Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 9 votes

A driver's worth (2014 Q1 edition)


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 karlth

karlth
  • Member

  • 16,290 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 May 2014 - 00:32

How much is a driver worth? In a sport which focuses on technology hasn't the driver been demoted to a insignificant part of the total performance?  In this scenario we take 3 teams and replace the better performing driver with a test driver who, hypothetically, struggles badly.
 
 
 
2014 Q1 Season report
 
Mercedes F1 W05
Nico Rosberg
Sam Bird
 
A car that promised much in pre season testing and has, for the most part, delivered.  Although perhaps not the quickest car over a single lap Nico Rosberg's relentless but silky smooth driving style has ensured that in dry race conditions it is almost unbeatable.  The car's struggles in wet weather conditions are probably due to the car's complex suspension but Rosberg aerobatic efforts have managed to keep the car on the front row in every race so far apart from China.  That Rosberg won the last race by a mere 7 seconds shows that competing teams are closing fast.
 
Red Bull RB10
Sebastian Vettel
Jean-Eric Vergne
 
How the mighty have fallen.   After 4 WDCs this year is proving to be a very tough nut to crack.  Current World Champion Sebastian Vettel is probably driving better than ever in his career but even he can do only so much.  The main problem seems to be extremely poor rear-end grip that is forcing the car's designer, Adrian Newey, to work exclusively on that particular weakness.
Things are looking up though as Sebastian drove one of the greatest laps in F1 history to clinch pole at the Chinese Grand Prix in horrendous conditions.
 
 
Ferrari F14T
Kimi Raikkonen
Marc Gene
 
Spending qualifying and races fighting Toro Rossos is not something Ferrari's management or Kimi Raikkonen expected to be doing this season.  Plagued by crippling understeer the Ferrari seems unable to deliver any pace, even in the hands of mighty Raikkonen.  The one track were the car seemed to show glimmers of performance was in Bahrain when Kimi almost managed to stay within 30s of the leaders.  So by focusing on what the team did right in Bahrain Ferrari might just turn this season around.
 


Advertisement

#2 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 2,157 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 02:50

I didn't understand at first but now i find this interesting. :up:  



#3 Thomas99

Thomas99
  • Member

  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 May 2014 - 03:02

Red Bull:
Sebastian Vettel

Kimi Räikkönen

 
Sebastian Vettel continues to show his class, outpacing Kimi in 3 of the 4 qualifying sessions this year although there is some glimmer of hope, Kimi's race pace in the second half of the Chinese GP showed some light of hope, finishing just 5 seconds behind Sebastian Vettel who is every race further proving his class. Another front row start for the young German ahead of the Mercedes of Nico Rosberg is quickly showing what he can do in a car that may even be the second fastest on the grid.


#4 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 03:08

This is one of the ways I judge a team/cars performance to keep the context that having a top drawer driver to FULLY maximize what a car is capable of is absolutely crucial. I use the 2012 McLren as a perfect example of this. If Lewis was not in that car, but say, Button and Paffett instead, we all have thought that the car had moments of great pace, but was generally not a great car. The setup window would've been (wrongfully) considered extremely small and they'd only have 2-3 poles instead of the 8 they got that year. I still say the 2013 McLaren wasn't anywhere as bad as it was made out to be. I think both drivers, especially the lead driver, was completely lost on setup and led the team further and further down a blind alley until it became a hopeless mess. You don't go from having the outright fastest car on the grid at the end of the year, to never being on the podium the next year without a MAJOR loss of reference somewhere. Yes, they redesigned the car early on,but the redesign was based off a very successful platform which showed very promising numbers in the wind tunnel. Bah, It still grates me to no end that no one seems to want to acknowledge this glaringly obvious flaw with the team. They MUST know there's more time in their cars that's not being delivered, but won't say it to protect them, especially Button.

