>> > RBR. What would be the reason to get him?
>>
>> Ferrari want Vettel, that's no secret.
> Huh? Ferrari have Fred, and they have him for a couple more years yet.

They want Vettel to succeed Alonso, who has himself made noises that he
may leave F1 when his current contract ends.



--
Mike P

[Mike P]

End of 2016..



--
Mike P

[Bobster]

On Apr 16, 12:42 pm, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:25:54 -0700, Bobster wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 12:28 am, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:34:10 +0100, AC wrote:
>
> >> > Cant remember, but was Kimi with McLaren while Newey was? That might
> >> > have some influence
>
> >> Yes, he was at McLaren all the way through Kimi's time with them.
>
> > And the car wasn't good every year, so Kimi might not feel that it is
> > the case that if you've got Newey you don't need a Schuey. Towards the
> > end of his time there he observed that they seem to build a good car
> > every other year.
>
> Well, Kimi finished 2nd in the standings in 2 out of his 4 years at
> McLaren.

Every second year?

>
> What the hell has Schuey got to do with it? He did fuck all in his last 3
> years. I think you're not giving Mr Byrne and Mr Brawn enough credit for
> his Ferrari years..

There was a little saying in F1 (or the F1 media) that "if you've got
a Newey, you don't need a Schuey".

When you say "last three years" you mean 2010 to 2012? There was a run
of over a dozen years where it was either Schumacher or whoever drove
the Newey car that won the WDC.

[Bobster]

Ah. Thx.

[Mark]

Nonetheless, these things are not unbreakable...

[Mike P]

Do please remind us who designed all those cars that Schumacher won in?

Like I said, you're doing Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn a huge disservice due
to your love of the cheating German.

--
Mike P

[AC]

I wonder if these programs are more like x-factor, in that they create
paper thin, good on paper, but soul-less drivers, who ultimately shine
bright for a few weeks, then fade away to nothing? Perhaps its all a
total waste as real talent simply makes its self known. It just makes
the given industry feel like its giving something back when in reality
its just building up kids to simply bin them later.

Dunno about other sports, but football seems to do the same thing. Many
more numbers, but very few ever actually break through to be
significant. I suppose in football there is more opportunity to earn a
wage at the sport, but that just scales, right?

I'd love to see some research on this, not just F1, but sport youth
programs in general.

--
AC

[AC]

Not so sure Vettel wants competition from Alonso either.

--
AC

[Mark]

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> Not so sure Vettel wants competition from Alonso either.

Let's be honest: very few drivers _do_.

For choice, drivers want the best car along with a team which is totally
dedicated to delivering the best for them - and them alone.
;-)

[Mike P]

There are some drivers who would probably relish the chance to go up
against Alonso in equal equipment. Hell, a rookie made him look average
back in 2007 in equal equipment..



--
Mike P

[Sir Tim]

Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 15, 7:38 pm, Mike P <citroenm...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:59:53 +0200, Zeppo Marx wrote:
>>> On 15.04.13 12:00, Sir Tim wrote:
>>>> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html
>>
>>> I can buy MW to Porsche story. But somehow I cannot envision Kimi in
>>> RBR. What would be the reason to get him?
>>
>> Ferrari want Vettel, that's no secret.
> Huh? Ferrari have Fred, and they have him for a couple more years yet.

> If there's one team I would bet on not backing one driver and not
> allowing anything that might rattle him it's Ferrari.

My thoughts exactly.

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Sir Tim]

Yeah, but that was 2007 - he's matured a lot since then. I reckon he and
Kimi are the most complete drivers in F1 just now.

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Mike P]

Yes, you're right. Lewis and Kimi are the two most complete drivers in F1
now. Kimi is doing well with an "ok" car, and Lewis is dragging results
out of a Merc that's clearly not great, and, as everyone predicted is out
performing Rosberg.



--
Mike P

[AC]

:)

--
AC

[Bobster]

Well, that's a tricky proposition. If Schumacher got where he was
because his cars were illegal then do we praise the guys who
conceived, designed and oversaw the illegal cars?

Schumacher had his moments to be sure, but he was also a fantastic
racing driver. Very fast, very smart. Yes, he tried to take Villeneuve
out at Jerez and got rather too Angry at Coulthard at Spa, but he
didn't cheat his way to 90 something race wins and 7 championships. He
was a race driver out of the top drawer. I didn't LIKE him, but
there's no denying his abilities.

