Picking a driver to pull performance out of a car

[raymondu999]

I generally agree ray, the one really big blight on Webber's copybook is his failure to understand the Pirelli tires last year until quite late in the season (heck even Lewis took a while to adapt). However Vettel has shown many times if he isn't 100% happy with the car then he really struggles, not to the same level as Massa or JB but he does take a big hit.

Webber, Alonso & Hamilton have all shown they can drag a car kicking and screaming up the order and live with imperfections, that in my book makes them more impressive.

You're contradicting yourself mate - Webber wasn't understanding/happy of the 2011 Pirellis (until late 2011) as you said. He took a hit then too, so obviously it's not all handling inconsistencies that he can drive through.

I think between the two - Vettel and Webber - it's not quite that one is "better" than the other in handling a bad car, but they handle different characteristics better IMO. In Webber's own words (explaining why he was decidedly closer/better in relation to Seb in 2010:

The fronts do not bite as extremely and the rears have better lateral stability. Sebastian prefers it the other way around

Senna was mentioned earlier, imo he was the ultimate embodiment of getting the maximum even from sub-standard machinery - that FW16 that ultimately killed him was a very tricky car to drive (was supposed to have active suspension etc but FIA Nazi's banned it shortly before the 94 season started) and yet Senna still managed to grab pole positions with it.

Again - hard to say. Hill was leading Senna in the championship when Senna (rest this soul) left us.

IMO, it's when the cars aren't all that great we see who is really worth his pay check.

You have to factor in both really. If a driver can't perform in a good car, but can in a bad car - then he won't really get the goods (winning, becoming champion, etc) which must be the ultimate goal. The name Fisichella comes to mind. On the other hand if a car can only perform in a good car - then that's no good either. The name Button comes to mind.

[djos]

You're contradicting yourself mate - Webber wasn't understanding/happy of the 2011 Pirellis (until late 2011) as you said. He took a hit then too, so obviously it's not all handling inconsistencies that he can drive through.

I think between the two - Vettel and Webber - it's not quite that one is "better" than the other in handling a bad car, but they handle different characteristics better IMO. In Webber's own words (explaining why he was decidedly closer/better in relation to Seb in 2010:

The fronts do not bite as extremely and the rears have better lateral stability. Sebastian prefers it the other way around

I Dont think i am contradicting myself as i was talking about the Car, Webber had issues with the tires not the car - he was used to tires that he could drive on at 10/10th's every lap and didn't have to baby sit, the Prielli's where a big culture shock for him and he clearly found adapting to them tricky but once he did adapt to them he was either on the podium or 4th for the rest of the year.

Seb clearly did a great job of understanding the tires from the get go and the car by that stage had an EBD system that suited his style (unlike the early 2010 EBD that didnt and Mark used to great effect early in the season).

[Jersey Tom]

There are certainly drivers whose experience or talents lend themselves better to one form of racing than another. This is visible when drivers move around between F1, Indy Car, NASCAR, etc with mixed results.

I think a better, broader question to ask would be... what do you want out of your driver(s), and in what situations?

There are some drivers who are fast no matter what equipment you put them in, whether or not the setup or balance is great. Alonso I think fits that category. Senna certainly. Well Ayrton anyway! Other drivers can be extremely quick if the car is the way they want it and not so quick otherwise. That's still valuable! If you have a good car, they'll win races.

Equally important is asking whether or not a driver can DEVELOP your car. A good development / test driver does not need to be able to drive the car at "100%". Even 99%. 98%. Arbitrarily draw the line wherever you want. The car isn't going to behave fundamentally any differently at +/- whatever small margin from "the limit." What's key is that this be broken down and explained clearly, concisely, and consistently.

That's an exceedingly rare talent.

[Cam]

Seb clearly did a great job of understanding the tires from the get go and the car by that stage had an EBD system that suited his style (unlike the early 2010 EBD that didnt and Mark used to great effect early in the season).