#5 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 May 2014 - 04:11

oh com'on ... another driver rating thread ... this is such BS  :mad:



#6 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 May 2014 - 06:00

This is one of the ways I judge a team/cars performance to keep the context that having a top drawer driver to FULLY maximize what a car is capable of is absolutely crucial. I use the 2012 McLren as a perfect example of this. If Lewis was not in that car, but say, Button and Paffett instead, we all have thought that the car had moments of great pace, but was generally not a great car. The setup window would've been (wrongfully) considered extremely small and they'd only have 2-3 poles instead of the 8 they got that year. I still say the 2013 McLaren wasn't anywhere as bad as it was made out to be. I think both drivers, especially the lead driver, was completely lost on setup and led the team further and further down a blind alley until it became a hopeless mess. You don't go from having the outright fastest car on the grid at the end of the year, to never being on the podium the next year without a MAJOR loss of reference somewhere. Yes, they redesigned the car early on,but the redesign was based off a very successful platform which showed very promising numbers in the wind tunnel. Bah, It still grates me to no end that no one seems to want to acknowledge this glaringly obvious flaw with the team. They MUST know there's more time in their cars that's not being delivered, but won't say it to protect them, especially Button.

 

Oh how we rant until made to explain 2011.  Then the rant putters into disappointing mutters...

 

 

 

 

How much is a driver worth? In a sport which focuses on technology hasn't the driver been demoted to a insignificant part of the total performance?  In this scenario we take 3 teams and replace the better performing driver with a test driver who, hypothetically, struggles badly.

 

How does the scenario that you propose correlate to the driver being insignificant to the overall performance?  Without the driver, the car does not move. 

 

And why are you belittling Jean-Eric Vergne and relegating him to a test driver?


Edited by bourbon, 03 May 2014 - 06:25.


#7 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 May 2014 - 06:07

I guess I'm not very bright. I had to re-read the OP about five times before I understood what he was going for. The mention of Q1 in the title (which I still don't get - first quarter?) didn't help because it made me think it was something to do with Qualifying. 


Edited by boldhakka, 03 May 2014 - 06:08.


#8 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 03 May 2014 - 07:57

This is one of the ways I judge a team/cars performance to keep the context that having a top drawer driver to FULLY maximize what a car is capable of is absolutely crucial. I use the 2012 McLren as a perfect example of this. If Lewis was not in that car, but say, Button and Paffett instead, we all have thought that the car had moments of great pace, but was generally not a great car. The setup window would've been (wrongfully) considered extremely small and they'd only have 2-3 poles instead of the 8 they got that year. I still say the 2013 McLaren wasn't anywhere as bad as it was made out to be. I think both drivers, especially the lead driver, was completely lost on setup and led the team further and further down a blind alley until it became a hopeless mess. You don't go from having the outright fastest car on the grid at the end of the year, to never being on the podium the next year without a MAJOR loss of reference somewhere. Yes, they redesigned the car early on,but the redesign was based off a very successful platform which showed very promising numbers in the wind tunnel. Bah, It still grates me to no end that no one seems to want to acknowledge this glaringly obvious flaw with the team. They MUST know there's more time in their cars that's not being delivered, but won't say it to protect them, especially Button.

 

If Button is so bad as a reference point as a leading driver of a team, how come BAR developed second best car in 2004, not to mention performing very consistently all through the year? Or Brawn GP was winning the championships in 2009?



#9 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 03 May 2014 - 08:05

AMG Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix:

- Narain Karthikeyan

- Max Chilton

 

Chilton as a younger and more adaptable driver is now at the height of his career by having won all the races bar the first one, which came to a halt due to reliability issues. Karthikeyan spun off in China and lost a potential second position, still recovered well and finished fourth. Thankfully for him, other drivers are not without their faults either.

 

Infiniti Red Bull Racing

- Alex Yoong

- Karun Chandhok

 

Karun Chandhok is driving very consistently and really delivering the points with the exception of some early-season reliability issues as he retired from the Australian Grand Prix. He also capitalized on the spin of Karthikeyan in China, but can't do anything about the machine of Max Chilton, who finishes very consistently. The experienced Alex Yoong has been less happy with the car and has made a few blunders, most notably double spin at his home race in Malaysia. Yet he has scored some good points this year too, with the team hoping to secure second in the constructors and looking good for that.

