I suppose as long as you don't win by cheating or is that what he was talking about?
The importance of pole position.
- Thread starter Mephistopheles
- Start date
Cookinflatsix
Banned
I think that says more about the nature of F1 itself and less the driver. I am sure if Seb was racing amateur his own outfit he would not say that and would prefer mixing it up and then winning. But with the money and the records available and the inequalities inherent in F1 it's almost understandable.
That's why drivers like Prost who can play the politics are so good at getting records and results in F1 and why passionate racers like Kimi or Lewis sometimes aren't
Guess what I mean is that F1 is less a sport and more show business than real racing as found in other places
Are you suggesting that Prost and Vettel are not passionate drivers?
Cookinflatsix
Banned
I can't imagine Prost or Vettel quitting F1 to go rallying because they were 'fed up with the political crap'
By passionate I don't mean they go around hugging everyone, I mean passionate about enjoying driving and racing and less willing to suppress their feelings
By passionate I don't mean they go around hugging everyone, I mean passionate about enjoying driving and racing and less willing to suppress their feelings
Obviously you don't mean they go around hugging everyone. You would have said 'affectionate' if that's what you meant. How do you always manage to read clear statements and interpret them so imaginatively?
I don't know what you mean about suppressing feelings. This isn't an issue as far as I see, or even relevant. Most motor racing drivers are fairly expressive. The issue is allowing yourself the distractions to breed feelings which may be detrimental to your campaign. Remember that Vettel and Hamilton have the same goals. They are competing for the same prize. Less distractions will be part of the recipe that produces success. It seems pretty odd to lambast Brundle or any other journalist for reporting on the fact, and it is a fact, that Lewis' distractions are detrimental to his effectiveness against an evidently much more focused Sebastian Vettel.
[edit] and now we are totally off topic again.
I don't know what you mean about suppressing feelings. This isn't an issue as far as I see, or even relevant. Most motor racing drivers are fairly expressive. The issue is allowing yourself the distractions to breed feelings which may be detrimental to your campaign. Remember that Vettel and Hamilton have the same goals. They are competing for the same prize. Less distractions will be part of the recipe that produces success. It seems pretty odd to lambast Brundle or any other journalist for reporting on the fact, and it is a fact, that Lewis' distractions are detrimental to his effectiveness against an evidently much more focused Sebastian Vettel.
[edit] and now we are totally off topic again.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
Veering this particular thread back on topic;
Some drivers are more focused on the end result and some on the racing, drivers will have different interests and methods, winning from the front is fair enough
Some will prefer the feeling of winning and having records, some will prefer racing and on track activities, same as every other occupation I can think off, some like politics and some like producing, etc
Some drivers will feel more passionately about things, and some won't at all
Senna for example took things personally and it sometimes affected him on track like when he crashed into Prost on the first corner because of a feeling he was being short changed by the authorities who changed the pole position side of the track
Prost however was a little more political and probably less impulsive and more political
However there's no point comparing drivers and eras as they are all different, that's what we want, competition, characters, different approaches
Some drivers are more focused on the end result and some on the racing, drivers will have different interests and methods, winning from the front is fair enough
Some will prefer the feeling of winning and having records, some will prefer racing and on track activities, same as every other occupation I can think off, some like politics and some like producing, etc
Some drivers will feel more passionately about things, and some won't at all
Senna for example took things personally and it sometimes affected him on track like when he crashed into Prost on the first corner because of a feeling he was being short changed by the authorities who changed the pole position side of the track
Prost however was a little more political and probably less impulsive and more political
However there's no point comparing drivers and eras as they are all different, that's what we want, competition, characters, different approaches
Of course we should compare drivers. That's the whole point of competition. The entire reason that drivers race is to measure themselves against thier peers. Much of the reason we watch F1 is to measure the drivers against each other. It is disingenuous to say it is pointless comparing drivers just because the one we support isn't measuring up.
uh oh thread veering off course. new thread needed, but there is probably a thread on this subject 
Cookinflatsix
Banned
I specifically mentioned the futility of comparing drivers of different eras to this one, Senna/Prost are not comparable to drivers now
We were discussing winning from pole and how it doesn't matter if a driver prefers it as they have different approaches
Somehow Lewis' distractions have been wheeled out and Brundle is right? What's Brundle gotta do with winning from pole position?
