Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why are comebacks so difficult?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 myattitude

myattitude
  • Member

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: October 15

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:10

Without treading on the other thread, I'd like a discussion as to why comebacks rarely bring drivers back to where they were, sometimes very far away. There is the issue of being rusty, sure, but rookies do better than many returnees. Here are a few:

 

J Villeneuve 2004, 1 year away, he was 2 seconds off Alonso and that lack of pace carried into 2005 at Sauber, it wasn't until 2006 when he began to look remotely decent.

Alain Prost - 1 year off and was all over the place in 1993 compared to 1991.

Nigel Mansell - from demon in 1992, to slower than most number 2s in 1994, he got an unlikely pole in OZ but was slow throughout those 3 races and well into 1995.

Schumacher - Very unlike himself, although he got better the longer he stayed.

Mika Hakkinen - He was a serious contender for coming back in 2007 to partner Alonso. McLaren gave him a testing session in 2006, but was 3 seconds away from the pace and that was the end of that.

Kimi - hard to tell actually, how good he is in any given season is actually a bit of a mystery.

 

I hope Alonso doesn't take a sabbatical, the stats don't make such a move look promising.



Advertisement

#2 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:22

The other guys had time to improve their game and - more importantly - to adapt to new circunstances, to understand their sport better. That is a big differences. If you are out of a job in which you need to learn permanentely new things then you need time to get back to work when you left for some time. And then you are usually in a age where on the back of your head you dont want to adapt.

In recent years testing was also a issue. And sometimes it is simply a rule change the driver wouldnt have liked in any case.

#3 Schumacher7

Schumacher7
  • Member

  • 776 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:23

So many threads about comebacks. :p

I reckon it's Vitaly Petrov on multiple accounts trying to prepare for a return.



#4 keeppari

keeppari
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:32

You could add Lauda to the list. He wasn't exactly impressive against someone like Watson in '82-'83. Even in 1984 he was horrendously outpaced by Prost on many occasions but lucked his way to the title in the end. I think the qualifying head-to-head was something like 15-1 for Prost in 1984 and 13-1 in 1985.



#5 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:37

There is the issue of being rusty, sure, but rookies do better than many returnees. 

 

The thing with rookies is that in previous season they have been competing in a pretty high-profile open-wheel series... At least generally, unless that rookie comes from DTM, in which case - as we have also seen - his adaptability to F1 is also made harder. But GP2 nowadays is almost as fast as F1. Also I do think younger drivers are somewhat more adaptable in general - it is sort of human. 



#6 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 14:39

I think of Björn Borg who said, three years after he retired: 'I can still play as well as three years ago... for three games. The concentration, it is not there any more.' I think that is still true. If Novak Djokovic would take a sabbatical for a year, he would never get past the quarters of a Grand Slam again.

 

That is my take. You have to have the intensity of a maniac to be on your top. That is mainly the difference between Vettel and Raikkonen, in my eyes. They are both technically just as good, Vettel is just still crazy too win as ever.



#7 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 8,584 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 December 2015 - 15:07

Maybe once you relax you lose the edge it's hard to get it back.

 

Most drivers haven't had a year off ever. Since they were kids they've been karting and racing in lower formula then got into F1, every year competing and training. The mind and body is focused on being on the limit.

 

If you take a year off from the fast paced world of F1 maybe it's just hard find that groove again, harder to focus, harder to regain the lightening reactions. Especially now days, you can't thunder around a track everyday to regain your speed.



#8 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 6,121 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 December 2015 - 15:23

I think it is simply because the top level of any sport (F1 included) is extremely competitive. Staying at the top is hard enough, never mind taking time off and trying to return to your former position. Add to that the number of young guns trying to take your seat away from you, and you are not generally given a lot of time to get back in the groove. Nemo's analogy is quite appropriate. There are a limited number of drives in F1, even fewer good ones. After a year or 2 off, you will need to rediscover your conditioning and get a feel for an F1 car again, before you can compete. It makes it even harder if you had a complete shut-down of your racing activities, or a limited schedule. Makes achievements like Kimi's, all the more remarkable.



#9 hollowstar

hollowstar
  • Member

  • 2,221 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 17 December 2015 - 15:33

Yes, rookies often do better than veterans who return after a break.

The younger or more inexperienced you are, the more malleable you are. Experience comes with habits and expectations about how everything should work. So when something changes, or actually when many changes occur at once, you can easily get lost or overwhelmed at first.

This is the same reason why teenagers learn new apps (snapchat, vine, etc) much faster than 40 year olds. They have no pre-conceived idea about how an app should work or what a good user experience should look like.

Young drivers are often more open to the actual functioning of the car, take it as it is and won't try to apply what they knew about previous cars to the new cars.