 

Scuderia Ferrari

- Sakon Yamamoto

- Luca Badoer

 

Luca Badoer has had a hard time adapting to the hard-to-drive new Ferrari F14T and has actually been barely in the points in races. But with the rest of the field struggling too his fortunes have improved and he is now more often in the points. The younger Sakon Yamamoto has been having one of his best seasons in his career so far, finishing very consistently by his standards and bagging decent points. Certainly above the score of the veteran Badoer.

 

Sahara Force India Mercedes

- Yuji Ide

- Ho-Pin Tung

 

The surprise package of the season has been the Sahara Force India, but they have been frustrated with their drivers not delivering. Yuji Ide has been spinning off regularly, but he finished a competitive 5th in Bahrain, giving hints that there might be more to come from him as he gets up to speed. Ho-Pin Tung has been his unspectacular self, yet bagging a few points.

 

Huh, someone else can carry on.:D



#10 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 03 May 2014 - 09:13

I forgot the most important one

 

Marussia Ferrari

- Ricardo Teixeira

- Vadim Kogay

 

The start of the season was pretty promising for the Marussia team as the underrated Ricardo Teixeira opened the team's point score in Australia after the Angolan-Portuguese driver managed to survive a race of attrition, which saw both car problems and accidents. However, Teixeira has failed to carry on on that promise in subsequent races.

 

The second driver, the 45-year-old businessman Vadim Kogay, who bought the drive as Marussia sold the seat to the highest bidder, is yet to finish a race this year. Things went worse in China, when Kogay caused a major start pile-up in the lower midfield, as the Russian admittedly mixed up throttle and brake pedals while entering the first corner. It has been described as one of the worst pieces of driving ever seen and saw Kogay stripped of superlicence, meaning Marussia needs to find a new paydriver for the seat.



#11 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 791 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 03 May 2014 - 09:24

Sahara Force India Mercedes
- Yuji Ide
- Ho-Pin Tung

The surprise package of the season has been the Sahara Force India, but they have been frustrated with their drivers not delivering. Yuji Ide has been spinning off regularly, but he finished a competitive 5th in Bahrain, giving hints that there might be more to come from him as he gets up to speed. Ho-Pin Tung has been his unspectacular self, yet bagging a few points.

Huh, someone else can carry on.:D

Ide quickly became the crowd pleaser as he refused to shift up before hitting the limiter taking his Mercedes V6 to the maximum premitted 15 000 rpm. The engineers where not happy though, frantically telling him to respect the lights over the radio. The man himself could not care less.

Edited by ollebompa, 03 May 2014 - 09:29.


#12 timmy bolt

timmy bolt
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 10:30

@Bourbon

 

Explain what in 2011? That overall Hamilton was rubbish that year and Button was great?  A driver can have a bad year... (Hamilton outqualified Button that year quite convincingly if I remember rightly, so still potentially faster, but his races descended into a debacle at times and you don't get points for quali)


Edited by timmy bolt, 03 May 2014 - 10:31.


#13 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,181 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 May 2014 - 10:45

Caterham-Renault

Fernando Alonso

Lewis Hamilton

 

The perennial backmarkers have made a significant step forward this season, being able to catch and often marginally outperform the Saubers and Lotuses, but you have to wonder just how much the merit is on the team or is it a question of lack on merit on Sauber and Lotus' part, as we all know the former is running overweight and the latter had awful pre-seasons preparations, whose potential is now finally starting to be shown stepping clear of the Caterhams. The evenly matched experienced Spanish and English drivers have been bringing the car on home in unspectacular circumstances when it does last the distance, some say they are doing an impressive job but then the same people said the same about Heikki Kovalainen with this same team a few years ago, too - there is just too little data to be conclusive about them.



#14 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 May 2014 - 11:12

@Bourbon

 

Explain what in 2011? That overall Hamilton was rubbish that year and Button was great?  A driver can have a bad year... (Hamilton outqualified Button that year quite convincingly if I remember rightly, so still potentially faster, but his races descended into a debacle at times and you don't get points for quali)

 

Agreed.  But the idea in that paragraph was that you need a

 

TurboF1:  "top drawer driver to FULLY maximize what a car is capable of is absolutely crucial".  