No. You said;" there is no point in comparing drivers and eras". You may have specifically thought "comparing drivers of different eras" but that is implicitly not what you said. Anyway. Why do you think that there is no point comparing Senna, Prost or any other driver of the past to a driver of the now? Do you think that drivers of today cannot learn from drivers of the past? We are comparing humans after all. I do not believe that the human race has evolved so quickly as to make cross generational comparisons futile.
We are not discussing driver preferences. Obviously, every driver wants to get pole and every driver wants to win. They may rate thier victories higher if they are won in the face of adversity, yes, but nobody has a preference to go about thier weekend aiming to win a difficult race. They aim to make the race as least difficult as possible. One of the best ways to do this is to qualify on pole.
Sorry, I got mixed up as to which nonsensical defence of Lewis you were pedalling on which thread.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
lets have a look at the art of being pendantic;
'there is no point in comparing drivers AND eras' means there is no point in comparing drivers and eras at the same time. This is distinct to 'comparing drivers', 'comparing eras' or 'comparing drivers of different eras'
Discussing driver preferences?
As suggested by Mephisto to initiate that particular sub-discussion of preferences:
Final part refers to the fact that you have imported a separate discussion about Lewis and Brundle into this thread from the Lewis thread. This is a seperate discussion and Lewis does not have to be the star
'there is no point in comparing drivers AND eras' means there is no point in comparing drivers and eras at the same time. This is distinct to 'comparing drivers', 'comparing eras' or 'comparing drivers of different eras'
Discussing driver preferences?
As suggested by Mephisto to initiate that particular sub-discussion of preferences:
Final part refers to the fact that you have imported a separate discussion about Lewis and Brundle into this thread from the Lewis thread. This is a seperate discussion and Lewis does not have to be the star
Preferring to win as the result of a battled race retrospectively is romantic. Preferring to win a battled race as a gameplan is idiocy.
With regards to your comments about "pedantry". Well I am not being a pedant. I read and interpreted your statement as you wrote it, which was incorrect, or at least ambiguous, and implied a different meaning. It was also hypocritical, once you clarified your meaning, given that you compared Hamilton, Raikonen and Prost in your previous post.
As for getting threads crossed up. Yep, my mistake. I do stand by my points, though. The fact that my last point is in the wrong place doesn't invalidate it.
With regards to your comments about "pedantry". Well I am not being a pedant. I read and interpreted your statement as you wrote it, which was incorrect, or at least ambiguous, and implied a different meaning. It was also hypocritical, once you clarified your meaning, given that you compared Hamilton, Raikonen and Prost in your previous post.
As for getting threads crossed up. Yep, my mistake. I do stand by my points, though. The fact that my last point is in the wrong place doesn't invalidate it.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
comparing drivers in one context for one debate doesnt preclude the chance that doing the same thing later in a different context is pointless
anyway I could go on arguing the point all night, I could also happily argue your position just as passionately, however during any discussion, when one party introduces ridicule or insult then it normally is a good indicator of a conclusion
and I aint got all night, so I respectfully bid you good night
anyway I could go on arguing the point all night, I could also happily argue your position just as passionately, however during any discussion, when one party introduces ridicule or insult then it normally is a good indicator of a conclusion
and I aint got all night, so I respectfully bid you good night
Interesting you should use Prost as an example there as he was the complete oppostie of pole then win (apart from 93) in fact he was notoriously average at Quali - especially when you compare it with Senna who was the absolute king of pole position and the absolute King of the boring pole to win Grand Prix - he practically invented the bugger! Prost had far more charge through the field victories than Senna ever did - my personel fave being his charge from 13th to win in Mexico 1990. Yet somehow history remembers Senna as the exciting on the edge driver and Prost as the play it safe. Prost didn't do himself any favours when he came back as Renault's puppet in 1993 when in reality he'd lost the stomach for F1 and was being nursemaided to the title by Damon Hill in order that Renault could boast about a French driver winning with a French engine - he'd obviously developed a fear of the car he never used to have which is clearly visable in all the pitstops he makes at Donnington that year during the rain and it does taint his earlier career a little bit. Having said that a year later we had San Marino 94 and all the horrors that came with it. Maybe Prost just sensed F1 needed safety change and didn't want to be the factor that proved it. Who knows.
