No matter what happens to Fernando Alonso in 2019, don’t call it retirement.
The Spaniard announced overnight that he will leave Formula One at the end of the season after a 17-season career that brought him 32 race victories, 22 pole positions and, of course, two world championships.
“I have enjoyed every single minute of those incredible seasons and I cannot thank enough the people who have contributed to make them all so special,” he said in a statement. “It’s time for me to make a change and move on.”
His plan in 2019 beyond the conclusion of the 2018-19 World Endurance Championship season is undefined, but with the Indianapolis 500 the only leg left to complete in his mission to acquire motorsport’s triple crown – victories at the Monaco Grand Prix, 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Indy 500 – an entry into the IndyCar championship in some form is surely on the cards.
“New exciting challenges are around the corner,” he said. “I’m having one of the happiest times ever in my life but I need to go on exploring new adventures.”
Nonetheless, Formula One fans will feel aggrieved that a driver many consider to be the best in the world has had some of his most competitive years in the sport squandered, particularly in an F1 era featuring an increasing number of high-calibre drivers.
But disappointment should be directed as much to Alonso as to anything else.
Half the struggle of winning a Formula One world championship is being in the right place at the right time, and in this regard Fernando’s judgement has been found to be shockingly impaired.
Alonso had the F1 world at his feet by only the fifth year of his career, vanquishing Kimi Raikkonen for his first championship in 2005 and Michael Schumacher in a down-to-the-wire duel in the German master’s final season in 2006.
His move to McLaren in 2007 should have been his opportunity to take the record-breaking baton from the now retired Schumacher to forge a chapter in history all his own. In reality it was the beginning of his downfall.
Alonso went to war with his own team over what he considered to be a broken promise to give him priority over surprisingly competitive rookie Lewis Hamilton.
So bad was the blood between Alonso and McLaren boss Ron Dennis that the Spaniard threatened to alert the FIA to emails that would incriminate the team in the so-called ‘spygate’ controversy. Those emails later formed a key part of the evidence that had the team excluded from the championship and fined US$100 million.
His position obviously untenable, Alonso returned to Renault for two years – unremarkable barring his victory at the fixed 2008 Singapore Grand Prix – before making the move to Ferrari.
At the Scuderia the best and worst of Alonso was on show. The 2012 season was Alonso in his absolute prime, stubbornly inserting himself into a championship fight his car had no business contending and falling short by three precious points at the final round.
But by 2014 Ferrari had lost its way. The team was a distant fourth in the standing sunder new regulations, and amid sweeping management changes Alonso, fed up with the lack of performance, attempted to assert his authority on the team in the process.
(GEPA pictures/Red Bull Content Pool)
Marco Mattaicci, team principal in his first and only year at the helm of Ferrari, and Sergio Marchionne, exerting pressure from Ferrari parent company Fiat, pushed back. Alonso threatened to walk, believing him to be the team’s only competitive driver option. Ferrari called his bluff and hired Sebastian Vettel. Alonso was cut loose, his bridges burning in the background.
His unlikely return to McLaren was a marriage of convenience, and when the Honda project floundered from the get-go, Alonso’s quest to emulate the three world titles of his idol, Ayrton Senna, did likewise.
Hubris ultimately undid Alonso’s career, first at McLaren, later at Ferrari – indeed so prolific is his reputation as a brutal political animal that Mercedes and Red Bull Racing, two frontrunners that had seats free in 2019, never considered him.
But it’s Fernando Alonso’s unbreakable competitive spirit that has driven him to his glories and mistakes in Formula One and will drive him to new glories in other series, any number of which will be falling over themselves to accommodate the man who remains one of the world’s most formidable drivers.
So this is not Fernando Alonso’s retirement – and, as his statement suggests, it may not even be the end of his Formula One career.
“I want to thank everyone at McLaren,” he said. “I know they will come back stronger and better in the future and it could be the right moment for me to be back in the series; that would make me really happy.”
Whether McLaren can return to competitiveness in the short term is another question altogether, but if the Woking team does deliver a race-winning car before Alonso hangs up his helmet for good, you can bet on the Spaniard having one more crack at motorsport’s biggest prize.