 

 

The reason is because:

TurboF1:  The "2012 McLren as a perfect example of this. If Lewis was not in that car, but say, Button and Paffett instead, we all have thought that the car had moments of great pace, but was generally not a great car. The setup window would've been (wrongfully) considered extremely small and they'd only have 2-3 poles instead of the 8 they got that year."

 

AND

 

TurboF1:  "I still say the 2013 McLaren wasn't anywhere as bad as it was made out to be. I think both drivers, especially the lead driver, was completely lost on setup and led the team further and further down a blind alley until it became a hopeless mess."

 

But when you try to place 2011 in context  with the above, it is suddenly difficult to continue to champion Lewis and diss Button for their ability as a 'reference' in connection with the development of the car.  Using the same reasoning, without Button that year, we would have believed the car to be very difficult to drive and causing Lewis to struggle and have multiple incidents in his attempt to get the maximum out of it.


Edited by bourbon, 03 May 2014 - 11:19.


#15 timmy bolt

timmy bolt
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 11:54

@ Bourbon

 

Although I am not in complete agreement with the initial poster, I do think his point is valid. I've never seen Button's strength as his speed, he will rarely put a car where it shouldn't go without others giving him a big helping hand by making mistakes.  He is extremely consistent though, and it is this that gave him a good 2011.  Whereas Webber and Hamilton were on a roller coaster of ups and downs that year, Button was just picking up good points time again (a long with Vetter and Alonso). This however doesn't show how fast a cars potential is and relies on the cars around you being inconsistent to work in your favour. 

 

Hamilton on the other hand will eek out everything from a car, but I think this puts him on the edge of its capabilities (and his) which is why he is more prone to mistakes. But year to year Hamilton's consistency changes, he has had some fantastic years where he has barely put a step wrong, others where he has had a few mishaps, and 2011, where he could barely string more than a couple of good races together. Maybe others would have argued that the 2011 car was very difficult to drive without Button there, but as I said, he always qualified well and he rarely seemed slow compared to Button, it was just one long year of mistakes and bad decisions.



#16 4MEN

4MEN
  • Member

  • 1,556 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:00

In Ferrari's case, not only Domenicalli would be out, Montezemolo too.



#17 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,879 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:21

Using the same reasoning, without Button that year, we would have believed the car to be very difficult to drive and causing Lewis to struggle and have multiple incidents in his attempt to get the maximum out of it.


Not really, because pace wasn't the issue. It would still be a scrappy season whoever you imagine to put in the other car.

#18 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 12:30

Oh how we rant until made to explain 2011.  Then the rant putters into disappointing mutters...

 

 

2011 is a simple explanation and you know it. Lewis' season was fine until Monaco where everything unravelled. He started to push beyond the limits too many times in an attempt to keep up with the RB7, which lead to him making poor decisions on track and becoming increasingly frustrated watching the RB7s continuing to romp into the distance. Speedwise, Lewis was fine, Jenson had a consistent year, he but overall he certainly wasnt quicker than Lewis and you know it.  No need to be disingenuous. Going by their qualifying history over the 3 years, i think there was a trend that emerged. Going by that same trend, one would think it would be safe to assume it would continue and to suppose that if Lewis was still at Mclaren, both in 2013 and now, he would be starting in front of Jenson more often than not.



#19 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 13:48

Agreed.  But the idea in that paragraph was that you need a

 

 

 

The reason is because:

 

AND

 

 

But when you try to place 2011 in context  with the above, it is suddenly difficult to continue to champion Lewis and diss Button for their ability as a 'reference' in connection with the development of the car.  Using the same reasoning, without Button that year, we would have believed the car to be very difficult to drive and causing Lewis to struggle and have multiple incidents in his attempt to get the maximum out of it.

