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

[marcush.]

"

Schumacher's "dog" Ferrari was the second best car in the grid. And it had, especially against the McLarens, very good reliability. It didn't matter how close or far he was from them, if they didn't finish he won by default.

Schumacher benefitted plenty from Senna dying, Benneton cheating, FIA helping Ferrari win again in every way they could, a dream leadership team at Ferrari, etc.
"

in 1996 Schumachers Ferrari was a lot of things but not reliable....Ferrari managed to have the car breaking down in the Formation lap in Magny Cours ...and loose all but 1 (!)gear in Barcelona -this did not stop Schumi from winning races.

None of the current crop of Heros have pulled anything remotely comparable -don´t you think so ? Senna clearly was outlandish even compared to Schumacher but thosse 4 titles of Vettel are owed to newey for supplying the goods and Vettel for being one well grounded and talented and deterined Driver ...no doubt Alonso , Rosberg ,Hamilton , Raikkonen ,Schumacher ,Button and some more would have bagged similar results ín this machinery -but they had Webber under contract for good reason.

[Stradivarius]

In general, I rarely agree when people talk about drivers who win races in a dog of a car. I find it easier to believe that a car which is generally not among the best, some times can work quite well. And of course the oposite might also be true some times: a car that generally performs well may behave like a dog in certain circumstances. When Alonso won in Malaysia in 2012, it wasn't some miracle performance in a dog of a car. For some reason, on that track in those weather conditions and with that setup, Alonsos car performed very well. That's why he won. And I can say the same about Pastor Maldonados victory in Spain the same year, just prove my point. If Alonso is able to win with "dogs of cars", why has it been more than a year since he won a race?

I appreciate that the driver can make a big difference, and we have seen drivers like Alonso and Hamilton really do well, while their team mates have been nowhere. But that doesn't mean they are driving fast with a slow car, it simply means they have some how been able to exploit the strengths of the car. And I think the same is true with Vettel just as with Alonso or any other "great driver". It wasn't all about the car when Vettel won 4 straight titles. Actually, Webber was never even able to finish 2nd in the championship, which means he was always beaten by at least one driver from a different team. So it was definitely not all about the car.

Ricciardo is probably the best team mate Vettel ever had. In my opinion it's too soon to compare them accurately, especially since Red Bull is struggling with reliability issues, but Ricciardo seems to perform very well. There is no way we can conclude if this means Vettel isn't as good as the very best, or if Ricciardo is in fact among the very best himself.

[SiLo]

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.

A WDC is the perfect combination of everything. Ever single thing has to be 'perfect' for it to happen. Now do that 4 times straight. It's freakish. Yes the car played a part, but someone had to steer it cleanly lap after lap for 4 years. The pressure, the hype, the expectations. Having to deal with that and still get results is nothing short of 'great'.

Hate the man. Yes. Worship the car. Yes. But the combination was nothing short of brilliance. To dismiss that simply misses what F1 is - really hard to win.

The only problem there is that those three drivers might have been winning championships but they were racing against Vettel in a superior car (Webber just wasn't as well adapted).

[FoxHound]

It wasn't all about the car when Vettel won 4 straight titles. Actually, Webber was never even able to finish 2nd in the championship, which means he was always beaten by at least one driver from a different team. So it was definitely not all about the car.

Ricciardo is probably the best team mate Vettel ever had. In my opinion it's too soon to compare them accurately, especially since Red Bull is struggling with reliability issues, but Ricciardo seems to perform very well. There is no way we can conclude if this means Vettel isn't as good as the very best, or if Ricciardo is in fact among the very best himself.

I disagree. It is about the car, and it has been for each and every champion.
By making a comparison between Webber and Vettel, you are talking about a journeyman who rarely exhibited more potential than being proficient.
Now I'm gonna just float the boat that Red Bull consciously made the decision to have a clear 1 and 2 driver so as to establish a clear Modus Operandi at GP weekends.

Indeed, this can be correlated with events that unfolded during their tenure together.

Equally, you can plot exactly why Raikkonen was not picked up by Red Bull when he was available a couple of seasons ago, and this season before signing for Ferrari.
He would not play the poor relation in the team.

Even the signing of Ricciardo looked like a continuation of the theme, under the guise that Red Bull utilise their driver programme. Ricciardo was not clearly better than Vergne. And some may argue aptly that it could easily be Vergne sitting in the RB10 today.

Either way, Ricciardo having being plucked from a midfield team, with mid ranging performances dovetailed nicely with the Red Bull Modus Operandi.

Only it hasn't worked out so well for Vettel. 6 races in amd he sits behind Ricciardo in terms of Qualy and Points, despite being DQ'd twice, which near nullifies Vettels reliability woes.

I think it is a blessing in disguise the RB10 is not the creme de la creme this year, because I could envision Ricciardo doing a number on Vettel based primarily on these 6 races.

Note, final judgment should be reserved for the season end. And this aint a love song, nor is it hating.
I want to know if these four titles are more than just Newey powered statistical exercises, which some have intimated.