as for this
I don't know any driver on who's ever done that. I know a driver he went off to rallying because no other F1 team would pay him more money to drive for them than Ferrari would pay for them not to drive for them after a couple fo average seasons. I also know a driver that was so desprete to come back into F1 when he didn't recieved the pay check he thought he would the year after that he even considered driving for Williams but not one that ever went off to rallying due to 'political crap'
Don't believe the hype its all about the money money money!
Using the power of Wikipedia the percentage of total wins won from pole are:
Vettel 76% (16 of 21)
Senna 71% (29 of 41)
Ascari 69% (9 of 13)
Clark 60% (15 of 25)
Mansell 55% (17 of 31)
Fangio 54% (13 of 24)
Hamilton 53% (9 of 17)
Hakkinen 50% (10 of 20)
Alonso 48% (13 of 27)
Schumacher 44% (40 of 91)
Lauda 36% (9 of 25)
Prost 35% (18 of 51)
This is using the list of "Most races won from Pole" the figures after are the number of wins from pole and the total number of wins.
I'm not sure what that tells us apart from the fact that if you are a very good driver with one of the best cars on the grid then you are more likely to get pole position - cause and effect? I would also suggest that Lauda's ratio was diluted by being up against Prost and Prost's by being up against Senna.
So there you go - pole is important if you want to win races. I have awarded myself today's "No shit, Sherlock" award.
Vettel 76% (16 of 21)
Senna 71% (29 of 41)
Ascari 69% (9 of 13)
Clark 60% (15 of 25)
Mansell 55% (17 of 31)
Fangio 54% (13 of 24)
Hamilton 53% (9 of 17)
Hakkinen 50% (10 of 20)
Alonso 48% (13 of 27)
Schumacher 44% (40 of 91)
Lauda 36% (9 of 25)
Prost 35% (18 of 51)
This is using the list of "Most races won from Pole" the figures after are the number of wins from pole and the total number of wins.
I'm not sure what that tells us apart from the fact that if you are a very good driver with one of the best cars on the grid then you are more likely to get pole position - cause and effect? I would also suggest that Lauda's ratio was diluted by being up against Prost and Prost's by being up against Senna.
So there you go - pole is important if you want to win races. I have awarded myself today's "No shit, Sherlock" award.
Ridiculous, eh?
Exactly.I have raced competitively in many forms of racing, sidecars, saloon cars, rallies which are a different form of racing entirely as they solely time based and FF.
Having to pay my own way I found far better to out in the lead (rarely) where I was relatively safe from being involved in a midfield scrap and subsequent accident resulting in a DNF or a large hole in my wallet.
I'm not sure that's striclty true, I remember my father (at that time both an ex-racing and ex-rally driver) telling me 30-odd years ago that in any formula in order to be successful a driver had to be more than just quick and he specifically referred to being open and friendly towards the press. He mentioned a couple of names, which have loooong escaped me, that he felt were far quicker than other successful drivers of the time but hadn't had the necessary exposure as they weren't particularly comfortable talking to the press or were not business savvy enough. I suggest the business side's been around for a long time ...
It's what you might call a symbiosis.
Hmm I do wish we could see Vettel in a car of similar speed to the McLaren or Ferrari of the last couple of years, to see how he really stacks up in a different situation to just running off into the lead. I honestly think he would struggle, however I don't think he's as weak at overtaking as everyone assumes, especially when it is often said that the Red Bull has more trouble than the average car in turbulent air and how Red Bulls usually have slow straight line speeds which surely must hinder overtaking attempts.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