 

 

Im not out to "Diss Button". Im making a point based on obvious evidence. If the evidence doesnt paint a great picture of a driver, "Tough Luck". In the interest of friendly debate, I'd rather your take as to whether or not you think there is more time to be found from the current McLaren, based on the previous trend of Lewis consistently outqualifying Button, at times by quite large (F1) margins...



Advertisement

#20 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 14:28

I guess I'm not very bright. I had to re-read the OP about five times before I understood what he was going for.

 

Well, I understood straight away what he was going for. This is about using the events of 2012 to attack Button, and claim that he is responsible for the mess at McLaren.

 

It seems Jenson really can't be forgiven for outscoring Lewis in 2011...



#21 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,507 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 03 May 2014 - 14:31

Fantastic, Karlth. :clap:

 

That reminds me, we should set up a pretend-the-Mercedes-aren't-in-the-race thread. Atlas did something similar for the 2000 season, removing Mclaren and Ferrari.


Edited by Risil, 03 May 2014 - 14:31.


#22 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 9,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 14:45

Well, I understood straight away what he was going for. This is about using the events of 2012 to attack Button, and claim that he is responsible for the mess at McLaren.

It seems Jenson really can't be forgiven for outscoring Lewis in 2011...

? There is no reference to JB in the opening post.

Edited by discover23, 03 May 2014 - 14:45.


#23 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 15:16

? There is no reference to JB in the opening post.

 

But, it was obvious that there was going to be a reference to JB and 2012 in the thread.

 

I would have bet money on it.



#24 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 16:46

But, it was obvious that there was going to be a reference to JB and 2012 in the thread.

 

I would have bet money on it.

The reason is obvious is because....? Clearly you are aware that it's a valid supposition. Why wouldnt it be mentioned? Why shouldnt it? One would think its a reasonable thing to debate. He very clearly had very serious issues with what was a championship capable car, issues which his teammate at the time did not have anywhere near as much as. It's not something thats an "attack" per se, but there are other driver pairings in a similar pattern. Alonso and Kimi in this years Ferrari so far seem to be trending the same way. If Alonso wasnt in the current Ferrari, but Kimi and someone useless, we'd say that the Ferrari is even worse shape than we think, when that wouldnt be entirely true.



#25 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 17:05

The reason is obvious is because....? Clearly you are aware that it's a valid supposition. Why wouldnt it be mentioned? Why shouldnt it? One would think its a reasonable thing to debate. He very clearly had very serious issues with what was a championship capable car, issues which his teammate at the time did not have anywhere near as much as. It's not something thats an "attack" per se, but there are other driver pairings in a similar pattern. Alonso and Kimi in this years Ferrari so far seem to be trending the same way. If Alonso wasnt in the current Ferrari, but Kimi and someone useless, we'd say that the Ferrari is even worse shape than we think, when that wouldnt be entirely true.

 

Maybe because it's already been done to death? For some (not saying all!) Lewis fans any excuse is good enough to go on about it some more. McLaren is in a mess for various reasons, not because Jenson was giving them guidance on what he needed from the car.

 

The Lotus team in the last 2 years looked to Kimi for guidance, and it didn't turn out too badly considering that the team was very lacking in resources. So to assume that Ferrari would be in a much worse situation if they had Kimi as their #1 is frankly nonsense.

 

The argument is bogus, and IMO the OP was just lobbing you an easy ball, so you could hit it out of the park (in your imagination, of course).



#26 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 9,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 17:21



 

The Lotus team in the last 2 years looked to Kimi for guidance, and it didn't turn out too badly considering that the team was very lacking in resources. So to assume that Ferrari would be in a much worse situation if they had Kimi as their #1 is frankly nonsense.

 

why nonsense - I don't get it? - we are talking about 2014 here not 2013 or 2012.. 



#27 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,818 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 May 2014 - 17:35

why nonsense - I don't get it? - we are talking about 2014 here not 2013 or 2012.. 

 

Because if Kimi was the #1 driver, he would be providing the main feedback about what changes were needed. I'm sure that Ferrari are putting quite a lot of effort into giving him what he wants, but it's maybe not their main effort at the moment.