[SpecialCircumstances]

No one has EVER won a title in anything other than the best (or equal best) car. No one win on outright merit races with a "dog" car on the day. It is ALWAYS about the car. The driver is judged by how well he uses it and how much he maximises its potential.

I'm not the one here making claims that Vettel is super special. I'm disputing the claim that drivers like Alonso and Hamilton, ESPECIALLY Hamilton, have somehow proven to be able to win in "dog" cars (when did Hamilton ever do that) and they have nothing to prove while Vettel does.

As far as v Ricciardo goes. Over the course of the season Vettel will absolutely be judged on how good of a job he's done. But the claim that he "has" to destroy his teammate is a complete joke and an utter diservice to Ricciardo as well.

If Vettel, hypothetically speaking would get 100% out of the car and Ricciardo matches that...that's somehow a knock on Vettel? And not a testament to how good Ricciardo is? Great logic there. And if you say "well how can we know he got 100% out of the car". You can't really can you? Not fully. Which further goes to show how ludicrous it is to claim it "proves" anything.

[JimClarkFan]

No one has EVER won a title in anything other than the best (or equal best) car. No one win on outright merit races with a "dog" car on the day. It is ALWAYS about the car. The driver is judged by how well he uses it and how much he maximises its potential.

I'm not the one here making claims that Vettel is super special. I'm disputing the claim that drivers like Alonso and Hamilton, ESPECIALLY Hamilton, have somehow proven to be able to win in "dog" cars (when did Hamilton ever do that) and they have nothing to prove while Vettel does.

As far as v Ricciardo goes. Over the course of the season Vettel will absolutely be judged on how good of a job he's done. But the claim that he "has" to destroy his teammate is a complete joke and an utter diservice to Ricciardo as well.

If Vettel, hypothetically speaking would get 100% out of the car and Ricciardo matches that...that's somehow a knock on Vettel? And not a testament to how good Ricciardo is? Great logic there. And if you say "well how can we know he got 100% out of the car". You can't really can you? Not fully. Which further goes to show how ludicrous it is to claim it "proves" anything.

You can't of course out perform the car, but you can push it further than anyone else can.

And this is the thing, Alonso in 2010 and especially 2012 nearly did exactly that. If it wasn't for Grosjean in Spa 2012 Alonso would be 2012 WDC....

And I know these are strong words... but in my opinion, Alonso already a great, was confirmed to me as the greatest F1 driver of all time after the 2012 season.

I know that reeks of 'fanboy' because it is not verifiable. But I can't help but feel like we will not see the likes of Alonso for a very long time

[Cam]

And this is the thing, Alonso in 2010 and especially 2012 nearly did exactly that. If it wasn't for Grosjean in Spa 2012 Alonso would be 2012 WDC....

See, this is what I don't get. Massa let Alonso past in 2010 at least once. Factually, Massa let Alonso through many many times each season, even breaking seals and dropping grid spots for him. Perez even (questionably) let him past. So Alonso's performance and points tally is false. Alonso had a gifted run every championship. How 'great' it must be to have competitors move aside for you.

Alonso had a golden spoon run against a patsy teammate with the premiere sports car manufacturer and still couldn't do it.

If Alonso wants my respect as a 'great', he'll need to move teams and go against a real teammate, without the team favoritism. Until then, he'll always be questioned IMO.

[Sulman]

No one has EVER won a title in anything other than the best (or equal best) car. No one win on outright merit races with a "dog" car on the day. It is ALWAYS about the car. The driver is judged by how well he uses it and how much he maximises its potential.

The only exception I can think of in the time I've been watching was 1995. The B195 wasn't quite up to the pedigree of the FW17 but Schumacher was unstoppable from the Spanish GP.

[zeph]

No one has EVER won a title in anything other than the best (or equal best) car. No one win on outright merit races with a "dog" car on the day. It is ALWAYS about the car. The driver is judged by how well he uses it and how much he maximises its potential.

The only exception I can think of in the time I've been watching was 1995. The B195 wasn't quite up to the pedigree of the FW17 but Schumacher was unstoppable from the Spanish GP.

Perhaps, but then again it wasn't so bad that Johnny Herbert couldn't win twice in it. And they had Brawn and Byrne, among others who would later form the nucleus of Schu's team of champions at Ferrari. All in all, Benetton won 11 of 17 GP's that year and clinched both WDC and WCC. People in the paddock could say it was inferior to the Williams, but I find it hard to argue with stats like these.

I would nominate Piquet's Brabham BT52 as the title-winning car that was third -or maybe second- best. But Prost said they won because of illegal fuel, so who knows...

Prost's McLaren also won the WDC in 1986 when the Williams was by far the best car on the grid.

[beelsebob]

I'd nominate the MP4-23 as a car that was second best, but that the driver won the championship in it. For me (and the constructors result), the F2008 was a far superior car.

