51 replies to this topic

[PlatenGlass]

I was thinking about this after the thread about F1 drivers in DTM. F1 must have the most drivers in lower formulas aiming at it, so even if the process isn't entirely meritocratic, I'd argue that on average F1 drivers are better than in any other series. But then you have NASCAR in America taking a lot of their talent, and obviously DTM itself which seems to attract talent. What would you say are the top five or ten or so series in the world by overall skill?

[Gyno]

WRC.

[ollebompa]

Finnish folk-racing

Edited by ollebompa, 24 September 2014 - 17:42.

[chunder27]

NASCAR is a very odd series.  I definitely rate the oval guys, as it seems these days very few drivers from road coarses have been able to consistently run well on ovasl in NASCAR in the modern era, suggesting that guys like Johnson, Gordon, Biffle Bushc are clearly very skilled at setting up a car, reading what it needs. Guys like Ambrose, Montoya, Piquet and the other road coarse guys eem able to run at the front on those tracks, and might win, but they never win anywhere else, suggesting they are lacking something.

 

It looks easy, and a lot of European fans say driving a car round an oval is never going to be as chellenging as Le Mans or Spa, but because it's not a hard to challenge to drive the track, getting it all right is paramount.

 

But, would an Alonso, Rosberg, Button be able to learn it?

 

F1 would seem to be where the fastest drivers end up I think. the most obvious talent goes there.

 

But it's impossible to say whether a Loeb is more or less talented than an Alonso or Johnson.

 

And threse days talent is polarized, guys like Stewart, Clark, Hill, even Jones, Rahal could win in sports cars F1 F2, saloons. To me tey are the moet talented. An Andretti certainly.

[sopa]

Well, most talented in what? Different series are very unique. F1 drivers might be talented in what they are doing, but they are usually not successful, when they switch to WRC, NASCAR or even DTM, which is "closest" to F1 among the three. In WRC and NASCAR they have very-very little chance of truly succeeding, unless they did it in the way as the elite of those series did - concentrated on this discipline from early career already. Conversely - several NASCAR, WRC and also several DTM drivers could cut it in F1 if they went by the route of usual route in which F1 drivers succeed - karting, feeder formula, etc. But their life has been completely different, so is their developed competence/skill level.

 

Out of those series only F1 and DTM have some similarities as drivers often come roughly from the same pool - i.e they race in minor open-wheel series before making the switch to the "major" series. And even there are exceptions. For example Mike Rockenfeller and Mattias Ekstrom - well-known DTM stars - barely participated in open-wheel formula. Before DTM they raced in other (minor) touring car series and built up their careers this way.

 

But NASCAR and WRC are completely different worlds and drivers already starting in junior categories go through a completely different route. Thus we can't compare them to F1 drivers as their whole career development has been completely different and if they suddenly switched discipline, they would struggle. This much is obvious. But we would never know, how well they would have fared, had they taken a completely different career option altogether. I.e Loeb in F1, Jimmie Johnson in WRC or Alonso in NASCAR, starting, say, aged 15 in feeder categories. The only thing we know - top stars in each sport are all damn good in what they are doing.

[sopa]

But, would an Alonso, Rosberg, Button be able to learn it?

 

 

I am pretty confident if Alonso/Rosberg/Button switched to NASCAR or WRC right now, they wouldn't do much. I am doubtful they would be front-runners even after many years of practice. Montoya spent many years in NASCAR and there was only an odd season, when he was close to the front. The only chance I see for these F1 guys if they started doing these things like 10 years earlier already and committed their whole career to this discipline.

 

Besides all - everyone has their own unique talent and skillset and we don't know if their talents are that suitable to develop in other disciplines. Will Power to me is an interesting example - he didn't look like a standout talent in European feeder formulas, but has really thrived in IndyCar, which plays perfectly to whatever talent he has. I think those F1 stars would have trouble matching Power in IndyCar, while you'd think in F1 or Formula 3 Power would struggle matching them.

