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

[Cam]

Would anyone rate Alonso lower than the drivers who preceded him below? Or is the Ferrari simply a handful to drive? What does that say about the Drivers' Championship?

I'm still of the opinion that another driver in that Ferrari could have a better outcome. Just because Alonso is struggling in the car, does not mean it's the car's fault. Alonso and Kimi may simply be taking longer to adjust the new driving style required to maximise this year's car performance. The example you've shown above is no different to Vettel in the RB10 - he's struggling - whereas Ricciardo is flourishing. So is it the driver, or the car?

EDIT: before the wrath of Alonso fans string me from the nearest tree - Alonso is a great driver. I'm not saying he's no good, just that perhaps, just maybe, it's slightly possible that he and kimi haven't got their abilities to gell with what the car is capable of. This isn't a reflection on them, just a theory.

[Cam]

Tony Dodgins wrote at season's end: "The MP4/10 was a very difficult car and, with Mansell's achievements and bank balance behind him, was not what Nigel needed at going on 42." Ramirez in his autobiography concurred: "Admittedly the MP4/10 wasn't one of the best McLarens that we'd ever made, by a long chalk, and we realised it soon after the first test and didn't need a has-been former World Champion to tell us." It called for a tolerant driver with the long-term in mind, and Mansell wasn't that man.

As Ramirez continues: "What we needed was a motivated, experienced driver to help Hakkinen to develop the car, and Mansell wasn't interested in that." Nigel admitted as much himself: "My motivation has always been to compete at the highest level - to win and to mount a serious assault on the World Championship. It quickly became apparent that this wasn't going to happen with McLaren." No wonder Dodgins observed: "Here, surely, was a man that wanted to be in another team and a team that agreed with him."

An interesting insight into what happens when the wrong driver is in the wrong car.

[bhall]

I'm not exactly sure what that MP4/10 anecdote is supposed to convey. Mansell, correctly termed a "has-been former World Champion" at that point, raced it a whopping two times, and none of its drivers were particularly successful with it. It was a bad car.

As for the F14 T, you might have a point if only one driver was struggling with it, as is the case currently at Red Bull. However, both drivers, who've each won races for three different teams, can't seem to make it work. That means it cannot be demonstrated with any certainty that the car is capable of anything. Time will tell, though.

[Cam]

The point with Mansell was - he had had enough. His motivation wasn't there and that could have reflected in both the actual performance of the car and his expectations of the car. A great car, it wasn't, but if the driver isn't committed to it 100% then there's no way of knowing just what the car can do, don't ya think?

[bhall]

I'm not sure your example is doing you any favors here, because it seems you're trying to support the importance of drivers by pointing to a car that was terrible despite being driven by four men who collectively claimed three F1 World Championships, one CART Championship, one Group C win at Le Mans, and four GT wins at Le Mans. That --- should have been a rocket ship, right?

[Cam]

no, not at all.

A car can only do what it can do - it can do no more. So the only place where a variable can occur is the driver?

[bhall]

It's not that simple.

Just to take a step back, I've never claimed that drivers play no role in a car's performance, only that a car's capability is the alpha and the omega in regard to a driver's chances for victory. It is for that reason I put very little stock in the Driver's Championship as a measure of a driver's worth, as the feat only tells me which team had the best car. Any number of drivers can possess the same skills or perform at the same level. But, only the one with the fastest car can win without help from outside influences.

This is why teams fight like hell to win the Drivers' Championship: they want to show they've built the best car.

[Cam]

The robot theory again. I agree with you on that. But disagree that it should be considered in the first place. The cars are not remote or robot controlled. Success or failure is only achieved through a pairing of human and tech. So I'm unsure why you're applying a measurement baseline which simply cannot be applied. We need to measure in real terms.

[SGeorge]

I think F1 has always been a balance in terms of Driver vs Car importance, always skewed towards the Car. The driver has to have the credentials to be in the best car, so many times the cream rises to the top.

There have been many instances where a Driver not considered one of the leading pack has won the title, but always with a very good car.

Would Senna have qualified a Minardi further up the field than Gene? probably - but would he win the title, No.

Gene would have qualified further up the field in a Mclaren, but would he win the Title against a faster driver in a slightly slower car? Probably Not

[bhall]

I think F1 has always been a balance in terms of Driver vs Car importance, always skewed towards the Car. The driver has to have the credentials to be in the best car, so many times the cream rises to the top.

There have been many instances where a Driver not considered one of the leading pack has won the title, but always with a very good car.

[...]

Yep. Keke Rosberg and Jenson Button are two names that immediately spring to mind.