[zeph]

Yes, I was gonna mention that as well, but I think those cars were a lot closer. If McLaren would have held on to Alonso (or secure another top driver), I don't know that Ferrari would have clinched the WCC.

[bhall]

I don't understand how it's regularly implied that Driver X is, or was, somehow able to do "more with with a car than should be possible," or however else it's stated. Am I missing portions of grands prix in which drivers have to physically push their cars forward? Coverage of F1 here in the States is awful, but I didn't think it was that bad.

I think it's really quite simple, and it takes a whole lot of the guesswork out of things: aside from the results of an intra-team battle, it's always the car, because a driver can never, ever exceed the capabilities of his car without crashing. That's sorta how limits work, yanno?

There are a few Vettel supporters who are especially bad about this. As if winning four straight titles, literally accomplishing all that's possible over the span of four years, isn't enough, somehow his achievements have to be made into something else entirely. (I've actually seen it stated that the RB7, the car with the most downforce in the history of the --- sport, was "overrated." )

Some folks like to say Alonso "flattered" the F2012, and I think that's bullshit, too. The F2012 provided him with the opportunity to compete for the Championship down to the last race. If it was a bad car, that would have been impossible. And as much as he was hobbled by external circumstances (the Flying Grosjean), he made his own mistakes, too (Suzuka).

The same goes for Hamilton and the MP4-23. He won, because it allowed him to win. Even after he turned on the pitlane limiter on-track in Brazil. ("Supposedly.")

Maybe that car was stronger than the F2008; maybe not. That the F2008 delivered the Constructors' Championship is not an solid argument in my view, since Ferrari had two good drivers that year to McLaren's 1.5.

Drivers' Championship = best car. Constructors' Championship = best drivers. Double = incredible car. We kinda rely on the top teams to pick the best drivers. Weird, I know.

I get that this is off-topic. It just annoys me to see stuff like this said so frequently, but maybe that's my own fault. I'm weird.

[Cam]

I've never suggested that a driver can do more than a car is capable of - but I do think that certain drivers can exploit a car's abilities more than others. This lies at the crux of all my arguments.

I disagree with your notion of "Drivers' Championship = best car. Constructors' Championship = best drivers. Double = incredible car." - In fact, I think it spits in the face of the drivers who command those same cars, lap after lap, race after race. The car does nothing. It's just a tool. The person wields the tool. The greatest car can still never win if a poor driver is in it. Conversely a poor car can beat a better car driven by a poor driver and team - if the driver and tactics are better deployed.

I guess this is why we all have different opinions - life would be pretty boring if we all thought the same eh?

[djos]

I think the whole argument about drivers getting more out of a car than possible boils down to this:

Driver A is able to drive Car X to 95% of it's capability

Driver B is able drive Car X to 100% of it's capability


Reason: Driver B is able to understand and feel what Car X is doing better and is therefore able to utilize to to its maximum potential.

Eg the car might feel slightly unstable in the rear to driver A and as a result won't push past a certain point, but Driver B works out how to read this behavior and exploit it to go faster.

[bhall]

[...]
I disagree with your notion of "Drivers' Championship = best car. Constructors' Championship = best drivers. Double = incredible car." - In fact, I think it spits in the face of the drivers who command those same cars, lap after lap, race after race. The car does nothing. It's just a tool. The person wields the tool. The greatest car can still never win if a poor driver is in it. Conversely a poor car can beat a better car driven by a poor driver and team - if the driver and tactics are better deployed.
[...]

Ah, if you didn't like that, you're gonna hate this: I think the FIA Formula One World Drivers' Championship is one of the more overrated achievements in all of sports, because I think it has precious little to say, as it were, about who was actually the best driver throughout any given year. The relative levels of success sustained by F1 drivers are entirely too dependent upon the machinery to make such a claim with any realistic measure of objectivity.

Like I said before, we sorta rely on the teams to weed out the good drivers from the bad drivers in the hope that the best make it to the front. Otherwise, the direct battle between teammates in the same car is the only objective measure of ability presently available for comparing drivers.

That's a major reason why spec-series exist today. Folks just got tired of arguing over what can only ever be a subjective claim about drivers within a realm where the car represents the lion's share of all performance variables. By extension, that's why we have a single tire supplier now. It's supposed to be about the cars, not the tires, which, if left open to competition, represent the largest performance variable in all motor racing between cars within the same "class."

Performance variables are an enemy to objectivity here.

Think about it: has the skillset of the defending four-time World Champion suddenly deteriorated to the point where a driver who classified in lowly 14th-place last year is rather handily outpacing him this year? Or does Ricciardo possess some sort of superhuman powers that have allowed him to make one of the biggest year-to-year jumps in talent the sport has ever seen? (Or maybe, just maybe, the car has something to do with it.)

Even more absurd: it cannot be argued objectively that Jules Bianchi did not have the best season last year of any driver who has ever participated in the sport. The metrics just don't exist.

EDIT: Sorry about the walls of text.

EDIT 2: As long as we're talking about Car X only, not Car X and Car Y, I completely agree with djos above.