Fun thread to kill some time. Which do you find more impressive? A race victory in a car capable of it, a podium finish (2nd or 3rd) in a midfield car, or an 8th/9th/10th-place in a car more suited to the back few rows of the grid? For example, Massa winning in Germany vs. Maldonado finishing third vs. Glock finishing ninth? Which is the more monumental achievement? For the sake of argument, assume a dry, 'normal' race as the setting for these.

Of your above three there i'd go for glock.

But usually a podium in midfielder, as there are 6 cars miles quicker than the rest.

In a normal dry race, Glocks performance would usally be more impressive. Even if everyone else simply crashed out, there are always a lot more cars separating Glock from points (10+). A midfield driver and his car may be as little as 3-4 places behind a podium on merit, or up to 13-14 himself, so it would all be circumstantial.

Depends on situation. Schumacher in '04 was spectacular. Complete domination. Glock scoring with the Virgin (hehehe...) would be impressive, but the fact that he has had 3 career podiums. But if Ambrosio scored, it'd be impressive. Or if Sutil scored a podium, it'd be impressive.

Massa winning would mean that Alonso retired early in the race, so I would actually impressed with that. But using your example, if Button won, I wouldn't care. So what if he won. Or if Vettel, and anyone from the top 3 teams. They won, lets move onto the next round.

I'd really be surprised in Riccardo went out there and put the car in 9th or 10th, heck, if HRT put a car in the top 15, I'd be impressed.

Where we impressed with Vettel when he won in Monza with STR? That's really the root of you're question.

First challenge - who is the judge for classifying cars at any given race? Was last week race-win comparable to this race P2 (while on a terrible set-up, and it is only the driver who knows that)? The situation is just not quantifiable in absolute terms, thus these kind of contests just driving a vedge among fans, rather than finding what unifies us.

18th to 4th in a midfield or a backmarker car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Uj5XgY1ys

Win in a midfield car(this is arguable, yes. In the hands of an average driver it would definetly be a midfield car.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6LhIOWPDsY

So basicly you didn't even include these in your topic. Need I say more. I feel like a fanboy, but well..you started it

Dude - he covered himself by specifying "dry normal race" - didnt you see?

Only two drivers has performed like this recently,

Vettel in the toro rosso in 08, and Alonso in the Renault in 08, both got victories in midfield cars simply because they are the two most talented drivers out there.

Just shows they are head and shoulders above the pack in F1 now.

A "dry normal race" would mean only a few retirements? I don't see, how could even a superhumanous drive get Glock into the points in a car like that. It means it needs huge improvement from nowhere. If he really finished 10th, I would obviously be impressed with him, but I would be way more impressed with the fact that Virgin managed to make such a massive upgrade for this race. In that comparison Massa's win wouldn't really be a stunner, Maldonado's podium however would, but once again demanding a significant improvement from in car performance. So I think after achievements like these we would be questioning how good those cars really are, not so much the drivers themselves.

or their cars were not as bad as thought.
the TR was a great car in the wet (bourdais was 3rd on the grid with it) and the Renault was not such a bad car in Japan. In Singapore we can't really call it a win, can we?

and if we talk about Fuji..hamilton and kova wiped the pack in the first turn running everybody wide, hamilton and massa got an incident and penalties etc.

Depends on the circumstances, exactly how bad each car is, how good is their team-mate and how did they do.

I'm impressed by Irvine's podiums at Monaco or Monza with Jaguar. But I'm less impressed by Schumacher being lapped in '03 at the Hunagrian GP, in what was could be argued was still the best car on the grid.

If it was really down to driver input and not a combination of driver, car, track, conditions and luck they would have done that every week - unless you're saying they're both really really inconsistent.
Bourdais qualified a Toro Rosso on the second row in Monza '08, so it was hardly a midfield car that weekend.

You do know that the Mp4-24 was a bad car.

Most people remember only wins, not points in a bad car. Or even a podium in midfield car.

For me, it depends on the circumstances.