[Phil]

I think the main argument(s) can be simplified with this example:

A car with launch control might get from 0 to 100mph (assuming gear-shift is handled automatically as well) in 10 seconds straight. That's what the car is capable of - the absolute maximum it can achieve, without changing outside influences.

A driver, attempting the same without the launch control, might get it done anywhere between 10.1 and longer, depending on skill. A very skilled driver might do it in less than 11 seconds - a less skilled one perhaps in 13 or longer.

The easier the car is, the closer any driver will get to what the launch control achieves. The more difficult the car is (lets say less grippy tyres, less weight on the rear-axle, more torque), the more challenging it will be to perfect the starting revs, clutch slip when applying just the right amount of throttle to deliever just enough power to achieve optimal traction and grip for the perfect start.

What we're effectively comparing (or claiming) is that some cars are naturally quicker, some are harder, or easier to drive.

If you're comparing a car A (a Mercedes W05) that does the drag-race in 10seconds with car B (perhaps a Marussia) that does it in 15seconds - even the least skilled driver in car A will easily outdrag the most skilled driver in car B. If you put the skilled driver into car A and the less skilled driver in car B, you even extend the relative differences between the two cars and drivers.

What we have in F1 is probably an array of very closely matched drivers with huge amount of skill, in very different cars of varying speed and difficulty - which basically means that the car will mostly be the biggest performance differentiator. That's if we're comparing the fastest with the slower ones. Also, in F1, the difference between car and driver is probably closer to 0-100 in 100 seconds - the driver amounting to 1-3 seconds of that. So the driver only influences around 3 seconds of the 100 the car is responsible for.

I still think though, that there are instances when the cars are on a very similar level that the smaller differences of drivers can be the defining factor. It's perhaps more evident if we focus on the performance of the midfield teams, that always have been on a very similar performance level (TR, Sauber, Williams, Force India). It's still never quite a level playing field, so any comparison between drivers is just too difficult to form a clear picture, except on the rarer occurance that the cars are similar in performance or if they're team-mates.

[Andres125sx]

Would anyone rate Alonso lower than the drivers who preceded him below? Or is the Ferrari simply a handful to drive? What does that say about the Drivers' Championship?

I'm still of the opinion that another driver in that Ferrari could have a better outcome. Just because Alonso is struggling in the car, does not mean it's the car's fault. Alonso and Kimi may simply be taking longer to adjust the new driving style required to maximise this year's car performance. The example you've shown above is no different to Vettel in the RB10 - he's struggling - whereas Ricciardo is flourishing. So is it the driver, or the car?

EDIT: before the wrath of Alonso fans string me from the nearest tree - Alonso is a great driver. I'm not saying he's no good, just that perhaps, just maybe, it's slightly possible that he and kimi haven't got their abilities to gell with what the car is capable of. This isn't a reflection on them, just a theory.

Just a theory...

Same as when you said you were looking forward watching some competitive driver as Alonso´s teammate to see how does he perform?

Now Kimi is not that driver, and they are both underperforming... "maybe" of course...

[-o<


Even Montezemolo has said they have to provide their drivers a better car... How many times did you hear Ferrari people doing such statements about his own car?

I can´t think about a stronger team drivers related, but looks like this is not enough for you either

I´m afraid some people simply can´t accept Alonso´s talent... but hey, I´m spanish so there you have your excuse to ignore my opinion, and it doesn´t matter if he almost win 2012 championship, it doesn´t matter if he won a race with 2008 Renault, it doesn´t matter if he lapped his teammate at Minardi, it doesn´t matter if he´s been considered the best driver 2 of last 4 seassons by the team principals, it doesn´t matter if he´s praised by all their team mates, engineers, bosses and even rivals.... you will always have an excuse to elaborate a theory like this one


The car or the driver? If Raikonnen and Alonso are not enough to rule out the driver part, I don´t understand what else do you need... Do we resurrect Senna to see how does he perform with this Ferrari?

[turbof1]

Do we resurrect Senna to see how does he perform with this Ferrari?

I so hope they do that one day. That would be truly awesome. Not that I'd think Senna would do better or worse, but the epicness of him battling the modern guys would be a sight to behold.

[SiLo]

I'd be inclined to say it more car than the driver, but the car cannot perform without a driver who knows how best to utilise it.

Case in point; Sebastian Vettel.

Maybe not the fastest guy on the grid, but give him a car like Red Bull did where it suited his style incredibly well, and he will win you 4 world titles.

[FoxHound]

Now then,

How about a rotational system whereby each driver gets a go in a different car?