Edited by sopa, 24 September 2014 - 18:21.

[PlatenGlass]

Well, most talented in what?

I suppose I would say most talented at whatever it is they are doing. I know it's very difficult to compare, but if I was given 1000 people and told to make a football team out of the best players, and given 50 people and told to make a cricket team, I would say that even though they are completely different disciplines, my football team would be better in a statistical sense because it has a wider pool of talent. Of course the best individual cricketer might be a statistical outlier and in that sense better than the best footballer, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that overall the football team was better. Likewise, I don't need to get into a debate about who is better out of say Alonso and Loeb, but I would look at F1 and the WRC as a whole, and look at the number of people trying to make it in, what they have to do to get in, how meritocratic the system is etc. and make a decision on which series is likely to be better in a statistical sense. You could use something like: on average how many random people would I need to get through on average to get one person good enough to race in that series, assuming they get all the practice and resources they need from an early enough age.

[Dick Dastardly]

Kimi didn't do much in WRC between his spells in F1....and Kubica isn't exactly cutting the mustard either

The problem is with roundy roundy stuff, everyone knows exactly where the circuit goes, what's round the next bend and marshals indicate by flags if there's a hazard or oil etc

So, its probably down to each driver getting to grips with their cars to find the maximum they can do

Whereas in WRC....or rallying in general...OK, they make their own pace notes but have a limited no of times they can do each stage and a previous car can always through up rocks etc which are not 'flagged' up as they would be on circuits. Plus conditions can change from making those notes to when they actually compete.....

I always rate rally drivers as more talented than race drivers as they cope with the unknown a lot better...

[sopa]

I suppose I would say most talented at whatever it is they are doing. I know it's very difficult to compare, but if I was given 1000 people and told to make a football team out of the best players, and given 50 people and told to make a cricket team, I would say that even though they are completely different disciplines, my football team would be better in a statistical sense because it has a wider pool of talent. Of course the best individual cricketer might be a statistical outlier and in that sense better than the best footballer, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that overall the football team was better. Likewise, I don't need to get into a debate about who is better out of say Alonso and Loeb, but I would look at F1 and the WRC as a whole, and look at the number of people trying to make it in, what they have to do to get in, how meritocratic the system is etc. and make a decision on which series is likely to be better in a statistical sense. You could use something like: on average how many random people would I need to get through on average to get one person good enough to race in that series, assuming they get all the practice and resources they need from an early enough age.

 

While this makes sense, the question remains - how to separate different talents in those pools? For example we can't compare the talent pools of 100m runners and marathon runners. Because already the way their bodies are built is different. And I think it often goes down to genetics, who is more likely to succeed in which of those two different disciplines.

 

If you'd like to compare F1 and NASCAR from pure pool perspective, then yeah - the "pool" of F1 is theoretically most of the world (and even then it is mostly limited to Europe, since chances to develop yourself for F1 outside of it are very limited), while NASCAR is just USA, so there is a clear difference. Though then come in the other aspects - i.e we know that to succeed in motorsport you need loads of money. Does a random American have it easier to have a go in NASCAR than a random World/European citizen in open-wheel-racing?

 

There are some other interesting cases. For example by far the most best basketball players come from USA. But it can't be that their talent pool for this kind of sport is so much bigger than the rest of the world. So it is bound to be down to some kind of tradition as well.

Edited by sopa, 24 September 2014 - 19:02.

[Peat]

Kimi didn't do much in WRC between his spells in F1....and Kubica isn't exactly cutting the mustard either

The problem is with roundy roundy stuff, everyone knows exactly where the circuit goes, what's round the next bend and marshals indicate by flags if there's a hazard or oil etc

So, its probably down to each driver getting to grips with their cars to find the maximum they can do

Whereas in WRC....or rallying in general...OK, they make their own pace notes but have a limited no of times they can do each stage and a previous car can always through up rocks etc which are not 'flagged' up as they would be on circuits. Plus conditions can change from making those notes to when they actually compete.....

