Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Dependence of drivers regarding regulation changes


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 02 August 2015 - 10:25

We had this topic in the Vettel vs. Kimi thread where we discussed the theory that Kimi is struggling since Pirelli made in consequence of the British GP 2013 the tyres harder. We also very often hear other theorys that certain drivers are struggling with certain rule changes more than other drivers and certain drivers are getting benefited by certain rule changes (e.g. Vettels secret was apparentely that he handled the blown diffousor better than Webber, Rosberg was apparentely competitive against Hamilton last year because of FRIC, etc.). And we also really often hear that certain drivers apparentely are better in adapting and other drivers not because they are very sensitive.

Is this a real argument when we judge the performance of top tier drivers like Raikkonen? Or should a top level driver be able to adapt to new circumstances even if it means to change his driving style? And how credible are these theorys?

Advertisement

#2 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 11:10

Pirelli didn't make their tyres harder following Britan 2013, they changed the structure from a steel belt back to the carbon belt of 2012. They made them harder for 2014 in the expectation of a huge hike in torque that would over stress the existing tyre compounds.

 

I think it's always been the case that drivers favour one type of handling characteristic over another and there have only been very few drivers that can completely adapt from one to another fully.



#3 VolvoT5

VolvoT5
  • Member

  • 3,178 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 12:39

I think there is some valid point behind the theory but it would be impossible to make a set of rules and regulations that didn't favour one driver or team over another.   I think the most important thing is to have regulations which promote good racing and good entertainment.  I'm not sure we have that at the moment. 

 

Clearly some drivers, with Raikkonen and Button being prime examples, are amazing and untouchable when the car is exactly to their liking; perfect tyres and handling characteristics, etc.    Unfortunately it is hard to get the car perfect, especially these days with limited testing, development and practice sessions.   This is why other drivers such as Alonso and Hamilton  who seem to be more able to adapt and make the most of a bad situation are so highly rated. 

 

It does seem that lower input drivers like Jenson and Kimi are hurt by the harder tyres and lower down force levels more than others, but then they both benefited in the 2012/13 years when a set of soft tyres would barely last 10 laps for some drivers like Webber.

 

IMO some drivers are really hurt by the qualifying shoot-out format combined with the tyres that will only do 1 hot lap......   There are a few drivers out there that can just go out and deliver one lap at max performance,  but quite few others would definitely benefit from being able to do longer qualifying runs to build up to a mega lap.... time restriction and crappy tyres don't allow. 



#4 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 02 August 2015 - 12:40

Pirelli didn't make their tyres harder following Britan 2013, they changed the structure from a steel belt back to the carbon belt of 2012. They made them harder for 2014 in the expectation of a huge hike in torque that would over stress the existing tyre compounds.
 
I think it's always been the case that drivers favour one type of handling characteristic over another and there have only been very few drivers that can completely adapt from one to another fully.


Was refering to this graph someone posted in the other thread ;)

raikkonen_teammate1.png



#5 v@sh

v@sh
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:10

From what I've read, a lot of drivers still keep their styles since their karting days and some take time to change. I don't think the regulations are taken into account as much when people get into the driver vs. driver debates because that can affect the results quite a bit.

 

Alonso took the best part of 6 months before he got a handle on Bridgestone tires after changing from the Michellins.

Webber's driving style has always been hard on the Pirelli's which is why he struggled in the Pirelli era, whereas Vettel could switch them on straight away - hence his quick get away plus his ability with low corner speeds to get the turn in he wants.

Kimi has always preferred a responsive front since his McLaren days, once he doesn't have that, other drivers will perform better if they can live with it better. Patty Lowe even said that the suspension was completely diff for him in his McLaren days. Another reason why Alonso smashed Kimi because he coped well.

 

I wouldn't say some are more adaptable than others, just that some drivers cope better with the characteristics of the car handling than others based on their natural driving style. Mark Hughes wrote a great article for the BBC in 2011 where he compared to characteristics that the Pirelli's bought along to the Vettel, Webber, Button, Alonso and Hamilton which showed the effect that the tire characteristics can affect the driver's based on their style. Essentially Button gained and Vettel gained, Hamilton not as much - Button's best season IMO - Alonso didn't have too much of an effect while the big loser was Webber (which was why he got dominated in 2011). Since then Pirelli have changed their constructions/compound but essentially they are still intended to degrade after a certain time which suits some drivers more than others.