 

I'm not saying that Kimi, even if the team could give him exactly what he needs, would be equally as quick as Alonso currently is, but you can't take Alonso out of the team, and assume that this would make no difference to Kimi's pace.



#28 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 9,302 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 17:53



Because if Kimi was the #1 driver, he would be providing the main feedback about what changes were needed. I'm sure that Ferrari are putting quite a lot of effort into giving him what he wants, but it's maybe not their main effort at the moment.

 

I'm not saying that Kimi, even if the team could give him exactly what he needs, would be equally as quick as Alonso currently is, but you can't take Alonso out of the team, and assume that this would make no difference to Kimi's pace.

To sum this up , what you are saying is that Kimi's pace is directly influenced by Alonso being in the team just because you think so. 


Edited by discover23, 03 May 2014 - 17:56.


#29 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 2,157 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 21:33

AMG Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix:

- Narain Karthikeyan

- Max Chilton

 

Chilton as a younger and more adaptable driver is now at the height of his career by having won all the races bar the first one, which came to a halt due to reliability issues. Karthikeyan spun off in China and lost a potential second position, still recovered well and finished fourth. Thankfully for him, other drivers are not without their faults either.

 

Infiniti Red Bull Racing

- Alex Yoong

- Karun Chandhok

 

Karun Chandhok is driving very consistently and really delivering the points with the exception of some early-season reliability issues as he retired from the Australian Grand Prix. He also capitalized on the spin of Karthikeyan in China, but can't do anything about the machine of Max Chilton, who finishes very consistently. The experienced Alex Yoong has been less happy with the car and has made a few blunders, most notably double spin at his home race in Malaysia. Yet he has scored some good points this year too, with the team hoping to secure second in the constructors and looking good for that.

 

Scuderia Ferrari

- Sakon Yamamoto

- Luca Badoer

 

Luca Badoer has had a hard time adapting to the hard-to-drive new Ferrari F14T and has actually been barely in the points in races. But with the rest of the field struggling too his fortunes have improved and he is now more often in the points. The younger Sakon Yamamoto has been having one of his best seasons in his career so far, finishing very consistently by his standards and bagging decent points. Certainly above the score of the veteran Badoer.

 

Sahara Force India Mercedes

- Yuji Ide

- Ho-Pin Tung

 

The surprise package of the season has been the Sahara Force India, but they have been frustrated with their drivers not delivering. Yuji Ide has been spinning off regularly, but he finished a competitive 5th in Bahrain, giving hints that there might be more to come from him as he gets up to speed. Ho-Pin Tung has been his unspectacular self, yet bagging a few points.

 

Huh, someone else can carry on. :D

 

 

You are only supposed to replace the better performing driver it says.  :up:



#30 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 3,111 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 May 2014 - 21:50

What is this I don't even



#31 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 May 2014 - 21:59

For karlth's scenario there is even a name: Among the blind the one-eyed is king.



#32 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 May 2014 - 22:05

@ Bourbon

 

Although I am not in complete agreement with the initial poster, I do think his point is valid. I've never seen Button's strength as his speed, he will rarely put a car where it shouldn't go without others giving him a big helping hand by making mistakes.  He is extremely consistent though, and it is this that gave him a good 2011.  Whereas Webber and Hamilton were on a roller coaster of ups and downs that year, Button was just picking up good points time again (a long with Vetter and Alonso). This however doesn't show how fast a cars potential is and relies on the cars around you being inconsistent to work in your favour. 

 

Hamilton on the other hand will eek out everything from a car, but I think this puts him on the edge of its capabilities (and his) which is why he is more prone to mistakes. But year to year Hamilton's consistency changes, he has had some fantastic years where he has barely put a step wrong, others where he has had a few mishaps, and 2011, where he could barely string more than a couple of good races together. Maybe others would have argued that the 2011 car was very difficult to drive without Button there, but as I said, he always qualified well and he rarely seemed slow compared to Button, it was just one long year of mistakes and bad decisions.

 

Not really, because pace wasn't the issue. It would still be a scrappy season whoever you imagine to put in the other car.