I always rate rally drivers as more talented than race drivers as they cope with the unknown a lot better...

 

Thus, rally drivers very rarely take any given corner at a true 100%. They can't, If they want to finish a rally. Perhaps that's where Kubica struggles? Flies too close to the sun thanks to a lifetime of circuit racing where you are more or less at the limit every lap else you get left for dust.

[sopa]

I always rate rally drivers as more talented than race drivers as they cope with the unknown a lot better...

 

I am not sure I'd call rally drivers as more "talented" based on that, but certainly they are far more "trained" to deal with adversity, unknownness, changeable conditions and blind belief (complete trust in pacenotes).

[Prost1997T]

Will Power to me is an interesting example - he didn't look like a standout talent in European feeder formulas, but has really thrived in IndyCar, which plays perfectly to whatever talent he has. I think those F1 stars would have trouble matching Power in IndyCar, while you'd think in F1 or Formula 3 Power would struggle matching them.

 

It took Power a few years and the best team (Penske) to start winning regularly, mind. Ryan Briscoe is an example of the opposite, two open-wheel titles in Europe against F1-calibre opposition like Nico Rosberg, but not a top Indycar driver.

Edited by Prost1997T, 24 September 2014 - 19:15.

[F1matt]

It is clear most series require massive discipline and commitment which means a cross over is almost impossible.

Long gone are the days Jim Clark and Graham Hill could go to the USA and win the Indy 500, or jump in a Cortina and win in BTCC, or AJ Foyt coming this side of the pond and winning.

[Prost1997T]

It is clear most series require massive discipline and commitment which means a cross over is almost impossible.

Long gone are the days Jim Clark and Graham Hill could go to the USA and win the Indy 500, or jump in a Cortina and win in BTCC, or AJ Foyt coming this side of the pond and winning.

 

Not true. Sebastien Bourdais, funnily enough, is a good example of that (about the only thing he didn't win in was F1).

 

FIA GT
FIA Sportscar championship
Champ Car World Series
International Race of Champions
American Le Mans Series
Grand-Am
Intercontinental Le Mans
V8 Supercars

 

Took the Daytona 24 win this year as well.

 

Juan Pablo Montoya is an obvious example, wins in every discipline from CART to F1 to Nascar and sports cars. Will Power finished on the podium in his last two V8 Supercars starts. Simon Pagenaud also got a podium in V8s (his second start), and has wins in LMP1/2 prototypes in addition to his Indycar success. Scott Dixon is a two-time Daytona 24 winner. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

 

Not every driver is overly specialised in high-downforce open wheel cars.

[F1matt]

Not true. Sebastien Bourdais, funnily enough, is a good example of that (about the only thing he didn't win in was F1).

FIA GT
FIA Sportscar championship
Champ Car World Series
International Race of Champions
American Le Mans Series
Grand-Am
Intercontinental Le Mans
V8 Supercars

Took the Daytona 24 win this year as well.

Juan Pablo Montoya is an obvious example, wins in every discipline from CART to F1 to Nascar and sports cars. Will Power finished on the podium in his last two V8 Supercars starts. Simon Pagenaud also got a podium in V8s (his second start), and has wins in LMP1/2 prototypes in addition to his Indycar success. Scott Dixon is a two-time Daytona 24 winner. I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

Not every driver is overly specialised in high-downforce open wheel cars.

I was trying to use F1 drivers who had won a title as opposed to drivers with no F1 pedigree, except Montoya who was unsuccessful in Nascar and hasn't set Indycar alight this year.

[Risil]

Gut feeling says NASCAR, because of the sheer breadth of the talent pool.

 

Not sure if talent is what divides the successful from the unsuccessful at the levels we're talking about though. They're all incredibly good. Hard work, intelligence, luck and psychological impenetrability count for a lot. Otherwise you're, well, Pastor Maldonado.