Now, I've not mentioned Brawn and Byrne (though see my comments a
little bit further up. If, as has often been alleged, Schumacher had
an illegal car in '94 it was NOT because he went to Benetton and said
"I want launch control on my car please") and there's no doubt they
did a good job (though Ross Brawn seems less able to work the magic
these days, so maybe it was more Byrne than Brawn). What I did do was
repeat a little saying, a bit shallow but it rhymes nicely, that I
read a few times in the 90s - as I've pointed out.

[Bobster]

The mistake is to think that ANY Rookie could do that. Rookies are not
all equal. Nelson Piquet got a very hard time from a rookie, but the
rookie's name was Michael Schumacher. Ayrton Senna made a big
impression early on. Alonso himself had an impressive rookie season
for Minardi, though in that team he was unlikely to have an
illustrious team mate to embarrass. But not all rookies are so
impressive so early.

If the rookie in 2007 had been, say, Perez or Bottas or Kovalainen do
you think that Fred would have had such a hard time against his team
mate?

[Bigbird]

Wow, there some stupid things said about Mickey but that's the first
time I've seen someone claim he was in an illegal car most of his
career.

[Bigbird]

Actually, perhaps not.

[Roman Figaj]

Mike P <citro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


> [...] and Lewis is dragging results

> out of a Merc that's clearly not great, and, as everyone predicted is out
> performing Rosberg.

Just to be clear: outperforming as in finishing ahead over a full race
distance or outperperforming in accepting a podium place gifted by his
team principal?

Cheers
Roman
--
lay down all thoughts surrender to the void

[Noj]

Roman Figaj wrote ...

>
> Mike P <citro...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > [...] and Lewis is dragging results
> > out of a Merc that's clearly not great, and, as everyone predicted is out
> > performing Rosberg.
>
> Just to be clear: outperforming as in finishing ahead over a full race
> distance or outperperforming in accepting a podium place gifted by his
> team principal?
>

Where was Rosberg on Sunday?

[John Briggs]

On 16/04/2013 04:45, Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 15, 10:12 pm, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2013 18:21, Bobster wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 15, 5:20 pm, larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 15 April 2013 15:30:12 UTC+1, Mark Conmy wrote:
>>>>> larkim <matthew.lar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Not sure you can stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" based
>>
>>>>>> on the season so far. Kimi's Lotus just outqualified and out-raced
>>
>>>>>> SV's RBR in dry conditions with a damaged nose.
>>
>>>>> I can't stand by the "RBR is still way ahead of Lotus" at _every_ event,
>>
>>>>> but I still feel fairly confident that over the season and across all
>>
>>>>> conditions, it is way ahead.
>>
>>>>> YMMV.
>>
>>>> I can live with "ahead" but not "way ahead". "Way ahead" would be "unbeatable on any dry F1 track without mechanical failures".
>>
>>>> Semantics, I accept.
>>
>>> Kimi has already been making noises about Lotus/Genii's budget IE that
>>> they don't have enough of it. Over the season I'd expect the RBR to
>>> prevail.
>>
>>> More recently: "I want to work with a good team and sit in a good car.
>>> Red Bull is a good team, they have been world champions and won
>>> everything in the past years. Basically, there are not many top teams
>>> to think about. With Lotus, we are not yet where Ferrari, McLaren and
>>> Red Bull are."
>>
>> McLaren aren't either...
> Not this year, but they have the infrastructure in place to recover
> from that.

They have the infrastructure in place to not get into this mess to start
with...
--
John Briggs

[Noj]

John Briggs wrote ...

> >>
> >> McLaren aren't either...
> > Not this year, but they have the infrastructure in place to recover
> > from that.
>
> They have the infrastructure in place to not get into this mess to start
> with...

McLaren have some new updates for Spain -

FW, RW, sidepods, deflectors, exhaust, floor, engine cover

But it isn't a new car !

Should Button repeat last years setting up performance, McLaren will be
2 seconds behind come the middle of the season.

Good job they signed up Perez to race in the GrosTwat roll - knocking
out the opposition.

[Bobster]

I think that's easier said than done. No team runs at the front
forever. The good teams, though, regroup and come back.