 

Im not out to "Diss Button". Im making a point based on obvious evidence. If the evidence doesnt paint a great picture of a driver, "Tough Luck". In the interest of friendly debate, I'd rather your take as to whether or not you think there is more time to be found from the current McLaren, based on the previous trend of Lewis consistently outqualifying Button, at times by quite large (F1) margins...

 

The point of the thread is to show that drivers are less significant than technology in terms of overall performance due to the advancements in technology.   See the OP: "In a sport which focuses on technology hasn't the driver been demoted to a insignificant part of the total performance?"

 

Karlth wants us to believe that we will make statements that "diss" the technology, when at times, the drivers are more to blame.  He tries to use his scenarios to prove this.

 

Well I disagree with Karlth. 

 

1) First because the 'better performing' drivers often tell us themselves that they are not getting the most from the car - that they are not in balance with it and/or are attempting to improve - they also point out actual issues with the car. 

 

2) Second because we see improvement from the drivers that is not attributable to the car (i.e., drivers crashing less, taking different lines that assist the pace, better tyre management, etc.), which means that drivers have an important impact on the outcome. 

 

3) Third, team's find very real problems with the technology/car all of the time, so it is not perfect,

 

4) fourth, because how are you going to get the car to move without the driver? 

 

And these are just a few reasons. Thus, I disagree that the technology has rendered the driver insignificant.

 

 

TurboF1 used a modified version of Karlth's 'scenario' to show the importance of a driver over the technology - based on technology's dependence on driver input/reference.  TurboF1 used the example of Lewis leaving Macca to make his point.  That attempt failed because the modified scenario is not always true based on the evidence.  This is what I was trying to show by refuting Turbo's example:  while Lewis may have shown technology in a poor light by leaving Macca for 2013, he also showed technology in a poor light by staying at Macca in 2011 (using his teammate as a reference.)   So unless we have complete knowledge regarding the situation at Macca, we cannot look solely to Lewis for answers.  (And by the way, "pace" is not the only indicator of "performance" - and the latter is what the OP is discussing.)

 

In the end, I disagree with TurboF1's underlying point also - whether he thought beyond the Lewis scenario or not.  Technology is not less significant than the driver to overall performance (due to the driver's part in the development of the technology).

 

 

What I believe is that it is a 50/50 proposition.  Always car + driver and of equal importance.  The idea is to get the technology to be in sync with the driver's style and capabilities, and then the driver can fine tune his driving to a car that suits him and get the best performance out of both. 


Edited by bourbon, 03 May 2014 - 22:45.


#33 SamH123

SamH123
  • Member

  • 2,952 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 May 2014 - 00:19

Cool idea  :up:

 

It's really interesting how the narrative could change so much, even if in reality, it shouldn't.

Although I'm not sure that with just Rosberg in the Merc anybody would be saying the Merc is maybe not the quickest over a single lap though, in the dry of Bahrain he was way ahead and the wet Quali doesn't really count IMO



#34 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 04 May 2014 - 11:48

So the Kimi, Button & Vettel fans have a problem with this thread... I am not surprised :smoking:



#35 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 5,878 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 May 2014 - 12:48

Cool idea  :up:

 

It's really interesting how the narrative could change so much, even if in reality, it shouldn't.

Although I'm not sure that with just Rosberg in the Merc anybody would be saying the Merc is maybe not the quickest over a single lap though, in the dry of Bahrain he was way ahead and the wet Quali doesn't really count IMO

 

Yep. Rosberg would probably have 100 points and a good gap to P2 with an underperforming team mate. (And in my opinion apart from the last race, Rosberg looked very competitive so far.)

 

Plus, if you discard all the "best" drivers, then you have to consider that the whole field becomes worse which adjusts things considerably. 



#36 TurboF1

TurboF1
  • Member

  • 748 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 May 2014 - 13:17

The point of the thread is to show that drivers are less significant than technology in terms of overall performance due to the advancements in technology.   See the OP: "In a sport which focuses on technology hasn't the driver been demoted to a insignificant part of the total performance?"
 
