11 replies to this topic

[turssi]

Hi guys,

 

I been following F1 for a while now, started in the 90's, then took a break when Schumacher won it all and came back when he left. Now with Vettel/Reb Bull showing some nice dominance, I have once again been thinking about the difference it makes when a pilot becomes the lead pilot of the team.

 

In this post I'm avoiding the term 'number something pilot' because I see it as an unrealistic one, only prone to generate conspiracy theories and name calling among the forum posters. This is why I write 'lead pilot', but it could be the pilot that has the team's focus as well. Let's just try to keep this nice. I prefer that the thread dies out than becomes a flame war.

 

There are many benefits that come to mind when envisioning a lead driver of a team, maybe he gets the optimum weight balance for his body when the car is being constructed, maybe his opinions are heard first during testing, maybe he gets the optimum timing for a fast lap on Saturday, maybe he gets the optimum pit stop timing on Sunday, maybe he receives more attention from the pit wall during the race and maybe he has more or better mechanics working on his car during race weekends.

 

Or maybe not. I really don't know, and this is why I would love to see some opinions or even experiences posted as an response to this post!

 

Case Red Bull Racing:

 

Now let's try to quantify the benefits. I say that Vettel and Webber shared Red Bull's focus in 2010, but when Vettel got his first championship he then became the 'lead driver' of Red Bull Racing for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

 

Vettel's gap compared to Webber in 2010:

In WDC standings: +2

In WDC points: +14

In average race finishing position: +0.375

In number of races finished: -1

 

In 2011-13 (after India for this year):

In WDC standings: +3.666

In WDC points: +136.666

In average race finishing position: +2.643

In number of races finished: +1

 

(If any of you want to write up different cases for comparison's sake, please use the same metrics as I did. This way we can compare and discuss our opinions in a structured manner.)

 

To sum it up, after becoming the lead driver of the team, Seb doubled the gap to his team mate in WDC rankings, multiplied by ten the points difference, multiplied by seven the difference in average race finishing position and inverted the number of finished races.

 

Now if this is all down to Sebastian shining, or Mark losing performance or something in between, you tell me!

Edited by turssi, 28 October 2013 - 20:09.

[BillBald]

Case Red Bull Racing:

 

Now let's try to quantify the benefits. I say that Vettel and Webber shared Red Bull's focus in 2010, but when Vettel got his first championship he then became the 'lead driver' of Red Bull Racing for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

 

Vettel's gap compared to Webber in 2010:

In WDC standings: +2

In WDC points: +14

In average race finishing position: +0,375

In number of races finished: -1

 

In 2011-13 (after India for this year):

In WDC standings: +3,666

In WDC points: +136,666

In average race finishing position: +2,643

In number of races finished: +1

 

(If any of you want to write up different cases for comparison's sake, please use the same metrics as I did. This way we can compare and discuss our opinions in a structured manner.)

 

To sum it up, after becoming the lead driver of the team, Seb doubled the gap to his team mate in WDC rankings, multiplied by ten the points difference, multiplied by seven the difference in average race finishing position and inverted the number of finished races.

 

Now if this is all down to Sebastian shining, or Mark losing performance or something in between, you tell me!

 

I've always tended to think that Mark's head went down after he threw away 2010, while Seb's confidence has been growing each year.

 

And of course, both are getting older, which is more helpful to Seb than it is to Mark.

 

But it is certainly likely that Seb now has nearly all of the team's attention. Your case might be stronger if you excluded this season from your comparison.

 

BTW, in the UK, 3,666 means three thousand, six hundred and sixty-six. So a few people might have thought you were joking.

[turssi]

Thanks Bill,

 

I fixed the decimal marker to the english one :-)

[apoka]

In 2010, it was Vettel who had a lot of mechanical issues costing him points. It's difficult to use that as a base.

[turssi]

Now that Raikkonen has split roads with Grosjean let's have a look at:

 

Case Lotus F1:

 

Raikkonen was the teams lead driver for one year from Italy (2013) to Italy (2014). In other words from Romain's race ban until the Ferrari announcement.

 

Raikkonen's gap compared to Grosjean when on even ground:

In average WDC points per race: +2.8

In average race finishing position (excluding retirements): +0.2

In number of races finished: +5

 

Raikkonen's gap compared to Grosjean with lead driver status:

In average WDC points per race: +6.6

In average race finishing position (excluding retirements): +3.7

In number of races finished: +4

 

So Kimi more than doubled his average points gap per race and put three more cars between him and Romain at the chequered flag when running with lead driver status! Worth noting that Grosjean has been bad at finishing races for the whole two years.

[Gorma]

This has nothing to do with lead driver status. What happened after 2010 is the switch to Pirelli tyres, which Vettel is a master of handling. Webber never had the hang of them. 