Simoc
Guest
That's like saying if Vettel went to Mercedes instead of Ferrari he'de have 8 World titles now. Its bull with out the Red. I'de take Horners word before Andrew Benson since he was the one who was and is running the show at Red Bull in 2007. F1 is full of B/s because everyone forms their own opinions about the drivers abilities but the only certainty is the results. You can make up the rest.
Buffy
Guest
Thanks for your reply Michael. Much appreciated. I had a quick look over your previous article about Vettel's points deficit being more due to driver error. It was well written. Back to the present, and your reply to my question. Again, i agree with nearly all that you have said. Just a couple of things i'd like expand on: " the Mercedes was theoretically faster...The fact Mercedes blitzed qualifying last year 15-5 is testament to this" Agreed. That it had the theoritical top qualy speed isn't really up for debate. However, i would just like to add a little caution to these qualy numbers. If i recall correctly, there were a handful of Q3 sessions where Ferrari had the better pace but for various reasons, failed to convert. For example Spain. Ferrari had the overall quicker car in Q3 but Vettel made a small error/took different lines, that allowed Hamilton to grab pole. This kind of explains my point https://streamable.com/nvsmo. Then, i remember Austria. Hamilton was out the picture due to a grid penalty (him being the only top driver to have to change his tyre type compounds between Q2 to Q3, &,according to the likes of Mark Hughes & Brundell, this compromised his Q3 performance, as he had less time than the others on the US tyres ) "Hamilton was a couple of tenths adrift in third, his qualifying compromised by an indifferent first Q3 run as he tried the ultra-softs for the first time, having gone through Q1 and Q2 on the super-softs." (Mark Hughes). Mark Brundell on Sky Sports said pretty much the same thing. Having less time on the Ultras than the others, possibly compromised him..But the point i'm making, with Hamilton out of the picture,pole was Vettel's for the taking. In the end, Vettel was a fraction(less than a 10th) off pole having made a slight error. Without that mistake, he could have notched up another pole. Also with Austria, i think the yellow flags came out. disrupting Vettel's last run. So in other words, Vettel possibly could have improved, but never got the chance. So, without this, we really can't say for sure who had the fastest car in Austria qualy. Then i recall Brazil, where Vettel admitted he had the pace for pole but "chickened out" https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vettel-chickened-out-brakes-brazilian-gp-pole-fight-bottas-977312/1377926/?nrt=54 Could Hamilton have taken pole if he hadn't of crashed? Could Vettel have taken pole had he not "chickened out"? Brazil is another qualy session where we cannot say for sure who had the fastest car. Then there was Malaysia. Merc was struggling all weekend. 3rd on pace behind Ferrari & RB. That should never have been a Merc pole. Even with Vettel out of the picture, Kimi's Ferrari had the better pace & should have taken pole. I guess the point in all of this is yes, Merc had the better theoretical top qualy speed, but we have to be careful in interpreting the qualy numbers. Raw stats rarely paint an accurate picture. The only other point i would like to pick up on is the Japan DNF. Something that Ben Edwards said about Brendon Hartley at Silverstone---that the team having so many "incidents" to deal with, in such a short space of time, could lead to fatigue & that could affect the mechanic's quality of work and lead to mistakes. Applying this to the Japan DNF. That DNF was caused by a faulty spark plug. Hence, poor quality control. Did the fact that Vettel (and indeed Kimi) crashed/wrecked their cars ,in 2 of the previous races, with such a short turn around between races (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan) put the team under added pressure, leading to fatigue, leading to a mistake in not spotting the faulty spark plug? Hamilton also had a problem spark plug that weekend but Merc spotted it in time, perhaps because they were under less pressure, less fatigued?? Anyway, that's my take on it.
