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

[Cam]

Yes, but I think it's more in-depth that that - which is why I don't like the argument that another driver would have won the WDC in Vettel's car. Sure it was a quick car - but would that driver had the ability to drive it way Vettel did? We can see really experienced drivers struggling in todays' cars - this doesn't mean they forgot how to drive, they just can't wrap their heads around getting the most of the vehicle underneath them. Maybe another driver can?

Example: What about the way Senna 'tapped' the throttle to spool the turbo? Yes, the car had all the potential in the world, but it was only a certain driver that could exploit it fully - right car, right driver, right team, right time. Another driver in that car might not have won the WDC. So the car is part of the equation (albeit a big part).

[Cam]

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 most 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.

Actually, we agree more often than not bhall - this is another of those cases. You're right, to a point - how sad is that fact though

[bhall]

When I'm right on any level, it's a sure sign something is seriously wrong with the question.

The answer to who's the better driver will only ever be as solid as an argument either way, though. It will never be a definitive demonstration of one or the other.

I think you could put every ounce of Senna's talent in a bad car, and an average driver in a great car would beat him eight or nine times out of ten. That's just how it works.

(This is also why I tend to follow teams instead of drivers. It's a helluva lot easier to compare cars objectively.)

[Stradivarius]

After claiming his second title in 2006, becomming the youngest ever world champion and double world champion (up to then), Alonso was regarded the biggest star in formula 1 in 2007, especially since Schumacher had retired and there was no other world champions left on the grid. But then Alonso failed to beat his rookie team mate, they were practically identical in overall performance and scored 109 points each. Does that mean everyone had been wrong about Alonso? Or does it mean his team mate was also a world class driver? I think the answer to that question is obvious.

Now, Vettel has surpassed Alonso and won twice as many titles, but it seems his relatively inexperienced team mate is on the same level. How can we know that this is not a new example like Alonso and Hamilton in 2007? Who can with confidence say that Ricciardo would have been beaten soundly by Alonso or Hamilton if they were team mates? I guess discussions like this will always appear, but I think history has shown us how difficult it is to rate and compare drivers accross teams. Before Raikkonen came to Ferrari, many people had the impression that Massa was chosen as a number 2 driver who would not be able to challenge the number 1. But then Raikkonen came and was indeed challenged by Massa. A few years later, Button came to McLaren and people said he was stupid because Hamilton would destroy him. But althoug some claim that is what happened, Button ended up scoring more points than Hamilton over 3 full seasons, and even if you can say Hamilton had more bad luck, it turned out that the difference wasn't that great after all. When luck is the decisive factor over 3 seasons and 58 races, the difference can't have been massive. Of course, Hamilton was faster, even in 2011, but overall, he wasn't much better.

Then we have some examples of the opposite. In 2005 Fisichella arrived at Renault and Montoya moved to McLaren and people talked about how exciting these two team battles would be, expecting a close battle. Nobody predicted that Montoya would generally struggle to perform on Raikkonen's level (with a few exceptions), while Fisichella would practically be helpless alongside Alonso. I remember a message to Fisichella over the team radio once, when he was told something like: "You are currently two seconds slower than Alonso. We know you have some under-steer, but you cannot be two seconds slower. Come on!" Alonso won the championship. Fisichella, despite a flying start with a victory under lucky conditions in the first race, was 5th in the championship, scoring only 58 points compared to Alonsos 133.

This proves, in my opinion, that it is not all about the car. Fisichella had the best car in 2005, but he didn't win and wasn't even close. Schumacher out-scored both Fisichella and Montoya in 2005 despite inferior machinery. Webber had the best car last year, but didn't win a single race, despite his team mate setting a new record with 9 victories in a row, equaling Schumacher's record of 13 victories during one season. Webber even failed to take 2nd place in most of these races. The most extreme example I can t hink of, however, is the 1994 season, when Schumacher was quickest in every single race where he didn't have car problems or penalties set him back. Meanwhile, his team mates were generally unable to score points and only managed to do so on 4 occasions from 18 race starts. Let me add that it is always in the team's interest that both their drivers can challenge the opponents from other teams, but in Benetton in 1994, Schumacher got no help and Hill scored an easy 20 points in those races where a different driver sat in Schumacher's car.