Karlth wants us to believe that we will make statements that "diss" the technology, when at times, the drivers are more to blame.  He tries to use his scenarios to prove this.
 
Well I disagree with Karlth. 
 
1) First because the 'better performing' drivers often tell us themselves that they are not getting the most from the car - that they are not in balance with it and/or are attempting to improve - they also point out actual issues with the car. 
 
2) Second because we see improvement from the drivers that is not attributable to the car (i.e., drivers crashing less, taking different lines that assist the pace, better tyre management, etc.), which means that drivers have an important impact on the outcome. 
 
3) Third, team's find very real problems with the technology/car all of the time, so it is not perfect,
 
4) fourth, because how are you going to get the car to move without the driver? 
 
And these are just a few reasons. Thus, I disagree that the technology has rendered the driver insignificant.
 
 
TurboF1 used a modified version of Karlth's 'scenario' to show the importance of a driver over the technology - based on technology's dependence on driver input/reference.  TurboF1 used the example of Lewis leaving Macca to make his point.  That attempt failed because the modified scenario is not always true based on the evidence.  This is what I was trying to show by refuting Turbo's example:  while Lewis may have shown technology in a poor light by leaving Macca for 2013, he also showed technology in a poor light by staying at Macca in 2011 (using his teammate as a reference.)   So unless we have complete knowledge regarding the situation at Macca, we cannot look solely to Lewis for answers.  (And by the way, "pace" is not the only indicator of "performance" - and the latter is what the OP is discussing.)
 
In the end, I disagree with TurboF1's underlying point also - whether he thought beyond the Lewis scenario or not.  Technology is not less significant than the driver to overall performance (due to the driver's part in the development of the technology).
 
 
What I believe is that it is a 50/50 proposition.  Always car + driver and of equal importance.  The idea is to get the technology to be in sync with the driver's style and capabilities, and then the driver can fine tune his driving to a car that suits him and get the best performance out of both.


I agree that you need both, you need a great car and a great driver to truly win consistently in F1. My scenario did not "fail" because you disagree with it. That's ludicrous. Your use of Lewis 2011 season is flawed, because even though the points table didn't reflect it, Lewis had very few races where he was off the pace. There were other incidents which he was at fault for, but the underlying pace was not a problem. Lets turn this around. Suppose Vettel was never at Red Bull, but they still had Webber and Dc, two slightly above (f1) average drivers who are capable of winning on merit, but aren't quite championship caliber. Imagine both of them in the rb7, and neither mastered the early on the throttle technique that Seb used to max out the ebd effect. Now there's no real reference for what the car would've TRULY been capable of, because even though I'm not Sebs biggest fan, you can't really fault the kid for doing what a race driver should, which is maximize the car you're given. He's done a great job at that for the most part, even if this year is a bit suspect, it's too early to draw any real conclusions re his struggles compared to Ricciardo. Using the same logic, it's valid to assume that Lewis would MOST LIKELY find more time in both McLarens from this year and last, which points out that its important to have both. You put Lewis in the Marussia, I think he'd find more time. He certainly ain't putting it on pole, but I'd bet there's a couple more tenths in it. It's a simple suggestion, unless of course you disagree with the millions of dollars extra spent to hire drivers that show they don't leave much time on the table like Alonso, Lewis, and to some degree, Seb.

#37 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 04 May 2014 - 15:57

 

 
2014 Q1 Season report
 
Mercedes F1 W05
Nico Rosberg
Sam Bird
  That Rosberg won the last race by a mere 7 seconds shows that competing teams are closing fast.
 
 

 

 

There is something which doesn't add up. If you replaced the "better performing" drivers, you removed both Alonso and Ricciardo as well, so that Rosberg's winning margin in China was far bigger than 7 seconds.

 

And even if you kept Alonso and Ricciardo there for good measure, Rosberg was lapping 1s per lap faster than Alonso, whenever he was in clean air and catching. I think every observer would have noticed this obvious difference. If Rosberg could win with relative ease despite being almost in the midfield after a bad start, it would further highlight the advantage MB had.