Mark Young
Roar Guru
Wow, I didn't know about that - Alonso in the Red Bull...... Of course, at the time, we would have laughed uproariously at the idea of Alonso choosing Red Bull over Ferrari. Strange times.
anon
Roar Pro
So Vettel on newish softs struggles to overtake Bottas on trashed softs. Had to put an unbelievable daring pass on Bottas to get by. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1oh-x3gZPY But Hamilton on new softs can blast by Vettel on new mediums like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJrTC889oSI
anon
Roar Pro
It was a standard move. He put the squeeze on Verstappen. Verstappen was in a position where he was going to lift off (and started to lift off), but was squeezed by Raikkonen who then hit Vettel. Vettel has no real way of knowing that Raikkonen would have such a great start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMjv2ZDeJko Look at this start from 2013. Vettel and Rosberg try squeezing each other, look almost certain to collide, but don't. Rosberg slightly leaves the track because he went to deep, and Vettel basically hangs him out to dry. Another collision averted. This is standard racing.
anon
Roar Pro
People are harsh on Vettel. Okay, Baku was a brain fade but no different to Hamilton's brain fade where he baulked Ricciardo in Bahrain. Singapore wasn't Vettel's fault. He was hit. Watch it from Verstappen's onboard. I'm not sure what Vettel was supposed to do in that position? Leave the door open and get mugged going into the first corner. Mercedes was clearly the quicker car over the course of the championship. Of course Mercedes was more difficult to drive than previous years. Their cars didn't have 1 or 1.5 seconds over the field. Bottas had more poles than Vettel. Bottas is not in the same class as Vettel. Let's say Vettel wins Baku and wins Sinagpore (no guarantees against the RBR). Mercedes still has 10 race wins to Ferrari's 7. Don't forget that Vettel only won in Melbourne because Mercedes stuffed up with pit strategy. Bahrain the Mercedes was quicker but Hamilton handed to Vettel by getting a penalty for baulking Ricciardo. So that's two races out of the first three where Mercedes failed to convert despite having a faster car. And if you're being honest, the only tracks where Ferrari had a genuine edge were Monaco, Hungary, Singapore and Malaysia.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
He wasn't "taken out" in Singapore (elaborated on in a comment further down), but in Malaysia and Japan he obviously suffered technical problems. His championship imploded in Asia — or, really, after the midseason break — by a combination of a bunch of factors, only one of which was driver error. Not being able to pass in Spain isn't evidence of anything. Go back to 2016 when Kimi Raikkonen and Daniel Ricciardo weren't able to pass Max Verstappen or Sebastian Vettel respectively despite having newer tyres. The track is too aero-dependent for passing amongst closely-matched machines under latter-day regulations.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
You can't say it was "in no way Vettel's fault". I get that it's a clumsy first-lap incident in the rain, but him swinging across to defend Verstappen triggered the accident. Verstappen wasn't in the title fight – in those conditions and with Hamilton further back on the grid he should've been more focused than that.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I think you're definitely right in picking out 2007 as his defining season. Maybe this is the year he grew cynical, and that cynicism dogged his career thereafter. Would he have been so aggressive behind the scenes at Ferrari had his time at McLaren been smoother? Would he have even ended up at Ferrari in the first place? Hard to say, of course, but Alonso's career has a bunch of tantalising parallel universes in which you could imagine just about anything happening. I think Andrew Benson wrote this week that a senior RBR guy told him Alonso had been offered a Red Bull Racing contract at the end of 2007. Imagine if he'd gone — titles from 2009 to 2013 (too bad for Button, who loses his one championship in this scenario!), and then he could well have switched to Ferrari in 2015 and been in Vettel's position now, vying for his eighth world title. What a different F1 that'd be!
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Thanks for the message, mate. I think you've got it pretty much correct — the Mercedes was theoretically faster but had trouble staying at the limit, which is what Toto meant by his recurrent 'diva' commentary. The fact Mercedes blitzed qualifying last year 15-5 is testament to this. The Ferrari, on the other hand, traded absolute performance for workability. It was more a more consistent car that was easier to understand and set up. This paid great dividends early in the year, when Ferrari was able to capitalise on Mercedes's struggles, but the longer the season went on, the more consistently competitive Mercedes became. Both Hamilton and Vettel had reliability problems, though Vettel was the only one to suffer a terminal race issue when he retired in Japan with a spark plug problem. Hamilton finished outside the top five only twice; Vettel only once (excluding his two DNFs). I don't think Vettel's crashes affected reliability, but certainly his crashes counted him out of the championship. I wrote here last year that the majority of Vettel's points deficit after his retirement in Japan were actually down to driver error rather than technical fault. Would he have had enough to close the championship thereafter? That's the debatable question. Hamilton eased off once he'd won the title, so it's hard to do a straight comparison in the last few races. You'd think it'd have been close, at least.
