The 2012 Driver transfer discussion/speculation thread

[peter_vod69]

That is true. But there is also the fact that Senna was outperformed by Petrov and made a few silly mistakes. There's also the fact that Peter is completely blind to this.

To be fair, he wasn't going to do much more than that. He did better than Fisi/Badoer in their attempts at driving Ferrari F1 cars...

(I will admit I'm a bit of a Senna fan, in that I'd love to see him in a full-time drive in a car that doesn't resemble a horse-drawn buggy).

 

[Ardius]

Like, say, Raikkonen's return? Most of the rumours, after all, placed him at Williams.

The rumour turned out to be true though, Raikkonen was talking to Williams. In the end he didn't land that seat, he instead returned with Lotus, but the rumour of him talking to Williams with a view to return was proven to be true, even if it didn't end in the expected result.

So, we can expect that pretty obviously Senna is in discussions with Williams and it would be fair to say he is a favourite for the seat. These rumours and reports will probably turn out to be true, but the result may not be that Senna gets the nod.

The point is that if there are repeated rumours and multiple reports from different sources on a topic, then the rumours have some weight and should be considered very possible. The key is to remember that they are still rumours, not confirmations or announcements. Very rarely can we ever predict the decisions. Even though there were very strong rumours of Alonso to Ferrari, no one was entirely sure that it would happen and it certainly surprised everyone when he was signed so early - most expected Ferrari to see out Raikkonen's contract first.

As I said, I expect that Senna will get the seat, as the indications are pointing to this. I also expect that if it isn't Senna, then Barrichello and maybe Sutil get the nod instead. I have no expectation of anyone else being given the seat as there has been not much rumour at all (except if we consider the "amateur journalist" opinions as rumours, in which case anyone from Chandhok to Ralf Schumacher is in contention for the seat).

 

[peter_vod69]

Inoue for Williams 2012!

 

[Bram Turismo]

Let's be clear about this, Senna did quite an impressive job in an unfamiliar car with limited track time/preparation. If you think I'm wrong then you also think Martin Brundle is wrong, and you'll excuse me a moment if I take his opinion over yours

Yes, because Martin Brundle is the most F1-correct person out there...

We're not talking about Senna doing an awful job in the Renault. The point is that Peter is claiming Senna out-performed Petrov from the point at which he got into Heidfeld's car. A claim which is yet to be proven.

 

[Ardius]

I think the best that can be said for Senna is "flashes of speed". Which to be fair, is the best a semi-rookie or a driver with very little experience can hope to show anyway.
Experience can bring consistencey, but it almost never brings speed. So being able to show that you have something means a lot more than being consistently slow.

Funnily enough, Petrov was in the same position last year (and really still is), as are currently Di Resta, Perez and Maldonaldo. Funnily enough, these have all been very good or decent rookies but they also have all struggled to be consistent in their performance. Why is Di Resta or Perez considered so much more differently to Senna - as ever the curse of the name is probably to blame, though of course its easier to judge the others as they have had more time in competitive cars.

Its a shame that Senna's mistakes are brought up and highlighted more than most, and thats because of both his fans and his critics - both choose to look at him maybe more than another rookie. But its something that everyone, including Senna is just going to have to accept (which he seemingly does, though I think he is far too hard on himself).

I like Bruno, his personality reminds me of myself and so many others - though I could never compare the incredible pressure his surname brings. I can certainly relate to his overly self-critical outlook and very high personal expectations. I think he is too honest too although thats a little more difficult to judge. I hope he gets another fair shot just because he is a nice guy. But I'd also like to see Barrichello, Sutil, Alguesuari, Petrov, D'Ambrosio, etc also get another shot.

I have to admit I do rather enjoy a driver such as Senna proving his critics completely wrong though. Tastes very sweet. And I'd also add I enjoy being proven wrong about drivers I've been critical of - I did enjoy seeing Petrov's taste of success at Melbourne last year - shame he couldn't repeat it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the eight races he did in 2011 were the only eight races Senna had to his name, I'd be willing to reconsider him as a viable driver for 2012. But he did a full season (except for Silverstone) in 2010, and to me, that means he's had more than enough chances. No, the Hispania F111 was not a very good car. It was an awful car. And yet it was still good enough for Karun Chandhok to take two 14th-place finishes in the first six races, single-handedly securing 11th place - instead of 12th - in the WCC. So if Chandhok could do that despite driving a glorified shopping trolley, then I don't think Senna's 2010 season should be disqualified at all.