From what I've read the EBD was designed for Vettel. It benefited his 'slam on the throttle out of the corner' style - which worked - increased gases into the EBD = increased grip, when by all accounts, you shouldn't slam on the throttle so early. Webber, I think liked to carry more speed through, which the EBD didn't assist.

It is hard to pick one driver as the variables are so many. Maybe put them all in the karts at the local track?

[raymondu999]

I Dont think i am contradicting myself as i was talking about the Car, Webber had issues with the tires not the car

No difference IMO. Both lead to the same problems. Lack of driving confidence, handling imbalance, etc etc

he was used to tires that he could drive on at 10/10th's every lap and didn't have to baby sit

He wasn't very good in quali either - a key strength of his, at least pre-2011 - and I'm quite certain that you still drove quali laps 10/10.

[djos]

He wasn't very good in quali either - a key strength of his, at least pre-2011 - and I'm quite certain that you still drove quali laps 10/10.

iirc "switching the Pirelli's on" was something many drivers struggled to learn how to do simply because the Bridgestone's (and Michelin's even earlier) weren't so damn fussy about this.

EDIT:

No difference IMO. Both lead to the same problems. Lack of driving confidence, handling imbalance, etc etc

Well he didnt lack confidence that's for sure as he wouldn't have won the "DHL Fastest Lap Award" for the most fastest race laps in the season.

Red Bull driver Webber clinched the award with one race of the season still remaining, at the 2011 Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. His best lap of 1m 42.612s, set with just four laps remaining in the race, allowed him to establish an unassailable lead (six fastest laps to three) over Abu Dhabi winner Lewis Hamilton and his own Red Bull team mate, 2011 world champion Sebastian Vettel.

[djos]

It is hard to pick one driver as the variables are so many. Maybe put them all in the karts at the local track?

Hehe, I like this idea, wish I could click the +1 button! [-o<

[ArchAngel]

...Equally important is asking whether or not a driver can DEVELOP your car. A good development / test driver does not need to be able to drive the car at "100%". Even 99%. 98%. Arbitrarily draw the line wherever you want. The car isn't going to behave fundamentally any differently at +/- whatever small margin from "the limit." What's key is that this be broken down and explained clearly, concisely, and consistently.

That's an exceedingly rare talent.

Your candidates for this rare talent, then?

...Maybe put them all in the karts at the local track?

Hehe, I like this idea, wish I could click the +1 button! [-o<

A few of them do sign up for 'celebrity' kart races during the off-season. And then there's also the Race of Champions.

[Red Schneider]

Very surprised no one has mentioned Michael in 1996, 1997 and 1998. I didn't see those years but my understanding is that those were colossal performances.

As for development Michael has obviously been part of one of the greatest groups of all time (taking Ferrari from 1996 to 2004), but it's also been said that he was not the guy you'd give developments to to see if they made the car faster. I believe they preferred Irvine for that. I would guess that Michael merely pounded out endless laps and communicated well with the team, and they took it from there.

[johnny99]

True, Irvine was more responsible for evaluating the upgrades, esp aero, and generally not given enough credit for his work. On the other hand, Schumacher put them to very good use in the races. In his day there was no better man at dragging a bad car to a good finish. Of the present group I think Alonso is doing a similar amazing job. He can he hard to like, but difficult not to admire

John

[Gerhard Berger]

Very surprised no one has mentioned Michael in 1996, 1997 and 1998. I didn't see those years but my understanding is that those were colossal performances.

As for development Michael has obviously been part of one of the greatest groups of all time (taking Ferrari from 1996 to 2004), but it's also been said that he was not the guy you'd give developments to to see if they made the car faster. I believe they preferred Irvine for that. I would guess that Michael merely pounded out endless laps and communicated well with the team, and they took it from there.

I would go for Schumacher as well, due to his early Ferrari years.

Also interesting that Berger tested the B195 in the winter of 95/96, and he totalled the car twice i think. He tried to push to the limit, but could not handle such a twitchy and unstable rear end. Schumacher on the other hand, could handle it, though contrary to popular belief, it is not a characteristics that he "liked".