 

It is reasons why this why I don't believe why drivers such as Webber are not bad drivers despite what the stats say and what many in this forum say, in the Bridgestone refuelling era he was one of the top drivers there because he could just thrash his car as much as he wanted through the corners without having to worry about it falling to pieces. In the Pirelli era though he was still close to Vettel in qualifying (unless he was a Tilke track like Singapore where slow corners are right up Vettel's alley) given his style but once it came to the race, no contest. Vettel was able to switch the tires on straight away, get out of DRS zone and preserve them for longer. Along with Webber's shoddy starts, Vettel was never going to lose the team battle against Webber irregardless of the favoritism RB had.

 

Vettel has always had a decent driving style suited to F1 too, he was quick before he made the jump to RB but the Pirelli's helped him even more. Bourdais himself even said that Vettel's style was one of the quickest for F1. So Kimi will still be getting beat in qualifying because of the same problem Webber had against Vettel due to their driving styles. Vettel can switch the tires on quicker in the operating temp while Webber struggled with lower speed corners and tire degradation while Kimi cannot get the tires in the working range quickly enough for the front end grip that he needs to control the car (and just the front end in general).


Edited by v@sh, 02 August 2015 - 13:13.


#6 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:17

If a driver lets something like a regulation change stop them from being a regular top competitor, then they aren't a top driver.

The best drivers are almost always the most adaptable ones, the ones with the best feel and the ones who can cope with whatever you throw at them. Doesn't mean they'll *like* everything you throw at them. But they wont let it stop them from being competitive.

#7 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:18

I personally don't think driver performance varies that much until they start to age. While they do have poor races, long term I'm not sure you see as big a variance as people like to imply.

#8 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:22

In all equipment-dependent sports adaptability is a quality to be valued. Doesn't matter if you study the move to larger racquets in tennis, shorter skis in slalom racing, or a change of spec in F1, some will thrive and some be left behind. 



#9 mzvztag

mzvztag
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:43

The better the driver is, the less he cares of regulation changes and the less they impact him.

#10 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 August 2015 - 13:51

The better the driver is, the less he cares of regulation changes and the less they impact him.

 

Not true necessarily. If the removal of driver aides (traction control, launch control, etc.) benefits the better drivers, would not the addition of this technology be to his detriment?.



#11 mzvztag

mzvztag
  • Member

  • 816 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 02 August 2015 - 14:06

To the detriment of the absolute advantage, yes but it would not change the pecking order.

#12 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,125 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 02 August 2015 - 14:09

The world's best drivers are quick in anything, on anything--door-bangers or open-wheelers, ovals or road courses, sprints or endurance races... and rallying, of course. See JPM for a modern-day example, Vettel, Alonso, and Raikkonen for aspiring renaissance drivers.

#13 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 16:27

I personally don't think driver performance varies that much until they start to age. While they do have poor races, long term I'm not sure you see as big a variance as people like to imply.

 

Would argue the level of variance on most drivers' performance is way larger than the average fan will think...

 

Look at IndyCar, a series where equipment has stayed consistent for long periods, and examining a drivers' performance is simple as many of their rivals are using very similar equipment. If the driver performance staying consistent theory held water - you would see somewhat similar order of drivers up front and champions being the same, year after year..right?

 

Dario Franchitti is a particularly peculiar case: he was instantly fighting for titles during his first few years in a highly competitive CART series for Green, basically demolished Paul Tracy on what should have been Tracy's peak years of career, and then hit an over 5-year slump during which he was easily the least impressive of all Tracy, Wheldon and Kanaan. And suddenly after almost getting fired from AGR, in 2007, at the relatively high age of 34, he found something and became impeccable on the IR05 chassis - winning every title he raced for until 2012, when the series changed to DW12 chassis, didn't find its sweet spot and apart from 2012 Indy 500, didn't win a single race in those two years - whereas Ganassi team-mate Dixon was the front-runner now. 

 

Helio Castroneves, had the same top ride for Penske for a literal age, usually quite consistent but had a couple of worse years including a total off year in 2011, only gaining two podiums and winning no races. Ryan Hunter-Reay, usually fighting for wins when everything clicks - but that usually only happens 3-4 times a season - had more of those races in 2012 and took the title - never finished in top 5 in the standings otherwise. 