He's had his chance. He didn't live up to expectations. If it were any other driver, people would be calling for him to be dropped.

 

[Peter.]

I shouldn't have said that Senna beat Petrov. Makes me look like an ignorant idiot. I know that Senna did not beat Petrov. He did however, at least outqualify said teammate, which shows speed, raw speed that would probably be ironed out if he were given a second chance. I made a mistake in that post, by not thinking before I posted. Sue me.

But I take offense to your post. I should win the Darwin Award? Maybe you should too then? Having a discussion with you is sometimes a pain, because you throw your opinion at other persons like rocks, and never think that you can be wrong. On top of all that, you bend arguments to fit you, as well as throw stuff under the mat to try and prove your point even more, and to try and make the other person, usually me, look like an idiot. This applies to F1Rejects as well, where your antics have gotten you labelled as a troll by some users there. Despite my defense of you, yes you, on that forum, you come out and call all of my posts facepalm material and basically call me the biggest idiot. Nice.

Moving on, Jerome is a good kid. I would give him another go, on the grounds that he will improve in his second year, because he wasn't too far behind Glock anyway, and had quite a few setbacks as well.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He did however, at least outqualify said teammate, which shows speed, raw speed that would probably be ironed out if he were given a second chance.

2011 was his second chance.

And he didn't outqualify Petrov with any regularity.

Despite my defense of you, yes you, on that forum

I do not need or want your charity. Save your breath next time.

 

[astrosdude91]

Oh god. Are we on Senna vs. Petrov again?

 

[Peter.]

I am not the person to stand back and simply watch someone be labelled as a troll, be made fun of and just be generally disliked on a forum, if I don't feel they deserve it. I treat others how I'd want them to treat me.

 

[Ardius]

And yet it was still good enough for Karun Chandhok to take two 14th-place finishes in the first six races, single-handedly securing 11th place - instead of 12th - in the WCC. So if Chandhok could do that despite driving a glorified shopping trolley, then I don't think Senna's 2010 season should be disqualified at all.

At both races where Chandhok finished 14th, Senna started and was running ahead of him and suffered hydraulics failure. In fact, Senna's car rarely seemed to finish the races till half way through the season.
Not to mention the tendencey for Kolles to put the newer parts on Karun's car (such as the segmented fuel tank) as he was paying, while Senna was not bringing cash.

Even with this, Senna still qualified and ran ahead of him most of the time, even mixing it with the Virgin's on occasion before the car failed (for example, and very clearly, in Turkey).

No, Senna's 2010 season shouldn't be forgotten seeing as he did a respectable job as far as can be judged. I don't understand this opinion that Chandhok out-performed him, he didn't. If anything, Senna was effectively HRT's best driver all year. The idea that he was somehow under-performing the car is laughable, especially when basing it on position results achieved by a teammate who simply finished races where the attrition rate was very high. (and even then, Chandhok didn't even manage to finish one of those races and was classified due to distance covered - though Trulli was really to blame).

It sometimes seems like I was the only one who noticed Senna fighting with the Virgins that year. Why is it people require finishing positions to only notice the on-track battles near the back? Ok, so we don't get any on-camera action from that end of the field, but did really no one look at the positions near the back during the race? I've regularly kept track of those guys as its almost as intense as the battle for the win!

 

[Alex.]

Oh boy here we go. Popcorn time again.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't understand this opinion that Chandhok out-performed him, he didn't. If anything, Senna was effectively HRT's best driver all year.

I'm not saying Chandhok out-performed Senna. I'm saying Chandhok's achievements in the same car mean that Senna's 2010 season cannot be disregarded the way many people have suggested it should be on the ground that the car was not good enough.

