After their 3rd win in 4 years I went to Forix to learn about the careers AUDI's 'Young drivers car'...
What did AUDI see, how did they manage to take what was essentially journey-men and make them into a powerful driver pairing (is it a pairing when there are 3?) which arguably have been the strongest AUDI entry 4 years running. Is there a lesson here, that with the few top seats available for each driver like Benoit Treluyer, Andre Lotterer and Marcel Fassler there are many many many possibly hundreds of drivers who could be as good as strong if only the chips fell right? There is a thread dealing with F1 drivers who could have been better, who should have been recognized as better.
Is there a story to this?
I would say so, yes. I've only been following racing closely for a little over a decade, but in that short period of time I've observed and learned about a number of times in which drivers were supposed to be the next big thing and, for whatever reason, simply weren't. A prime example of this is Bourdais in F1, I think--the guy more or less ruled Champ Car only to get his derrier handed to him by one Seb Vettel and later disappear from F1 without a trace. Does this mean he's no good? I don't think so; it's simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in my opinion. Bourdais never really gelled with the team due to language barriers and design issues with the car, and then he was gone. In another team, who knows what would've happened?
In keeping with the F1 theme, McLaren seems to be the place where career aspirations go to die. Montoya, Raikkonen, Alonso, Hamilton, and even Perez were all regarded as potentially strong, consistent threats for the championship with the team--Montoya didn't deliver, Raikkonen never seemed to be in the right place in the right time, Alonso had a 'personal conflict' with the management, Hamilton's head never seemed to be fully in the game after 2009, and Perez became almost completely anonymous after joining the team. I'm not really sure what happened, but had the chips fallen even a slightly different way, McLaren could've won in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, and 2012, making Raikkonen a two-time champ and Alonso and Lewis each three-timers (think how the grid would look given
those stats, with Vettel on two championships as well). This is speaking from a very general perspective, obviously--you can play the coulda-woulda-shoulda game for any team, but it must be pretty painful for McLaren in particular.
I think it really all comes down to having a good work atmosphere. It probably sounds pretty stupid, but I think that has more of an impact than people think on drivers' performances. When you're happy, working with people you like being around, and having a good time, everything else kind of takes care of itself. This is relative--I think that even though some drivers 'connect' with their teams, others do so more than others and this is reflected in their performances (see Webber's downward spiral from 2010-2013). It plays on your conscience, even if only at a small level. I also think this is potentially why drivers seen as 'less-talented' hit that sweet spot where they just kick A-55 like it's no-one's business and become completely invincible on their day (see Button and Vettel in 2011 and 2013, respectively, as well as Raikkonen at Lotus before his fall-out with them when he was consistently beaten by Grosjean). It's a morale game, to more of an extent than I think most people realise.
I hate to make this about F1 when it was started about sportscars, because it really does extend to all forms of motorsport, but I find the most examples in F1 because it's the series I've followed the most closely over the past decade or so. I'm sure other people could point me to other examples in other series. With regards to the Audi #2 team in particular, I think they just work really well together, and that drives them to heights that others won't necessarily reach. Some drivers have niches, and they've clearly found theirs, which is not to say that they're not talented, as Lotterer was totally flying during the last few hours of the race this year. It's just chemistry, really: you get the right balance of talent, machinery, and camaraderie, and you get results. That's the way I see it, anyway--would not be surprised at all to see a few people show up with example that prove me completely wrong.
EDIT: To add to this, this is also why I see teammate comparisons as being a bit daft. If two drivers don't work well together and aren't performing in an environment where they feel they can do their best, then you're not really seeing the best of either of them, are you? As an example: if Vettel and Webber were in different teams but had equal cars, do you think their results over 2010-2013 would've been the same? What about Alonso and Hamilton in 2007? Teammate battles don't tell the whole story about what drivers can do at their best, in my opinion. Of course, it's legitimate to say that the way they'd handle adversity in a hostile atmosphere is also a measure of their worth, but in my opinion that doesn't matter because if I were hiring a driver I'd only be concerned with what he did at his best, as that'd be the atmosphere I'd intend my team to provide him. But I'm rambling almost completely off-topic now, lol.
Edited by Afterburner, 16 June 2014 - 16:00.
You need cooperation between drivers too, in terms of setup compromises between the 3 of them etc - typically F1 stars are big egos which don't quite fully understand "cooperation". Lack of that huge ego could be a good reason why some of the Le Mans guys didn't make F1 or weren't great at it - it's connected to the ability to exploit that little extra bit of unfair advantage etc.