[turbof1]

When I'm right on any level, it's a sure sign something is seriously wrong with the question.

The answer to who's the better driver will only ever be as solid as an argument either way, though. It will never be a definitive demonstration of one or the other.

I think you could put every ounce of Senna's talent in a bad car, and an average driver in a great car would beat him eight or nine times out of ten. That's just how it works.

(This is also why I tend to follow teams instead of drivers. It's a helluva lot easier to compare cars objectively.)

There's an exception: sometimes circumstances (partly) level out car performance, being it rain, tracks like Monaco, etc. Though even with that taken in mind, beating the worse car 8 out of 10 times still sounds right.

This proves, in my opinion, that it is not all about the car. Fisichella had the best car in 2005, but he didn't win and wasn't even close. Schumacher out-scored both Fisichella and Montoya in 2005 despite inferior machinery. Webber had the best car last year, but didn't win a single race, despite his team mate setting a new record with 9 victories in a row, equaling Schumacher's record of 13 victories during one season. Webber even failed to take 2nd place in most of these races. The most extreme example I can t hink of, however, is the 1994 season, when Schumacher was quickest in every single race where he didn't have car problems or penalties set him back. Meanwhile, his team mates were generally unable to score points and only managed to do so on 4 occasions from 18 race starts. Let me add that it is always in the team's interest that both their drivers can challenge the opponents from other teams, but in Benetton in 1994, Schumacher got no help and Hill scored an easy 20 points in those races where a different driver sat in Schumacher's car.

Fisichella didn't have the quickest car (perhaps overall the best car, but mclaren was on pure pace faster. With both your teammate faster and 2 drivers from the faster team, winning becomes very difficult.

Same for Webber: The red bull was a monster in qualy in the second part of last season, but often had fierce opposition in the race from the likes of Lotus, with Mercedes also sometimes being around. race performance wise the red bull wasn't overly dominant but had a consistent advantage. Mark also had technical issues almost every single race, combining with bad starts.

[Richard]

Sorry to jump on my hobby horse again but ….

Times are somewhat different nowadays due to the increasing professionalism of the teams and maturity of the technology. One consequence is that cars perform pretty much at the same level for lap after lap, race after race. The result is that marginal improvements are now tiny compared to previous decades and we can see that in the relatively consistent order on the grid, and the very low attrition rates in races.

I’d say that the car's optimal performance is much better defined and the telemetry means there's less fumbling to find it. So there is much less unfulfilled performance for a diver to exploit. Hence the driver has very little chance to unlock potential to make the car go faster. Perhaps drivers should be judged on their ability to not lose performance? So rather that say Alonso brings 6 tenths, it’d be better to say he fails to lose 6 tenths, unlike Fisichella.

Getting back on topic, it appears that Ricciardo has shown he does not lose any potential from the car’s performance. As for Vettel, his car/driver combination should be a lot better but only the team have the telemetry to know if it is him or unlucky circumstances with the car, more likely a bit of both?

Finally, I do wonder if Red Bull somehow replicated the handling of this season’s car when they tested Ricciardo last year? For example did they reduce the downforce and hot/cold blowing for the EBD? Maybe that’s when they realised he would be well suited to the current formula?

[Stradivarius]

Fisichella didn't have the quickest car (perhaps overall the best car, but mclaren was on pure pace faster. With both your teammate faster and 2 drivers from the faster team, winning becomes very difficult.