Also Whitmarsh is big cheese of FOTA and banging that drum quite
loudly. They might have more resources that they could sling at the
problem, but that would create difficulties in terms of their support
for FOTA and it's resource cap.

This, of course, is a problem that RBR and Ferrari don't have.

It maybe that one consequence of budget capping is that if you don't
get it right the first time you're screwed.

[Roman Figaj]

In a broken car. Your point being...?

[Bobster]

On Apr 18, 2:32 pm, Roma...@figaj.de (Roman Figaj) wrote:

> Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:

> > Where was Rosberg on Sunday?
>
> In a broken car.

All race?

[Bigbird]

Noj wrote:

> John Briggs wrote ...
>
>
> > > >
> > >> McLaren aren't either...
> > > Not this year, but they have the infrastructure in place to
> > > recover from that.
> >
> > They have the infrastructure in place to not get into this mess to
> > start with...
>
>
> McLaren have some new updates for Spain -
>
> FW, RW, sidepods, deflectors, exhaust, floor, engine cover
>
> But it isn't a new car !
>

Still strapping it all on to the same stiffy.

[Noj]

Bigbird wrote ...

> > McLaren have some new updates for Spain -
> >
> > FW, RW, sidepods, deflectors, exhaust, floor, engine cover
> >
> > But it isn't a new car !
> >
>
> Still strapping it all on to the same stiffy.

Thought strap-on users hadn't got a stiffy.

[Philip]

In article <Ha6dnfhCffNVUvbM...@brightview.co.uk>,
Gongo...@monza.com says...
>
> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns25204.html

As a long-time Porschephile, that fills me with horror.

My granny (who died a number of years ago), driving a clapped-out 924,
could probably win more races for Porsche than the whinging, underachieving
loser that is Mark Webber.

[Roman Figaj]

Retired on lap 22 with a problem that may or may not have developed over
the course of the race til then.

Are you really defending the notion HAM "outperformed" ROS on the
strength of exactly one race result, quite probably being ahead on team
orders? That's plain silly even by the standards of this NG.

[Bobster]

On Apr 21, 12:45 pm, Roma...@figaj.de (Roman Figaj) wrote:

> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 2:32 pm, Roma...@figaj.de (Roman Figaj) wrote:
> > > Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Where was Rosberg on Sunday?
>
> > > In a broken car.
> > All race?
>
> Retired on lap 22 with a problem that may or may not have developed over
> the course of the race til then.
>
> Are you really defending the notion HAM "outperformed" ROS on the
> strength of exactly one race result,

In that race he outperformed Rosberg.

> quite probably being ahead on team
> orders? That's plain silly even by the standards of this NG.
>

"Quite probably"? Dude, the race wasn't half done. Race orders at
stage are, I suppose, possible, but "probable" is not the word that
comes to my mind.

We'll find out how fast Rosberg is this season. For the last three
years all he's had to do is out drive a has been.

[Noj]

Roman Figaj wrote ...

>
> Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:32 pm, Roma...@figaj.de (Roman Figaj) wrote:
> > > Noj <b...@arse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Where was Rosberg on Sunday?
> > >
> > > In a broken car.
> > All race?
>
> Retired on lap 22 with a problem that may or may not have developed over
> the course of the race til then.
>
> Are you really defending the notion HAM "outperformed" ROS on the
> strength of exactly one race result, quite probably being ahead on team
> orders? That's plain silly even by the standards of this NG.
>

FFS - Hamilton has outperformed Rosberg in F1 since 2007. I can't be
arsed to look up the records, but LH has raced Rosberg on and off, for
15 years or so and he's always done better.

[Sir Tim]

Bobster <mega...@gmail.com> wrote

> We'll find out how fast Rosberg is this season. For the last three
> years all he's had to do is out drive a has been.

Not saying you were one of them, Bob, but I still find it amusing to read
this sort of statement and remember how the vast majority of people here
believed that Michael would simply crush Rosberg.

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Bigbird]

I don't recall that. I do recall most of us thought Mickey would be a
clear number one and that number two status would make it very
difficult for Rosberg to compete.

[~misfit~]

I wasn't one of them either. My biggest complaint was how the car was built
around 'the nose', meaning NR had a less-than-optimum drive - yet he still
held his own.
--
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

[Bobster]

On Apr 21, 11:09 pm, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote

That he didn't doesn't make Rosberg the greatest thing since sliced
bread. Schumacher HAD BEEN a great f1 driver, but when he came back
the fires were out and he was, as I said, a has been.