Edited by Risil, 24 September 2014 - 20:45.

[RosannaG]

I can only say that nowadays, I enjoy much more Nascar and DTM than F1.

 

About driver's talent... I have no idea, those series are so different one from the other that I could not be able to judge it. But, for me, as I've already said, what I look for is fun and F1 has become too "sophisticated" to my liking. 

Edited by RosannaG, 24 September 2014 - 21:29.

[scheivlak]

WRC.

If it was ever the case that's not the case now anymore IMHO. I think the current - already pretty thin - crop of WRC drivers is the least convincing of the last 40 years or so.

[rhukkas]

Sim racing bar farrrrrr

[PlatenGlass]

Not sure if talent is what divides the successful from the unsuccessful at the levels we're talking about though. They're all incredibly good. Hard work, intelligence, luck and psychological impenetrability count for a lot. Otherwise you're, well, Pastor Maldonado.

Yeah, maybe "talent" was the wrong word to use. I could have asked which is the strongest in terms of drivers, and then it's just about the level they are at regardless of how the drivers got their current skill level from (natural talent, hard work etc.)

[HeadFirst]

I think it is too hard to rate drivers across the various disciplines of motorsport. WRC and NASCAR for example share some mechanical features (4 wheels and an engine) and the drivers share some attributes with F1 pilots (reflexes, eye-hand co-ordination etc.), but the challenge of each series is different enough to be regarded as separate entity. For example ...... basketball and volleyball have many similarities, but there is no certainty that an NBA star could make the transition to volleyball successfully. Could Michael Jordan have been a star in volleyball? Possibly, he is an exceptionally talented athlete, but the transition might not be as automatic as one would expect. The transition from one autosport series to another would present similar challenges. While I think top drivers in many series could have excelled in other areas of the sport, most of them have been forced to narrow their focus (open wheel, rally, stockers) at an early age. This would put them at a disadvantage when attempting a switch.

[discover23]

In the US I would say that definitely NASCAR.. In the rest of the world you have great talents for each of the specialized series..

[George Costanza]

Depends on decade....

 

1970s: Sportscar racing.

 

1980s: F1.

 

1990s: WRC

[paulogman]

Right now it's hard to argue against the talent in F1.
Alonso, Hamilton, vettel as the elite
Plus hulkenberg, rosberg, button, Perez
And the new talent
Bottas, Magnussen and kvyat.
That's a deep talented promising group

[HP]

http://s3.amazonaws....worms_ahead.jpg

[HeadFirst]

Kimi didn't do much in WRC between his spells in F1....and Kubica isn't exactly cutting the mustard either

The problem is with roundy roundy stuff, everyone knows exactly where the circuit goes, what's round the next bend and marshals indicate by flags if there's a hazard or oil etc

So, its probably down to each driver getting to grips with their cars to find the maximum they can do

Whereas in WRC....or rallying in general...OK, they make their own pace notes but have a limited no of times they can do each stage and a previous car can always through up rocks etc which are not 'flagged' up as they would be on circuits. Plus conditions can change from making those notes to when they actually compete.....

I always rate rally drivers as more talented than race drivers as they cope with the unknown a lot better...

 

My problem with WRC is that as challenging as it is, it is essentially time trialing. My opinion is that coping with traffic and racing against your rivals, as well as changing course conditions is even more demanding. But as I said before, they are different enough as to make any comparisons an apples to bananas situation.

[F1matt]

Right now it's hard to argue against the talent in F1.
Alonso, Hamilton, vettel as the elite
Plus hulkenberg, rosberg, button, Perez
And the new talent
Bottas, Magnussen and kvyat.
That's a deep talented promising group

 

 

 

 

As opposed to what?

 

 

How do we know how these guys would fare in Indycars? Or even BTCC?????

[CoolBreeze]

Used to be formula one...