[Kiril Varbanov]

Humble opinion just for the past two years: Alonso.
I don't want to go back in the past where the cars were totally different.

[marcush.]

There are certainly drivers whose experience or talents lend themselves better to one form of racing than another. This is visible when drivers move around between F1, Indy Car, NASCAR, etc with mixed results.

I think a better, broader question to ask would be... what do you want out of your driver(s), and in what situations?

There are some drivers who are fast no matter what equipment you put them in, whether or not the setup or balance is great. Alonso I think fits that category. Senna certainly. Well Ayrton anyway! Other drivers can be extremely quick if the car is the way they want it and not so quick otherwise. That's still valuable! If you have a good car, they'll win races.

Equally important is asking whether or not a driver can DEVELOP your car. A good development / test driver does not need to be able to drive the car at "100%". Even 99%. 98%. Arbitrarily draw the line wherever you want. The car isn't going to behave fundamentally any differently at +/- whatever small margin from "the limit." What's key is that this be broken down and explained clearly, concisely, and consistently.

That's an exceedingly rare talent.

I would completely disagree with your last comment.
If this was the case ,how come that certain drivers can extract a little more of a car, and how come that from year to year the pendulum moves from onne driver to the other within a team.
A goof case was Benneton who had developped their machinery in favour of Schumacher and neither alesi nor Berger found a way to drive the car without crashing .both guys undoubtedly quick on their day .At Ferrari between those two it was one year alesi beating Berger only to reverse the next year.
And :Berger complaining about test driver Palmer at Mclaren .Yes he is a nice bloke and sure he can setupo the car but he cannot live at the ragged edge so the whole thing does behave completely different when pushing the limit..
Car setup at 98% is a different world ,in fact 107% is not even qualyfied in F1 ,and in Nascar you might even struggle to make the race at 98%?
does a car show a linear behaviour from 98to 100? only if the driver feel confidence -wich is what the car is sending as a message to the drivér. So not exploring this area ..or being unable to get there how can you develop the setup for this?
It´s the same the other way round.A pro racer just cannot give feedback to setup a car for someone who is a lesser driver..that setup will just humilate the driver and he will just not feel what s happening before he finds himself in the graveltrap ..my 5 cents

[PlatinumZealot]

I agree, a car is like a magic wand of the Harry Potter universe.

Some great wizards can use any magic wand, and use it well, but there are some wands that they can't use as effectively as the wizard who the wand was "made" for.

Some Wizards on the other hand, can only use a single purpose made wand extremely well, but they are at sea when they use other wands.

So, I thin a great driver can pull great performance out of most cars, but not necessarily maximum performance out of every car. Another great driver is only great when he drives a certain type of car.

[raymondu999]

djos - my point stands though. The thread is about a driver to really squeeze a car's 100% out - and part of that task is switching on tyres. And the balance of power between Mark and Seb shifts too much to truly call one better. In qualifying, hey were on par at BEST in 2010 - Seb better in 2009, Seb dominated in 2011, and Mark is better (in the qualifying sessions so far) in 2012. Both get outqualified by their teammates too often to really say they're getting the best out of their car.

So, I thin a great driver can pull great performance out of most cars, but not necessarily maximum performance out of every car. Another great driver is only great when he drives a certain type of car.

I'm not one for wizardry, but absolutely agreed. I think it's a bit of a fantasy and a bit idealistic to have a driver who can constantly get 100% out of every car he drives, every day. Even the best have off days, and have preferences. Alonso for example is very adaptable - you see him changing driving styles through the years as he changes cars and tyres - but I'm willing to bet that there is one particular car balance and characteristic where he feels the most at home in. And even someone like an Alonso, pre-retirement Schumacher, or Senna, or Clark - they've been outqualified before.

However if you're asking for a driver that will "be there" sort of "most of the time," then that's a whole different ball game.