Renault had a good car in the second half of 2008. IIRC it was the third fastest car at that moment. Vettel's STR wasn't nearly as bad as usual at Monza. Plus he has the advantage of clean air and good visibility and qualifying was a bit chaotic. This doesn't mean that Vettel or Alonso aren't talented or that they didn't have to work for those wins. But let's not get carried away.

Sutil, Monaco 2008
clearly a shit car

I'd say points in a terrible car. Aka something like the current new(er) teams. At the end of the day faster cars are faster cars, you always need something odd to happen if the race finishing order isn't the order of fastest to slowest car.

Always win. Logic behind it?

How many times did you see supertalented driver winning points in crap cars and then failing to deliver with 'winning' cars? It happens all the time. Compare this to frequency of top drivers being unimpressive when they have dog of a car. Alonso was still impressive in 2009., despite having horrible car. Hamilton and Alonso were doing quite well in 2008 and 2009. respectively when their cars were 'okayish', and we know that Vettel also did great in STR making it look like a solid car.

On the other hand you have talents like Fisco or Webber who did these things too, but when they got the top car they failed miserably

So, picking up a point in a weak car is great, but winning is always winning. It's one of the reasons why I never rated Kubica or Rosberg as much as many people do (like they're on level of Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel).

So we already started creeping positions up slowly ..
When Vettel retires Bordais would go in history books as starting on pole in Monza 08 !

Barrichello's 3rd place, England 2008 in the Honda RA108 shit pig box of ass.

I am always most impressed with a podium from the back eg Webber in China, Button in Canada

It makes for fantastic edge of seat racing

(Amazing how history has chosen to remember the 08 TR as a poor car when it was anything but.... still a good win, take nothing away from Vettel)

Winning is always winning but these are the criteria we are discussing;

1. A race victory in a car capable of it;
2. a podium finish (2nd or 3rd) in a midfield car;
3. or an 8th/9th/10th-place in a car more suited to the back few rows of the grid

For '1', I think it's reasonable to assume that the driver has a car which can qualify in the top three rows of the grid and which has close to or equal pace to the pole sitter in the race. Since Vettel, Hamilton, Button and Alonso have all won a race this season, would we be particularly impressed if Massa or Webber also did? I don't think so. I think the last time I particularly took notice was Rubens winning in the Brawn, but not because I was 'impressed' but simply because I was pleased to see him back on form. He's a decent guy. Yes, winning is winning, but IMO it's not far off being an expectation rather than 'impressive'.

Moving to 2 then I suppose these are cars on rows 4 to 7 (or thereabouts) and in performance terms they're close and changeable - no one team standing particularly far in front of the other. Should we assume anything about front runners falling away? Maybe, but to be 'impressive' then the midfielder would need to be beating at least one of the front runners and IMO (which I appreciate is not necessarily shared) it doesn't matter if that front runner had a bit of a bad day, in fact it's probably a prerequisite. Fisichella Force India Spa are all words that spring to mind as well as Vettel Monza Torro Rosso, which has already been mentioned. Not sure the conditions matter so much in these circumstances because a podium for that sort of team is to be cherished.

For 3, well in todays F1, with points only to 10th and even quite treacherous circumstances resulting in almost all cars finishing, is incredible. It's hard to even imagine a Lotus ending a race on the same lap as the points finishers, isn't it? That, to me, would be fantastic. Again, I really don't feel that circumstances matter so much as the decent cars will still cope well.

I think there's a lot of assumptions and unknowns in my post, but hope that you get the flavour of what I'm saying anyway. As a final example; was anyone completely unmoved by Sutil DNF'ing from 4th place at Monaco in 2008? Doesn't that in itself tell us something?

True, in any case there's much assumptions, and end opinion will be formed by those assumptions. In the end, its usually quite clear when someone was impressive and when wasn't. My post was directed a bit as a counter to opinions like 'anybody could win with that car', something which unfairly plagued Button's 2009. title for example, and does it also unfairly to Vettel in 2011. (at least by part of fans).

In a "dry, normal race" getting points for Glock in the car he's in right now would be nothing short of exceptional. That driver would have to be some kind of supertalent to even get that close.

In a "dry, normal" race, of course..