Buffy
Guest
Michael Lamanato, i would be interested to know your take on the 2017 season. There are still debates about who had the best car of 2017. Many were of the opinion that Ferrari actually had the better car...and no, it's not just Brits who see it this way (see my above links). This is largely based on while Merc may have enjoyed a higher top speed ceiling in qualy, come race day, Ferrari's pace was often able to match Merc and was actually sometimes quicker (Hungary, Monaco, Singapore, Mexico, Malaysia, Spain & possibly Spa etc). But crucially, why many have opted for the SF70H being a better race car than the W08, was because the SF70H was a more "stable, consistent car". The SF70H was kinder on tyres, easier to setup, able to follow and had a more consistent race pace. It was always 1st or 2nd fastest on pace(apart from Monza but that was simply due to the wrong setup &; poor wet weather driving). Contrast Merc-there were quite a few races where its pace fell to 3rd fastest behind both Ferrari & RB (Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco). Plus, it was a more volatile, unpredicatable car. This is how a couple of well respected experts described it: "-"The Merc is prone to not finding that balancing point or falling off it whereas the Ferrari's performance is much more robust. All round, Ferrari is a better car" (Mark Hughes) "While the Ferrari is quick everywhere, and has a much more level overall performance from race to race, the Mercedes is unpredictable and difficult to manage and, as a race car, it is probably on balance inferior to the Ferrari" (Andrew Benson) "Ferrari argubaly was the best car, a car for all seasons, car suited every race and track, where as Merc had that diva with problems, wasn't the best car, not the best with its tyres" Will Buxton "-“For a lot of the time, Ferrari car has had the edge this season-Ferrari is a more robust/easier package” Perry McCarthy "" I think Ferrari have designed a car that is very good with the setup. They are able to find always a way to have a very balanced front and rear, and obviously this means performance.In the beginning of the year they were very good in race pace, but probably missing a little bit of top speed or qualifying performance. Now they also fix this, and the car is very well balanced." Mario Isola "Ferrari have built a wonderful car this year, whereas the Mercedes is a bit tricky and temperamental. And yet Ferrari finds itself now out of control of the championship, not least due to valuable points dropped in Baku and Singapore" James Allen Having top speed in qualy is just 1 ingredient. But it's the whole package that counts i.e. consistent race pace, how the car works with its tyres, having a workable operating window, ease of following another car, strategic operations etc. Perhaps the one area that Ferrari lacked was reliability,. But even with this, questions have to be asked whether Vettel constantly crashing his car contributed to those reliability issues. Also, it needs to be balanced against Merc's reliability issues. If i recall correctly, Hamilton had a technical fault with his headrest in Baku, had a gearbox issue in Austria, had a IT/radio breakdown in Hungary which left him unable to communicate with his team to explore a more optimum strategy. Pretty sure Bottas also had a gearbox penalty & a coulple of engine failures too. so, just as Vettel had 3 races affected by reliability, so did Hamilton I'd love to hear your opinion. Thanks . "
anon
Roar Pro
I'll address the rest later, but Vettel did not implode in Asia last year. He was taken out in Singapore and in Malaysia was unable to even set a qualifying lap. In Spain, Mercedes used Bottas as Hamilton's rear gunner in order to compromise Vettel's strategy. Mercedes had a definite performance edge. Vettel on new tyres struggled to get past rear gunner Bottas on old tyres.
Buffy
Guest
NB: Duplicate comment. Unable to remove it.
