F1 Performance: is it the car, is it the driver?

[Cam]

Which ever way we look at this - the driver of an F1 car is over-rated. I think when all is said and done, that's he saddest thing to come out of this.

[CBeck113]

In order to make the discussion a bit clearer, I though about what makes an entry (yes, I thought alot about this phrase, you'll see why) run well in a race. This goes for qualifying as well, but the factors will be different there.
There are four direct influences for the performance of the entry during the race:
1. Car itself (Design Team)
2. Car setup (Pit Crew)
3. Race strategy (Race Team)
4. Driving (Driver)

Let's go through them individually and look at their influences.
1. The car design is relatively fix from the beginning of the season onward - only a few teams have managed to turn a dog into a thoroughbread during a single season. This is therefore the basis of the performance, and also the largest positive (i.e. go faster) influence.
2. The car setup is the symbiose between the car, driver and track - which is insuring that the maximum performance can be reached. That means, in other terms, that getting the setup right avoids losing speed, so either you're right and you get 100% from 1., or you have a negative influence.
3. The strategie is similar to the car setup; it is the symbiose between the driver, the car, the track and the other competitors, so there is an optimum, and everything else is a loss
4. The driver, if flawless, could also only achieve the theoretical maximum from the other three factors, every error reduces the speed / race result.

So, what does that all mean? The car forms the maximum, everything else is can only reduce the speed, but not increase it.

[bhall]

That sounds about right.

Which ever way we look at this - the driver of an F1 car is over-rated. I think when all is said and done, that's he saddest thing to come out of this.

I don't think there's anything sad about it. This is just how Formula One works.

Look at it like this: since necessity is the mother of all invention, and the performance capabilities of the cars constitute the bulk of a team's chances for success, designers and engineers have a very good reason to continually push boundaries in order to make their cars better. If this thing was all about the drivers, you'd probably end up with very NASCAR-like stagnated development. Sprint Cup cars didn't use unleaded fuel until 2008 or electronic fuel injection until 2012!

(It also makes it a helluva lot easier to avoid the many "my favorite driver can beat up your favorite driver" circlejerks that spring up around here from time to time. You can just sit back, secure in the knowledge that it's always the car, and let everyone else look like a jackass.)

But it would not dispel the idea that drivers are the performance differentiator? Max Chilton bagging pole in a Merc and Hamilton languishing down in 20th will quickly show that.
Even if only once a year....non championship, with the top guys getting the worst and the bottom guys getting the best. Could even become a showpiece like Monaco, only with racing.

I guess I'm just lukewarm to the idea. And I think drivers/fans/etc would still find something to argue about.

I wouldn't mind seeing all the drivers go at it in karts, though.

[Cam]

So, what does that all mean? The car forms the maximum, everything else is can only reduce the speed, but not increase it.

That's probably the best single sentence to sum this all up.

[Cam]

But it would not dispel the idea that drivers are the performance differentiator? Max Chilton bagging pole in a Merc and Hamilton languishing down in 20th will quickly show that.
Even if only once a year....non championship, with the top guys getting the worst and the bottom guys getting the best. Could even become a showpiece like Monaco, only with racing.

I guess I'm just lukewarm to the idea. And I think drivers/fans/etc would still find something to argue about.

I wouldn't mind seeing all the drivers go at it in karts, though.

Isn't this what the F1 drivers used to do? On a race weekend they'd either race in different classes, sometimes against other F1 drivers, or they'd race in different classes in-between F1 races. Maybe this is where the driver earned his respect? Nowadays, they drive only and F1 car on a race weekend and if it rains, they don't even do that!

Perhaps part of the perception problem is that drivers simply don't do enough anymore? Don't NASCAR drivers sometimes race multiple categories on a race weekend, even jumping into an INDY car? If we really want to see how good a driver is, F1 might need to think about 'the spectacle' and make the drivers work a bit more?

[FoxHound]

Less aero and more mechanical grip would be a decent start.

Re mixing drivers and cars, the race of champions does this, but its quite neutered given its inside a stadium.

[Mandrake]

Less aero and more mechanical grip would be a decent start.

Re mixing drivers and cars, the race of champions does this, but its quite neutered given its inside a stadium.

I was thinking of ROC as well. It shows a driver's strengths and weaknesses even though it's in a stadium. MSC was a god in open wheeler, but had trouble beating the opposition in a different car. All Rally drivers do very well, one reason why I think that those drivers are the best in the world, I wonder what a young Loeb or now Ogier would do in an F1 car.

In ROC Vettel was no slouch, he's won the team championship a couple of times and did well in the driver vs driver competition as well. Across all cars.

[mnmracer]

All Rally drivers do very well, one reason why I think that those drivers are the best in the world, I wonder what a young Loeb or now Ogier would do in an F1 car.