 

Kimi beat Grosjean because he got his setup right, Grosjean's confidence was shot and the 2013 tyres suited Kimi best. The LWB-car and the return to 2012 spec tyres are what made Grosjean faster in the latter part of 2013.

[boldhakka]

Pirelli. According to Mark himself.

[OfficeLinebacker]

I think being the #1 driver for a team is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

The thread might as well be called "Quantifying the benefits of being a better driver than your team-mate."

[Buttoneer]

I think being the #1 driver for a team is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

The thread might as well be called "Quantifying the benefits of being a better driver than your team-mate."

Well, yes, why not?  It's an interesting question anyway to see what sort of benefit can be conveyed just from small changes to the way things are done.  Turning those concepts (better qualifying track position, first preference on pit stop lap etc) in additional places or points is hard, and probably far too hard for us.

 

DC can tell you what is does to you psychologically, if you know the team boss in in the other guys corner, and that must have a lap time impact.  Don't know how many 000'ths though.

[virtualr]

Well, yes, why not?  It's an interesting question anyway to see what sort of benefit can be conveyed just from small changes to the way things are done.  Turning those concepts (better qualifying track position, first preference on pit stop lap etc) in additional places or points is hard, and probably far too hard for us.

 

DC can tell you what is does to you psychologically, if you know the team boss in in the other guys corner, and that must have a lap time impact.  Don't know how many 000'ths though.

 

 

It's all just excuses which of course every driver will use when they keep losing to a superior team mate. As long as both drivers have equal cars, that is all that matters. For al the talk of special status you rarely ever see any evidence of it because it's mainly just a myth. Pit stop preference is decided by track position, and I am not sure what you mean by 'better qualifying track position' when all a driver needs is a clear track and there is plenty of that around.

[taran]

It is impossible to quantify this. Qualifying gaps fluctuate, depending on regulations and technical rules. All you can say is that being the lead driver offers benefits.

 

Usually, the lead driver gets the best of everything. In a car made of thousands of parts, it is impossible to build two cars of exactly similar performance. This may be as little as a few thousands (in the best teams) or as much as a few tenths. Minardi openly acknowledged that their #2 car was slower than their #1 car by a significant margin. Schumacher would take Barichello´s car if outqualified, just because he was convinced that car must be faster.

 

Then there are the development parts which the lead driver gets first. While teams strive to give both equal equipment, this is not always possible. Either money or time can be an issue. And not just for small teams, Ferrari and McLaren have often only fielded one car with the latest stuff, sometimes for a couple of races in succession.

 

In the past, lead drivers had exclusive call on the test car, allowing them to try out more set ups during race weekends etc.

 

Lead drivers get the optimum race strategy

 

Second drivers are often required to act as the rear gunner, sometimes even sacrificing their best achievable result for a better result for the lead driver.

 

Less obvious but clearly appreciable is the psychological impact of being the second driver. Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine and David Coulthard (who all stated they got pretty much the same car as their #1’s) all claimed it undermined their competitiveness. Instead of engendering a state of “I’ll show them that I am the better driver” it deadens their competitiveness. Maybe it just makes them go through the motions? Drivers often perk up again once out of the shadow of a #1 driver, just look at the current Massa stories.

 

In short, people like virtual who think that “all you need is equal cars” are IMO blind to racing history. It just doesn’t work that way. There simply are tangible and intangible things that increase the speed differential between #1 and #2 drivers beyond their actual talent and speed level. If the car is dominant, you’d expect your #1 and #2 driver to finish 1-2 during a race. In reality, this rarely happens. The best #2 driver was probably Ronnie Peterson in 1978. Because he knew he was a #1 driver and just needed a good season to polish his tarnished reputation, agreed to be a #2 and was a man of his word, and soon had signed for McLaren. And thus he actually ran in tandem with Mario Andretti, as no other #2 ever did.  

[Big Block 8]

Biggest benefit of being #1 is that the team solves your problems for you, be it tire consumption, understeer in slow corners, oversteer in fast corners or whatever that is outside your setup window. Team analyzes the telemetry data and introduces new parts that make your life easier. The second driver then uses the lead driver's car and as the natural driving styles are different, the 2nd driver also faces problems different than the #1. The #2 has to overcome his difficulties merely with setup changes.

 

Amount of time benefitted depends on the amount of compromises the #2 is forced to make, normally maybe a couple of tenths per lap, but if the problems are a lot out of the setup window the difference can get much bigger.

 

Teams have different philosophies regards this, for example McLaren has had parallel chassis development programs (Raikkonen and Montoya in 2005) compared with full blown one driver team where all resources are concentrated to the lead driver (Schumacher with Briatore and Todt). Being a lead driver in "equal" team means much less benefit than one has in "one driver" outfits.