It was a pity. In the last race of the first phase of his F1 career
he'd showed that he still had genuine pace. On his comeback he was a
middle of the road race driver who showed only occasional flashes of
his former self. That comeback did nothing to enhance or even maintain
his reputation.

This year we have a benchmark for Rosberg. A pretty tough benchmark
too. Hamilton is one of the fastest guys in F1 right now. If Rosberg
can out perform Hamilton over a season then he's pretty good.

[Sir Tim]

On 23/04/2013 06:35, Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:09 pm, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>> Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> We'll find out how fast Rosberg is this season. For the last three
>>> years all he's had to do is out drive a has been.
>>
>> Not saying you were one of them, Bob, but I still find it amusing to read
>> this sort of statement and remember how the vast majority of people here
>> believed that Michael would simply crush Rosberg.
>
> That he didn't doesn't make Rosberg the greatest thing since sliced
> bread.

Oh, I quite agree

>Schumacher HAD BEEN a great f1 driver, but when he came back
> the fires were out and he was, as I said, a has been.

Indeed. I was merely enjoying a degree of schadenfreude because many
people were convinced that Rosberg wouldn't stand a chance against him,
although, to be fair, as Bird remarked this was partly because they
didn't believe that Mercedes would give him a fair crack of the whip.

> It was a pity. In the last race of the first phase of his F1 career
> he'd showed that he still had genuine pace. On his comeback he was a
> middle of the road race driver who showed only occasional flashes of
> his former self. That comeback did nothing to enhance or even maintain
> his reputation.

I don't believe Michael was ready to retire or *wanted* to retire. Luca
Montezemolo - looking to the future and knowing Michael's tendency to
keep all his options open - outmanoeuvred him and gave him no choice.
Had he not retired I believe that he could have performed at the highest
level for at least another season and possibly won another WDC but you
simply can't beat the years as so many great sportsmen have discovered
when attempting a misguided comeback. (I know that Fangio won the WDC
aged 46 but he had not had a break and, anyway, F1 was vey *very*
different in those days)

> This year we have a benchmark for Rosberg. A pretty tough benchmark
> too. Hamilton is one of the fastest guys in F1 right now. If Rosberg
> can out perform Hamilton over a season then he's pretty good.

Agreed. And I think Bahrain may be a good indicator as to how things are
likely to go.

--
Henry Birkin, Bt.

[Bobster]

On Apr 23, 1:03 pm, Sir Tim <Gongooz...@monza.com> wrote:
> On 23/04/2013 06:35, Bobster wrote:

> > It was a pity. In the last race of the first phase of his F1 career
> > he'd showed that he still had genuine pace. On his comeback he was a
> > middle of the road race driver who showed only occasional flashes of
> > his former self. That comeback did nothing to enhance or even maintain
> > his reputation.
>
> I don't believe Michael was ready to retire or *wanted* to retire. Luca
> Montezemolo - looking to the future and knowing Michael's tendency to
> keep all his options open - outmanoeuvred him and gave him no choice.
> Had he not retired I believe that he could have performed at the highest
> level for at least another season and possibly won another WDC but you
> simply can't beat the years as so many great sportsmen have discovered
> when attempting a misguided comeback. (I know that Fangio won the WDC
> aged 46 but he had not had a break and, anyway, F1 was vey *very*
> different in those days)

The way I read it Schumacher had choices until quite late in the game.
He seems strangely indecisive some times. It seems that Hamilton got
signed at least partly because Schumacher was non-committal about his
intentions (Rosberg's seat was not under threat for 2013) and Merc
decided to fill the vacuum left by his indecision. Not that I think
Schumacher would have had that much of a choice, but because he didn't
make up his mind (or didn't see what was coming) they made it up for
him. As I said, it's a strange flaw in his make up. Or maybe it's just
an attitude of "I won't quit, you'll have to sack me."

AIUI in 2006 Montezemolo was not necessarily trying to force
Schumacher out, but he was trying to make it very clear to Todt and
Schumacher that he was the boss and they would answer to him.

I do agree that he probably had a couple of good years in him. He was
still pretty sharp in 2006.