I think that has more to do with the cars they're used to racing all year.
Racing is a specialism, but different racing classes on their own are as well.

Not saying that rally drivers are or are not the best drivers in the world, just saying that you can't say that based on a one-off event once a year where cars are driven that are more similar to those that one set of drivers drive all year.

[WaikeCU]

OFF Topic:
It's hard to say but how much difference is there between NASCAR and Indycar and vice versa? Both run ovals and have road courses too. Does that mean Kyle Busch going from NASCAR to Indycar is easier than for example Danica Patrick moving from Indycar to NASCAR?

I don't think I have seen someone make a successful transition between a single seater to something more like stock car racing, do I?

ON Topic:
I think the introduction of electronics and computers within the sport is decisive to the outcome of F1 nowadays. When everything is electronically transmitted or computer driven, then a huge part of what the performance of each team is down to who has the strongest IT engineering team/skills. Engine mapping issues are software related issues. That's probably also the reason I think that a lot of electronic aids are banned like traction control, launch control, active suspension, etc. not only to slow down cars for safety reasons, but to also close up the field.

[mnmracer]

In today's F1, with mostly homogeneous electronics, I don't think the impact of an IT team is that big. In the end, it's just a matter of gathering data, understanding how it relates to what the driver feels, and translating that to set-up changes. Although there is more data than in the '50s, when 'data' was a fancy word for "the car slides a bit in turn 5", I don't think it makes much difference in the importance for a driver to understand their car. When Fangio and Moss said "the car slides", it was ultimately their understanding of cause and effect that improved set-up. When Alonso and Vettel now say "the car slides, look at that peak in the data", again it is their basic feel and understanding that improves the set-up. Everyone can collect data, in the end it's the drivers that need to know how to use it.

[Andres125sx]

The car or the driver?

What seasson?


2014 seasson, it´s all the car, if Chilton and Ericson would be driving for Mercedes, they will be leading the championship

But 2008 seasson.... The driver played a higher role as Ferrari and Mclaren performed much closer. IMO Ferrari was a bit better, but Hamilton made the difference

Or 2012 seasson, Red Bull was the best, but not that far, so Alonso put some excitement to the championship.


You can´t put a number (car 80% and driver 20%) as it depends on the difference between different cars. Actually the percentage varies at any single GP, as perfomance of cars are not the same thought the whole seasson. Maybe at one race the drivers don´t play any role, and next one it´s all about the driver because perfomance of cars are quite similar. Extreme example here, but you get the idea


So we can be discussing this forever, and we will probably never get any reasonable conclusion

edited to clarify, my english sucks

[FoxHound]

I think a reasonable conclusion had been deduced.

It's always the car.

You will of course have to negotiate your team mate.
Dependent on stature within the team this can be made easier or more difficult.

[FoxHound]

So, what does that all mean? The car forms the maximum, everything else is can only reduce the speed, but not increase it.

That's probably the best single sentence to sum this all up.

Just floating the idea...that a car does not or will not think for itself.
A driver can push a car to its maximum, and indeed beyond (with repercussions). Its at this juncture a team can utilise the data from feedback and telemetry to make the unthinking machine faster.

And I dont mean to the extent of EBD or DDD. Those are gamechangers beyond feedback. I mean in terms of balance, getting the right ideas onto problematic areas to extract more from the initial concept. Evolution.

[Kiril Varbanov]

I'm slightly steering away with an article of what the drivers need to do and why in order to provide the best of their bodies:
http://f1framework.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... mands.html

The article is solely written by a real doctor.

[Kingshark]

I know. It's ridiculous how the memory selectively chooses what is "great".

Here's some examples:
• Alonso (the "best" driver in F1) - can't win a WDC in a Ferrari.
• Webber (highly regarded) - can't win a WDC in the best F1 cars (RB6, 7, 8 & 9).
• Button (average at best) - wins a WDC in a trick car, can't get close before or since.

I think you need to switch Webber and Button's descriptions around.

Jenson's 2009 WDC campaign is surely one of the most underrated in recent history.

1. Red Bull, on balance, had just as many weekends where they were quicker than Brawn as vice versa. The cars were very equal across the season. The RB5 was hands down the best car after Turkey.
2. Jenson's consistency in the first 7 races was extraordinary: 1 1 3 1 1 1 1. This immense consistency in the first 7 races is what gave him a 26 point buffer over his own teammate and the RBR drivers.
3. Barrichello, Vettel, and Webber all made countless mistakes and silly errors throughout 2009. Apart from a 50/50 collision in Spa, Jenson was incident free all year long.

I'm hardly a fan of JB, and I have criticized him many times on other forums. But people need to realize that his 2009 championship victory was not only because of the car, it was because of his immense first half of the season, and immeasurable consistency.