[Lotus53B]

The problem is that in modern racing all the drivers specialise, and are at an equivalent level of talent -for that series- as any other high ranking driving in -their- specialism.

 

30-40 years ago this may have been more relevant as F1 drivers drove in several formulae, often taking in sports cars, endurance racing, motorcycling, rallying - at the same time as their F1 careers, and they could make an informed judgement on which discipline took most talent.

 

It would be interesting to ask Moss, Stewart, Surtees how they view this discussion

[Lights]

As opposed to what?

 

 

How do we know how these guys would fare in Indycars? Or even BTCC?????

 

We don't. But we assume that the current Indycar field would fare even worse in F1 in comparison. That's why.

[Afterburner]

As opposed to what?


How do we know how these guys would fare in Indycars? Or even BTCC?????

I don't think any of them would be consistent winners in Indycar, at least not right away. You need a different skillset to handle those things, one which I think you could take up from Indycar to F1 but not back down; F1 is more finicky about a specific kind of car management, wheras Indycar requires a little less car managment but more pace because of refuelling (think the Scott Dixon paradox from Mid-Ohio earlier this year in which he was using less fuel than anyone in the race whilst still setting fastest lap after fastest lap = win from stone last). The idea of Alonso, Hamilton, et al attempting to cope with challengers like that during a double header weekend on a street circuit in Texas in the middle of June/July whilst having to deal with the likes of Sato makes me laugh. Winners? Probably. Consistently so? Don't think so, at all.

Would be cool to see them give it a shot, but then the only F1 star nowadays who ever showed any interest in racing in the States was one Sebastian Vettel, and he still would prefer WRC...

[F1matt]

We don't. But we assume that the current Indycar field would fare even worse in F1 in comparison. That's why.

 

 

 

That makes no sense at all. So because F1 standards are in decline we have to presume that every other series is in decline?

[Lights]

That makes no sense at all. So because F1 standards are in decline we have to presume that every other series is in decline?

 

Unless F1 standards aren't in decline. 

[F1matt]

Unless F1 standards aren't in decline. 

 

 

Which of course they are, as is F1 in general sadly.

[Szoelloe]

Karts. Always been, always will.

 

As for the rest, anywhere where the big money is, apart from the US of course.

 

 

edit: forgot to add the

Edited by Szoelloe, 25 September 2014 - 13:29.

[Atreiu]

MotoGP and Moto3, easily.

[bub]

Right now it's hard to argue against the talent in F1.
Alonso, Hamilton, vettel as the elite
Plus hulkenberg, rosberg, button, Perez
And the new talent
Bottas, Magnussen and kvyat.
That's a deep talented promising group

 

+ Ricciardo and Bianchi

[superden]

Not F1.

[PlatenGlass]

WRC has come up a few times, but how many people go into it? The fact that the UK has had two champions in the last 20 years despite there being essentially no interest in rallying in the country says something to me. Also the Loeb domination seemed to be as much about a drop-off in top drivers as anything else about 10 years ago. Rallying used to be a bit bigger in the past, but then it went downhill onto channels where you had to go out of your way to find it and instead of being big events, it was all repeated stages.

[sopa]

WRC has come up a few times, but how many people go into it? The fact that the UK has had two champions in the last 20 years despite there being essentially no interest in rallying in the country says something to me. Also the Loeb domination seemed to be as much about a drop-off in top drivers as anything else about 10 years ago. Rallying used to be a bit bigger in the past, but then it went downhill onto channels where you had to go out of your way to find it and instead of being big events, it was all repeated stages.

 

On a world stage rallying indeed doesn't have depths of talent and arguably hasn't had much since the Sainz, McRae, Makinen, Gronholm, etc days. Loeb was dominating and now Ogier easily dominates. Doesn't speak much about top level, does it?

 

Though on national level there are lots of competitors in many countries in different classes. Depending on country, there can be something like ~100 of cars on the entry list. So perhaps it is like with other motorsports - it is very expensive and hence it is hard to move above national amateur level.