 

[Ardius]

That doesn't even make sense. The season shouldn't be disregarded because the car isn't good enough yet Chandhok is compared for finishing in better positions when he experienced a better reliability record?
The car was barely good enough to qualify 5 tenths to Virgin and Senna's car suffered some of the worst reliability of any car that season. If thats not a car that isn't good enough to make impressions, then I don't know what is. But even with this, he did make impressions, just no one noticed it seems. He regularly beat his teammates and nearly always had at least a couple of tenths in hand in qualifying over them.

There are only two occasions I can think of where he didn't perform as expected and thats Korea and Singapore. He also made some errors driving at Spain and Valencia.

And this was all as a rookie having only raced LMP cars for the previous year and having no pre-season testing.

 

[jcm]

I'm not saying Chandhok out-performed Senna. I'm saying Chandhok's achievements in the same car mean that Senna's 2010 season cannot be disregarded the way many people have suggested it should be on the ground that the car was not good enough.

Well, shouldn't it be regarded as a successful year then with all things considered?

Question to all: If Senna and Petrov and driven the Renault for the whole season, do you think Senna would have got a podium? Do you think Petrov would have dominated? Do you think they'd be tied come season's end? What do you think would've happened if they'd had equal time in the car?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The season shouldn't be disregarded because the car isn't good enough yet Chandhok is compared for finishing in better positions when he experienced a better reliability record?

I think you have misinterpreted my post. Re-read it like this:

The season shouldn't be disregarded because the car was good enough yet Chandhok is compared for finishing in better positions when he experienced a better reliability record?

Some of Senna's supporters have said that 2010 should be disregarded because the F110 was not a very good car, and therefore it was not representative of his abilities. I disagree with this - because Chandhok was able to get results that secured 11th place in the WCC, the F110 was clearly good for something, and so Senna's 2010 season cannot be disregarded. To disregard it despite Chandhok's achievements would make no sense.

 

[Ardius]

I think if both had been in the car all year, Petrov would have still edged it. But I think perhaps Senna's performances at Spa and Interlagos would have ended differently.
At a guess, Senna would have ended up with a better qualifying score but Petrov would have finished more races. Its difficult to say really as its still not clear if Senna can actually improve to the point of combining that speed he has with some good racecraft and consistent driving.
Renault also employed some awful strategies through the year which makes judging Petrov's race pace difficult too.

Some of Senna's supporters have said that 2010 should be disregarded because the F110 was not a very good car, and therefore it was not representative of his abilities. I disagree with this - because Chandhok was able to get results that secured 11th place in the WCC, the F110 was clearly good for something, and so Senna's 2010 season cannot be disregarded. To disregard it despite Chandhok's achievements would make no sense.

I think you need to ask why Chandhok got those results and why Senna did not. It is not because of Senna's abilities. And this is why people refer to those results and the season in general as not being wholly representative of what Senna can do. Although as I've just pointed out, Senna did actually make an impression and achieve in that car. Its just people choose to simply talk about race results over anything else.

 

[jcm]

The reason Senna is thought of as good is because of his flashes of brilliance. I think that he could've very possibly gotten a podium at the start of the year (because the car was capable) and he could have gotten a top five at Spa. Unfortuantely, we will never know...

What we do know is that Petrov was faster then him when they did race. The unanswerable question is whether or not Senna would've been able to be consistently brilliant with a full season.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think you need to ask why Chandhok got those results and why Senna did not.

I am under no illusions. Chandhok got those results because he was able to nurse the car home when other drivers were dropping like flies. Mechanical sympathy is still a pretty important skill for a driver to have. Look at Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel in Brazil last year - both developed gearbox problems, but only one finished the race.

It is not because of Senna's abilities. And this is why people refer to those results and the season in general as not being wholly representative of what Senna can do. Although as I've just pointed out, Senna did actually make an impression and achieve in that car. Its just people choose to simply talk about race results over anything else.

I think you're still missing my point. People are saying "Senna's 2010 season should not count because he did not have a good car", and they want Senna to be judged on his 2011 results and his 2011 results alone. And maybe he did not have a good car - but the fact that his team-mate was able to get some respectable results with it (regardless of how those results were achieved) says to me that the Hispania F110 was a good enough car for Senna's 2010 results to be considered when assessing him.