Buffy
Guest
Kimi having a poor season is irrelevant. kimi failing to extract the full potential from his championship winning car doesn't detract from Hamilton. Hamilton simply put together a better season and beat both an in prime Kimi & Masa to the title. The F2008 was arguably the better car too. "That’s absolutely false. You’re being brainwashed by Hamilton and the sychophantic British media. The only reason Hamilton didn’t romp to a championship lead was because of inconsistency." No, it's not false that Vettel led the 2017 championship for the bulk of 2017 in a very competitive car. That is a FACT. The Ferrari was quicker then Merc in many races such Hungary, Spain, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, Monaco & possibly Spa too. And the Ferrari was close on pace, nip & tuck with the Merc in many other races too. And while the W08 was a bit of a "diva" (narrow operating window, harsher on tyres, unable to follow etc), the SF70 was a more stable car. Had Vettel not imploded during the Asian leg, and lost his cool in Baku, he could have won. The SF70H was more than capable. And why the racism from you? Why call the Brits sychophantic? I assure you it wasn't just the Brits who thought Ferrari had the best car of 2017, or one atleast on a par with Merc. Many non-Brits were of the same opinion. For example, Aussie Daniel Ricciardo stated he thought the Ferrari & Merc were equally matched but Hamilton won because he kept a cooler head & maintained better consistency https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/223/ricciardo-hamilton-kept-a-cooler-head-than-vettel/ Austrian Marko Helmut also thought Ferrari had the best car of 2017 but made too many mistakeshttps://www.grandprix247.com/2017/12/21/marko-for-the-first-time-we-saw-mercedes-are-vulnerable/ Spaniard Alonso was of a similar view https://www.racefans.net/2018/04/02/racefans-round-up-02-04/ Then there was the late Italian Segio Marchionne who stated Ferrari ha the best car but was let down by driver errorhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/ferrari-chairman-driver-error-played-115640774.html American will Buxton also thought Ferrari had the strongest car of 2017, here's a clip of McEvoy addressing Buxton's claimhttp://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/f1/11168477/hamilton-wouldve-won-in-the-ferrari Austrian, Lauda, who speaks his mind, also thought Ferrari had the better car but Hamilton's consistency made the differencehttps://www.thisisf1.com/2017/11/20/hamilton-driving-like-a-god-and-gave-us-the-title-lauda/ Even German Seb, said it https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/08/29/vettel-i-believe-we-have-the-best-car/ I could provide loads more examples, but i think i have made my point. Many in and around F1 were of the opinion Ferrari had a great car in 2017, some even said it was the best. As for 2018, it's close, but Ferrari have the slight edge.
Buffy
Guest
"Kimi had a poor year as the car supposedly suited Massa more, and Massa I don’t rate. Massa did have more race wins than Hamilton in 2008. Massa was one of my favourite drivers, but he’s doesn’t belong to the top tier." Kimi having a poor season is irrelevant. kimi failing to extract the full potential from his championship winning car doesn't detract from Hamilton. Hamilton simply put together a better season and beat both an in-prime Kimi & Masa to the title. The F2008 was arguably the better car too. Certainly Rob Smedly conceded Ferrari had the better car. Either way, it was close. Fine margins. "That’s absolutely false. You’re being brainwashed by Hamilton and the sychophantic British media. The only reason Hamilton didn’t romp to a championship lead was because of inconsistency." No, it's not false that Vettel led the 2017 championship for the bulk of 2017 in a very competitive car. That is a FACT. The Ferrari was quicker then Merc in many races such Hungary, Spain, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, Monaco & possibly Spa too. And the Ferrari was close on pace, nip & tuck with the Merc in many other races too. And while the W08 was a bit of a "diva" (narrow operating window, harsher on tyres, unable to follow etc), the SF70 was a more stable car. Had Vettel not imploded during the Asian leg, and lost his cool in Baku, he could have won. The SF70H was more than capable. And why the racism from you? Why call the Brits sychophantic? I assure you it wasn't just the Brits who thought Ferrari had the best car of 2017, or one atleast on a par with Merc. Many non-Brits were of the same opinion. For example, Aussie Daniel Ricciardo stated he thought the Ferrari & Merc were equally matched but Hamilton won because he kept a cooler head & maintained better consistency https://www.eurosport.co.uk/formula-1/ricciardo-hamilton-kept-cooler-head-than-vettel_sto6429066/story.shtml Then there was the late Italian Segio Marchionne who actually thought Ferrari had the best car of 2017 but driver error contributed to their downfall https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/11/03/ferrari-chairman-driver-error-played-role-in-f1-title-defeats/ Then we have the Spaniard Fernando, Alonso, who