[PlatenGlass]

I suppose it would be quite interesting to see a list of the top series by the amount of money the drivers earn or how much the series generates generally. That's likely to have some correlation with the amount drivers would be attracted to the series and so how competitive they are. Is this sort of information anywhere?

[Atreiu]

Not F1.

 

That doesn't answer the question asked.

[rhukkas]

If you look at it from a talent point of view then you can't look past sim racing. Pound for pound it is the hardest form of motorsport on the planet. I am being 100% serious.

 

With an initial small investment to buy your set up there is absolutely no barriers for talent apart from time. You can't BUY your way into the big leagues, you have to earn it.

 

But sim racing aside the most inclusive motorsport next up is kart racing, but even now it would appear not just being rich is a requirement, being MEGA rich is the new level to achieve success.

 

It is quite clear talent is being actively suppressed. Especially in the lower ranks. Unless your dad is either 1. a millionaire (a multi one at that) or 2. your dad is ex-F1... you quite simply have no chance. I can only think of one exception, but the opportunity they had is no longer there.

[PlatenGlass]

If you look at it from a talent point of view then you can't look past sim racing. Pound for pound it is the hardest form of motorsport on the planet. I am being 100% serious.

I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but I don't know much about it. How much splitting is there of the talent between different sims? Is there one that has the most credibility, or is it just pick the one you want?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think sim racing is it's own set of 'talent' and might not be interchangable with real world racing. But I agree the talent pool is pretty damn big. Bigger than real racing, but not as big as other more accessible sports.

[HeadFirst]

That makes no sense at all. So because F1 standards are in decline we have to presume that every other series is in decline?

 

Yet almost all of the top IndyCar drivers have had a shot at F1 and fallen short.

[Peat]

If you look at it from a talent point of view then you can't look past sim racing. Pound for pound it is the hardest form of motorsport on the planet. I am being 100% serious.

 

Eh, no.

It's not driving.

(FYI - I'm a long-time sim racer too)

[Peat]

Yet almost all of the top IndyCar drivers have had a shot at F1 and fallen short.

 

Not really fair.

There are only 3 who had a fair crack (Montoya, Bourdais & Sato). Justin Wilson had some impressive performances in his part-season in 03 but who was going to build a car to accommodate a lanky yorkshireman with pennies in his pocket?

Of the rest, I can only recall Dixon & Kanaan as having had a day's testing at Jerez each. (I might even be wrong about Kanaan...?)

I'd say the level is very good in IndyCar right now, but there are a few lunatic ride buyers in there too. Sato included.

F1 is probably still top of the pile in terms of superstars. But the ever closing doors and the need to bring money is eroding the depth.

 

In terms of depth, you couldn't go too far wrong with looking through the entry lists in WEC or TUSCC. Alot of names in there, actually being paid to drive! But, they are balanced out the the 'gentlemen' drivers. All part of the fun!

[ebc]

F1 & NASCAR.  Most if not all drivers from other series would do anything to get a top ride in one of these 2.  That is where the money is and the talent.

 

I don't know why some are saying talent in F1 is on the decline, if anything it has never been stronger.  And look at NASCAR, young guys like Chase Elliot & Kyle Larsson look fantastic talents and neither would even consider racing in Indycar for example.  NASCAR has the best drivers in the US and F1 has the best drivers from the rest of the world, but the US has such a big sports culture that the talent pool would not be much different in terms of numbers.

 

I think guys like Dixon and Power of even Franchitti could have been successful in these 2 series given a chance and time to deliver.

[Dan333SP]

Right now it's hard to argue against the talent in F1.
Alonso, Hamilton, vettel as the elite
Plus hulkenberg, rosberg, button, Perez
And the new talent
Bottas, Magnussen and kvyat.
That's a deep talented promising group

 

Dan Ricciardo must have some soul-searching to do.