That's exactly what I was getting at! When you look at the difference between drivers in the same team, and compare this difference with that between each team, you see that the difference between drivers is not at all marginal when comparing to the difference between teams. If we look at the points, it doesn't make much sense to consider the slowest teams, as they rarely score points, but the top teams can be considered. Since I was talking about 2005, here is the list of the 6 best teams and their points, along with the distribution on drivers:

Code: Select all

Team       Points         Driver 1       Driver 2          Driver 1 - Driver 2     (Driver 1 + Driver 2)/2
Renault     191             133             58                      75                     95.5
McLaren     182 (-9)        112             72                      40                     91 (-4.5)
Ferrari     100 (-91)        62             38                      24                     50 (-45.5)
Toyota       88 (-103)       45             43                       2                     44 (-51.5)
Williams     66 (-125)       36             28                       8                     33 (-62.5)
BAR          38 (-143)       37              1                      36                     19 (-76.5)

I might add that McLaren had 3 Drivers 2, but they are treated as one here.

We clearly see that the driver makes a big difference in many cases. Of course, the team/car is more important, but in terms of points, we see that the difference between Alonso and Fisichella was similar to the difference between Renault and Ferrari. In other words, Ferrari may have wished they had a car (and tyres) that performed as the Renault (Michelin), but they wouldn't have been any better off if they had to let Fisichella drive it.

As richard_leeds likes to point out, the performance curve tends to flatten out over time, but this general rule applies to drivers as well as to teams/cars. I actually think we only have 4 drivers left from 2005; those 3 who have driven for Ferrari the last few years, and Jenson Button. So it is possible that the drivers are more closely matched today as well.

[basti313]

I think the problem with Vettel is motivation. The man has won 4 WC's, scores of GP's. poles, etc. He knows better than anybody else that he does not have an engine to compete with Mercedes and the best he could hope for, is 3rd at best. For Ricciardo 3rd is fantastic and he is out of his skin at his achievement, but Vettel? Give him adequate power behind him in his Red Bull to be able to compete for the win and you will see Vettel return to form.

Well then how come Fred and Lewis always manage to shine in a slower car? They're both champs with scores of race win.

??? When did they do this? I think it is hard to find more than one occasion of this for each of them, but always? Especially with the background of both throwing away championships...

[beelsebob]

??? When did they do this? I think it is hard to find more than one occasion of this for each of them, but always? Especially with the background of both throwing away championships...

You don't win a championship in a slower car by only shining in it once.

[Pierce89]

I think the problem with Vettel is motivation. The man has won 4 WC's, scores of GP's. poles, etc. He knows better than anybody else that he does not have an engine to compete with Mercedes and the best he could hope for, is 3rd at best. For Ricciardo 3rd is fantastic and he is out of his skin at his achievement, but Vettel? Give him adequate power behind him in his Red Bull to be able to compete for the win and you will see Vettel return to form.

Well then how come Fred and Lewis always manage to shine in a slower car? They're both champs with scores of race win.

??? When did they do this? I think it is hard to find more than one occasion of this for each of them, but always? Especially with the background of both throwing away championships...

Both of them have won plenty of races against faster Red Bulls, which also destroys the claim of them "throwing away championships". In 201-13, Vettel should never of had Mclaren or Ferrari drivers near him in the points in the first place, such was the level of Red Bull's superiority as a team. You could argue 2012, but Alonso's car was WAY SLOWER than Vettel's , and Hamilton's car hit the self destruct button every time Lewis got close to the front. On balance, 1-2 is Fernewis while 3-5 is Rosccardttel


Edit for clarity: the last sentence is saying that Fernando and Lewis are roughly equal at the top while Rosberg,Vettel, and Ricciardo are roughly equal at the next tier.

[mnmracer]

Well then how come Fred and Lewis always manage to shine in a slower car? They're both champs with scores of race win.

??? When did they do this? I think it is hard to find more than one occasion of this for each of them, but always? Especially with the background of both throwing away championships...