seemed to have similar sentiments to the above two, that Ferrari had a great car, but the threw it away https://www.racefans.net/2018/04/02/racefans-round-up-02-04/ Then there was the Austrian, Helmut Marko, who had no doubts in his mind Ferrari had the best car of 2017 but the team made too many errors https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/12/21/marko-for-the-first-time-we-saw-mercedes-are-vulnerable/ Then there was the other Austrian, Lauda, who always speaks his mind, says how he sees it. He said Ferrari was the better car but Hamilton's consistency made the difference https://www.thisisf1.com/2017/11/20/hamilton-driving-like-a-god-and-gave-us-the-title-lauda/ Then there was the American Will Buxton, who, on Sky Sports review of the 2017 season, made it clear he thought Ferrari was probably the best car, while other panel members said it didn't matter, as Hamilton would have won in either the Ferrari or Merc.(unable to provide a link of Video as the full review is no longer available) but here is a short clip where McEvoy adresses Buxton's claim Ferrari was stronger car by saying it was finely balanced.https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/video/hamilton-wouldve-won-in-the-ferrari/vi-BBGFaaV Then of course there was Seb(a German)....https://www.grandprix247.com/2017/08/29/vettel-i-believe-we-have-the-best-car/ Then there was Canadia Lance Stroll who mentioned how the Merc car wasn't easy to drive, struggling in some races, but Hamilton handled the pressure better than Vettelhttps://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/625/stroll-praises-hamilton-s-ability-to-handle-pressure/ Frenchman Jean Todt, he thought Merc wasn't always the fastest. Hamilton made hardly any mistakes, but he was impressed with the Ferrari car too https://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/fia-boss-says-f1-would-be-better-less-reli I could go on, but i think i have made my point. It's not just British propoganda. Ferrari really did have a great car in 2017. A car capable of winning the title. A car that, according to many in F1, was on a par with Merc, if not better. As for 2018, it's close but consensus among those in and around F1, Ferrari have the slight edge
Buffy
Guest
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I agree he's not on Hamilton's level, and I think Rosberg probably does too! But nonetheless it was a closely contested championship that season for whatever combination of reasons. It wasn't a hollow title win.
anon
Roar Pro
The 2014 championship fight between Hamilton and Rosberg also went down to the last race. Granted Hamilton’s five in a row in the second half of the season put him in the box seat, but the season was still closely fought. Hamilton really walked to the 2015 title only. Hamilton's only competition was Rosberg. I don't think Rosberg was much quicker than Bottas (or Webber). Can you honestly say that Rosberg is a top tier driver (Verstappen, Ricciardo, Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso would be in that category). To me he's a step below. Someone that Hamilton should have beaten much like Vettel beat Webber, or Alonso beat Massa.
anon
Roar Pro
I don’t know if a buy that Vettel is at his best under pressure. There were plenty of cracks under pressure last season — Singapore being the biggest — and also in his past. I’m not saying he always folds when pressured, but I wouldn’t define him by his performances in crunch moments. He was the best under pressure in 2010 and 2012. This year he has made too many mistakes. Hitting Hamilton in Baku was stupid last year (Hamilton did slow the pack to an almost standstill though), and what happened in Singapore was overblown (was in no way Vettel's fault). Vettel's has always had good racecraft. If Vettel had been in a Mercedes the past 5 seasons with its massive straight line advantage, he wouldn't be putting his car into as many marginal situations.
anon
Roar Pro
2008 & 2017 Hamilton had competition. Agreed. But 2008 was Felipe Massa who was never really a top tier driver. He was amazing in Turkey though. Hamilton loves to talk down his equipment (as he's doing right now) to elevate his own performances, but the Mercedes was superior to the Ferrari last year apart from at a handful of tracks (Monaco, Singapore, Malaysia). He was always going to win last year. This year has been really even in terms of equipment. Swings back and forth. Mercedes were supposed to struggle in Hungary but ended up being untouchable. Vettel has certainly shot himself in the foot. 2008 – he beat the then reigning WDC (kimi) & Massa (Ferrari) Kimi had a poor year as the car supposedly suited Massa more, and Massa I don't rate. Massa did have more race wins than Hamilton in 2008. Massa was one of my favourite drivers, but he's doesn't belong to the top tier. 2017-Vettel had a very competitive car & actually led for most of the season. In fact, there are many in F1 who think Vettel had the best car of 2017 That's absolutely false. You're being brainwashed by Hamilton and the sychophantic British media. The only reason Hamilton didn't romp to a championship lead was because of inconsistency.