 

Dan Wheldon, at his best dominated in the mid-2000's for Andretti but didn't find his "edge" at Ganassi. Simon Pagenaud, probably the best driver on the grid in the wheel of Schmidt, now well down the pack and his team-mates with the better Penske ride. Sebastien Bourdais, made everybody else look silly in Champ Car, got somewhat lost after his F1 stint, everybody else made him look silly in IndyCar for the last three or so years and now this year Bourdais found his speed again. Ryan Briscoe, always a mr Nowhere even in the wheel of a Penske apart from a random title challenge in 2009.

 

Then there's Graham Rahal, a wonderkid of 2008 who has launched a literal Schumacher-in-Benetton-esque title challenge with the inferior Honda engine, after five years of mediocrity and two of total apathy.And don't even get me started on Will Power....

 

Literally the only two top drivers following a static development-peak-afterpeak performance "trajectory" in the series are Tony Kanaan and Scott Dixon. What makes you believe that in F1 drivers would perform any more consistently, when they have to adjust to new cars every season, and the variables involved are well more numerous? 



#14 aramos

aramos
  • Member

  • 1,498 posts
  • Joined: December 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 16:52

Would argue the level of variance on most drivers' performance is way larger than the average fan will think...

Look at IndyCar, a series where equipment has stayed consistent for long periods, and examining a drivers' performance is simple as many of their rivals are using very similar equipment. If the driver performance staying consistent theory held water - you would see somewhat similar order of drivers up front and champions being the same, year after year..right?

Dario Franchitti is a particularly peculiar case: he was instantly fighting for titles during his first few years in a highly competitive CART series for Green, basically demolished Paul Tracy on what should have been Tracy's peak years of career, and then hit an over 5-year slump during which he was easily the least impressive of all Tracy, Wheldon and Kanaan. And suddenly after almost getting fired from AGR, in 2007, at the relatively high age of 34, he found something and became impeccable on the IR05 chassis - winning every title he raced for until 2012, when the series changed to DW12 chassis, didn't find its sweet spot and apart from 2012 Indy 500, didn't win a single race in those two years - whereas Ganassi team-mate Dixon was the front-runner now.

Helio Castroneves, had the same top ride for Penske for a literal age, usually quite consistent but had a couple of worse years including a total off year in 2011, only gaining two podiums and winning no races. Ryan Hunter-Reay, usually fighting for wins when everything clicks - but that usually only happens 3-4 times a season - had more of those races in 2012 and took the title - never finished in top 5 in the standings otherwise.

Dan Wheldon, at his best dominated in the mid-2000's for Andretti but didn't find his "edge" at Ganassi. Simon Pagenaud, probably the best driver on the grid in the wheel of Schmidt, now well down the pack and his team-mates with the better Penske ride. Sebastien Bourdais, made everybody else look silly in Champ Car, got somewhat lost after his F1 stint, everybody else made him look silly in IndyCar for the last three or so years and now this year Bourdais found his speed again. Ryan Briscoe, always a mr Nowhere even in the wheel of a Penske apart from a random title challenge in 2009.

Then there's Graham Rahal, a wonderkid of 2008 who has launched a literal Schumacher-in-Benetton-esque title challenge with the inferior Honda engine, after five years of mediocrity and two of total apathy.And don't even get me started on Will Power....

Literally the only two top drivers following a static development-peak-afterpeak performance "trajectory" in the series are Tony Kanaan and Scott Dixon. What makes you believe that in F1 drivers would perform any more consistently, when they have to adjust to new cars every season, and the variables involved are well more numerous?

indycar is by no means "similar performance" of the hardware, just because the chassis at the base are spec doesn't mean the teams aren't constantly evolving in their competitiveness. The teams are constantly learning and changing. In terms of hardware playing a key role it's really not that far from f1. We see the same in gp2, the team performance order is constantly varying even with spec cars and identical drivers.

Edited by aramos, 02 August 2015 - 16:55.


#15 noriaki

noriaki
  • Member

  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 17:09

The relative competitiveness of the indycar teams certainly isn't stagnant, and the setups evolve as teams find out stuff - but as certainly as that, its cars (and tyres) are changing way less than in f1. Yet even in comparison to team-mates (Dixon/Dario, Penske battles, Andretti) the performances can significantly vary from season to season. 



#16 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 02 August 2015 - 20:19

Was refering to this graph someone posted in the other thread ;)

raikkonen_teammate1.png

That graph is wrong regarding the tyres and tells you nothing other than the final results. Pirelli might have made a few more conservative changes after Silverstone in 2013 but there was no changes to the compounds that year, just the construction with, like I said, the belt being changed back from steel to the carbon belt of 2012. The way the carbon belt spread the thermal energy through the tyre very differently, combined with the restrictions on camber set up and an end to the practice of swapping left and right side tyres over had a major effect on the way the tyres worked, but I don't think much changed with Kimi's performance through the rest of 2013 until his stop for surgery/lack of payment.