 

[jcm]

Look at Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel in Brazil last year - both developed gearbox problems, but only one finished the race.

We don't know how serious those gearbox problems were though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Serious enough that Vettel had to drive conservatively for two-thirds of the race.

 

[Peter.]

Serious enough that Vettel had to drive conservatively for two-thirds of the race.

That doesn't make any sense. It goes back to what jcm said. We have no clue how serious those problems were. The fact that Vettel managed to finish, while Lewis didn't, says that he might have had a bigger, or less predictable issue than Vettel's. I'm sure Lewis wasn't pushing hard either, anyway.

Karun didn't get to where he was last year by nursing the car home. He got there thanks to the car not falling apart while faster cars did. Senna DNF'd so many races for the first half of the season because of his car falling apart.

 

[Sach]

That doesn't make any sense. It goes back to what jcm said. We have no clue how serious those problems were.

They confirmed after the race that Vettel's gearbox was essentially out of oil.

 

[jcm]

That doesn't make any sense. It goes back to what jcm said. We have no clue how serious those problems were. The fact that Vettel managed to finish, while Lewis didn't, says that he might have had a bigger, or less predictable issue than Vettel's. I'm sure Lewis wasn't pushing hard either, anyway.

Karun didn't get to where he was last year by nursing the car home. He got there thanks to the car not falling apart while faster cars did. Senna DNF'd so many races for the first half of the season because of his car falling apart.

👍

I think that Senna has done a good enough job to deserve a seat for next year. The problem is that there's 2 seats remaining, and there's more then 2 people who deserve those seats. There's no easy solution as to who gets it. That's where driver bias comes into play. Unfortunately, I really like Senna, Petrov, and Barrichello, and I respect the other drivers fighting for the seat.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Williams could be making their announcement today.

So far unconfirmed.

 

[Ardius]

I am under no illusions. Chandhok got those results because he was able to nurse the car home when other drivers were dropping like flies. Mechanical sympathy is still a pretty important skill for a driver to have. Look at Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel in Brazil last year - both developed gearbox problems, but only one finished the race.

I think we're clutching at straws here by painting Chandhok as being great with looking after the car.
This was the season where HRT, Virgin and Lotus were all using Xtrac gearbox and hydraulics systems that were very unreliable. A lot of Senna's retirements were due to hydraulics failure or gearbox failure. Funnily enough, Glock, Di Grassi, Kovalainen and Trulli all suffered similar failures pretty regularly too. I don't see any kind of pattern between the drivers and the failures, as such I think it was very much luck whether the car actually made it or not. So no, the HRT wasn't even good for judging ability even from this sense either - it was so unreliable how can we possibly judge if the drivers were easy on the car or not?

Maybe Chandhok drove so slow that he never really stressed the hydraulics or gearbox enough for them to break. Or maybe he was simply lucky and benefitted from the better parts. I don't really see much argument for Chandhok driving better that season and certainly the 14th places he achieved were not representative of the pace of the HRT nor his ability. They are representative of what can happen in a high-attrition race where higher teams make mistakes, but this is something that can benefit any driver regardless of his ability - it really didn't matter who was in Senna's car and who was in Chandhok's car they were always going to finish where they did.

 

[Centura]

Serious enough that Vettel had to drive conservatively for two-thirds of the race.

McLaren told Lewis that there was nothing he could do.

 

[RodrigoDLL]

Williams could be making their announcement today.

So far unconfirmed.

Brazilian press reports Senna has signed the contract this morning.

"Senna and Williams: Deal done"
http://victormartins.warmup.com.br/2012/01/16/senna-e-williams-fechado/

Respected young journalist confirming.

 

[F1 fan]

Just what Williams need. Another fast young driver that can't convert qualifying speed into race results.

 

[Liquid]

Just what Williams need. Another fast young driver that can't convert qualifying speed into race results.

Welcome to the world of not being the most desireable seat, WilliamsF1.

Incredible to think that they haven't scored a win since 2004 and have only scored 7 podiums since, the last coming in 2008.