Both of them have won plenty of races against faster Red Bulls, which also destroys the claim of them "throwing away championships". In 201-13, Vettel should never of had Mclaren or Ferrari drivers near him in the points in the first place, such was the level of Red Bull's superiority as a team. You could argue 2012, but Alonso's car was WAY SLOWER than Vettel's , and Hamilton's car hit the self destruct button every time Lewis got close to the front. On balance, 1-2 is Fernewis while 3-5 is Rosccardttel

Of course it's easier to 'always shine in a slower car' when people's default reaction is "well, that Red Bull was supposed to win, but the Ferrari, it's only the 25th fastest car!" People don't have many expectations when it's a car not at the front, so they'll be much easier impressed.

Was Vettel a better driver in 2008 when he "managed to shine in a slower car" than during his winning spree?
Was Hamilton a better driver last year when he didn't just win every race in the fastest car?
Do you really think that during Schumacher's Ferrari-championship years he was a worse driver than in 1997-1999?

This 'fastest car' penalty placed on drivers is little more than Hollywood romance.

[beelsebob]

??? When did they do this? I think it is hard to find more than one occasion of this for each of them, but always? Especially with the background of both throwing away championships...

Both of them have won plenty of races against faster Red Bulls, which also destroys the claim of them "throwing away championships". In 201-13, Vettel should never of had Mclaren or Ferrari drivers near him in the points in the first place, such was the level of Red Bull's superiority as a team. You could argue 2012, but Alonso's car was WAY SLOWER than Vettel's , and Hamilton's car hit the self destruct button every time Lewis got close to the front. On balance, 1-2 is Fernewis while 3-5 is Rosccardttel

Of course it's easier to 'always shine in a slower car' when people's default reaction is "well, that Red Bull was supposed to win, but the Ferrari, it's only the 25th fastest car!" People don't have many expectations when it's a car not at the front, so they'll be much easier impressed.

Was Vettel a better driver in 2008 when he "managed to shine in a slower car" than during his winning spree?

No, because as we all know, there are reasons why that happened. It wasn't shining in a slower car, it was just a car that happened to work very well in very specific circumstances. Much like Maldonado at Spain.

Was Hamilton a better driver last year when he didn't just win every race in the fastest car?

He didn't have the fastest car, so...

Do you really think that during Schumacher's Ferrari-championship years he was a worse driver than in 1997-1999?

No, but I do think that 2004 is in no way indicative of a great racing driver (much like 2014 isn't either).

This 'fastest car' penalty placed on drivers is little more than Hollywood romance.

And a car that can go much faster than everyone else's.

[FoxHound]

This 'fastest car' penalty placed on drivers is little more than Hollywood romance.

This "fastest driver" penalty placed on cars is little more than Bollywood romance.

As if by.....

[bhall]

[...]

Was Vettel a better driver in 2008 when he "managed to shine in a slower car" than during his winning spree?
Was Hamilton a better driver last year when he didn't just win every race in the fastest car?
Do you really think that during Schumacher's Ferrari-championship years he was a worse driver than in 1997-1999?

This 'fastest car' penalty placed on drivers is little more than Hollywood romance.

I'm not exactly sure what that Hamilton statement means or implies, but the rest appear to strongly support the reality that success is driven by the car, which would seem to contradict the point I think you might be trying to make here.

Vettel took a Newey-designed car and won a race in 2008, outperforming a teammate who was so poorly regarded that he was dropped mid-season the next year. He also beat his future teammate who drove the same car (STR3 = RB4), foreshadowing the next five years of Vettel's career.

But, what does that say that we don't already know? Of course, he's better than Webber in Newey's cars. That much is absolutely certain.

And I think Schumacher's Championship drought between his Benetton victories and Ferrari's domination from 2000-2004 is perhaps the best possible example of how success is always about the car, because it's quite illustrative of how things work in a developmental race series.

Schumacher didn't lose skill during those years in between; his cars were worse. When they were once again good enough to fight for Championships, he resumed the fight for Championships. If it's gonna be said that driver talent largely determines success relative to drivers of other cars, it should also be said that it's unlikely there would have been a gap between his Championship runs. He would have just willed those shitboxes to victory anyway.

It's always the car.

[FoxHound]

It's always the car.