 

What this graph doesn't remotely take into account is that his '13 team mate was Grosjean, who until Monaco was the same crash happy self that he'd been the year before. But then he calmed down and started making actual use of his speed with the Nurburgring being the first time he'd not only out performed Kimi but took the fight to Vettel and then maintained that kind of performance for the rest of the year. The fact that this run of outperforming Kimi started a couple of races before the revised tyres came in suggests they had nothing to do with it. As for '14, it wasn't only the tyres that had changed but the entire regulations for car design. That years Ferrari had a rubbish front end, visibly lacking in grip and his team mate was Alonso, someone who has favoured understeery cars his entire career and who is, to be perfectly honest, a much better driver.

 

The legend on that graph might as well say "Lunar Eclipse" or "Witchcraft" rather than "Harder tyres", it would make about as much sense.  



#17 BlinkyMcSquinty

BlinkyMcSquinty
  • Member

  • 862 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 03 August 2015 - 02:04

IMO any driver capable of getting to Formula One is adaptable. The great majority start in karts, progress through lower formula, to faster cars, finally Formula One. In each transition in series, there is a transition in car types and how they behave. This is where the drivers unable to change get weeded out. As well, different tracks require completely different driving techniques. Montreal is completely different than Spa, each require an almost completely different skill set.

 

When we examine different drivers in different series, the great majority are able to adapt quite quickly. Every few years NASCAR change their cars, and thus the handling. But the same names keep appearing near the top.

 

Just comparing against teammates is incredibly simplistic and does not reflect the entire situation. There is a lot going on we are not aware of, team politics, favoritism in setups, and who knows what else.

 

Lastly, there are many professional drivers who regularly drive in different cars, and do very well. Mark Webber finished second this year in LeMans. Shane van Gisbergen is driving in not only Aussie V-8's this year, but also in the Blancpain series in a McLaren. Mario Andretti, Mark Donohue, Jimmy Clark, Fangio.



#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 August 2015 - 15:17

IMO any driver capable of getting to Formula One is adaptable.

Of course they are. But some are better at this even amongst this group.

You talk about NASCAR, but it's little different from F1 in terms of needing the right machinery/team to be competitive. That's why the same names appear at the top.

And no, comparing against teammates is not simplistic. It is limited in its usefulness, but it is still quite valuable and has been the best barometer of performance we've had throughout F1's history. Politics and favoritism tend to be the excuses laid out by the fans or detractors of these accusers, but probably play a much less impactful role than these people want to believe. Cuz in truth, there is very little reason to favor anybody for any other reason than them being the more promising prospect.

Lastly, drivers doing different series, well, doing well in Le Mans is not necessarily the mark of a great driver. It is more of a team/car sport than F1 is, not to mention that you're only 1/3rd of the driving component.
I think in the end, there are always questions, but there are also always some pretty clear observations. In fact, the best drivers are almost always the most easily recognizable and unquestionable of the bunch. It's the 2nd and 3rd tier drivers who make it harder to establish any sort of order, and this is almost *always* due to consistency issues. Not to say that anything is ever absolutely cut and dry and cannot be questioned whatsoever, but like the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Knocking some of the established 'best' drivers on the grid down a peg requires a really strong argument that I rarely ever see put forth.

#19 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 August 2015 - 17:29

I think that it's absolutely true that the greatest drivers can adapt to anything and almost be as quick in any car. Stirling Moss, Jim Clark and Mario Andretti come to mind.

 

However.

 

Graham Hill was nowhere compared to Clark in the 1,5 litre F1 era (most of the drivers were!), but Hill (and others) could hang on better in the 3 litre era, however short Clark drove in that. There was an engineer at Porsche (forgot his name) who said, relatively early in Niki Lauda's career, that Lauda was better in more powerful cars than in modestly powered cars. The results of Lauda's career (very weak in F3, better in F2, okay in F1 with Cosworth and BRM, excellent in the powerhouses of Ferrari and McLaren-Tag) seem a good test of that thesis.

 

So, yeah, I think there are excellent drivers who are less excellent with certain regulations and vice-versa. An aside: I don't believe that Raikkonen's woes have to do with the regulations. It is Kimi himself who is just not that fanatical any more (not as Alonso or Vettel), and is therefore out-performed.