#10 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 20:33

You could add Lauda to the list. He wasn't exactly impressive against someone like Watson in '82-'83. Even in 1984 he was horrendously outpaced by Prost on many occasions but lucked his way to the title in the end. I think the qualifying head-to-head was something like 15-1 for Prost in 1984 and 13-1 in 1985.


How many points did Prost gain for qualifying?

#11 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,473 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 17 December 2015 - 20:54

You could add Lauda to the list. He wasn't exactly impressive against someone like Watson in '82-'83. 

Maybe Watson was better than most of us think?

Anyway, Lauda's 1982 win at Long Beach is easily one of his best.



#12 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 4,691 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:08

I'm going to start 2 new topics just to round things out-

 

"Why are comebacks so easy?" and "Motorsports comebacks that were neither successful nor disappointing".



#13 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:19

I'm going to start 2 new topics just to round things out-

"Why are comebacks so easy?" and "Motorsports comebacks that were neither successful nor disappointing".


What about "comebacks, a good or bad thing?" And "which current drivers will make a comeback?"

#14 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:23

Are Lauda and Hulme the only champions not to have a pole in a winning season? Lauda was not as quick as Prost over a single lap, he begrudgingly accepted this and by concentrating on race setup found a way to beat the fastest man out there. How this can be seen as a negative is beyond me.

#15 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:26

You have to have the intensity of a maniac to be on your top. That is mainly the difference between Vettel and Raikkonen, in my eyes. They are both technically just as good, Vettel is just still crazy too win as ever.

 

That's it. Imagine - it s about being the best in the world. You'll need to be something really really special if you can be the best at only 80% commitment. Then there is this thing with staying focused. Usually people makes a comeback because they left at one point (unless the reason was injury, but I doubt that coming back after injury should really count as comeback). If they left because they did not really feel they wanted it, it is very rare that much has changed when they come back. They miss it, just as you can miss an old girlfriend, but "getting back together" will never be as it once was. You still like driving those dangerous curves, but it happens more often than not that your mind drifts somewhere else while you're doing it.



#16 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:27

Maybe Watson was better than most of us think?

Anyway, Lauda's 1982 win at Long Beach is easily one of his best.

Watson was really really good.



#17 Dan333SP

Dan333SP
  • Member

  • 4,691 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:37

What about "comebacks, a good or bad thing?" And "which current drivers will make a comeback?"

 

Such a good topic.

 

Gutierrez is making a comeback next year, we'll have more fodder to discuss.

 

I think Kvyat will be recalled for mandatory military service in some sort of conflict for 2 years, and then will return to F1 in his later 20s. You heard it here first.



#18 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:46

I think of Björn Borg who said, three years after he retired: 'I can still play as well as three years ago... for three games. The concentration, it is not there any more.' I think that is still true.

 

Wasn't it Jim Clark who said; 'When I want to go faster I don't drive any faster, I just concentrate harder'?



#19 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 21:50

Watson was really really good.

 

Also, and he was also very sensible for the characteristics of the car. Another condition, I think, that makes comebacks very hard. If you can't find the 'groove' with the set-up as before your departure, it is going to be hard.

 

For example I always thought Watson was one of those drivers who was fast but fickle, prone to bouts of confidence or loss there-off. I was wrong, it was a bit different. His race-engineer in 1982, Alan Jenkins, once described how Watson disliked a snappy-rear end... and then he would drive in such a way that the rear could not rotate... after which he complained about understeer. Ergo: confidence ago. In the words of Jenkins: 'Wattie had a particular dislike of a car that was in any way nervous at the rear and he used to describe it like this: as long as he could lean upon the rear with some confidence he could beat anybody. He had a very late-braking, very positive turn- in style that he could only manage if the car would let him. If it wouldn’t let him, he tended to be hesitant about turning in, which made it appear to understeer.
‘It probably did understeer but the fact is it wasn’t an understeering car - which people just couldn’t understand - it was his tendency to start turning early for fear of the rear biting him. Initially he couldn’t really put it into words that well. We hung out a bit socially so in a sense it became possible to talk about it away from the track. I remember when I ran Alain Prost after John, all of a sudden there was a guy that called you up every bloody night and wanted to talk about springs, bars and God knows what else. those were the wonderful days before pit stops and you had to figure out what to do to make the car run for the best part of two hours, and then it was literally up to the driver. this whole juggling act - well, there was so little to adjust on the car. JB [Barnard] was never a great fan of adjust- able roll bars. they were all too complicated. We basically plugged in what worked for the balance of the race, certainly on the front of the car. JB reluctantly let us have one on the rear but he wouldn’t let us have one at the front.
‘That’s how Wattie could also pass people so easily and when the car was working he looked like he could pass almost anybody. It wasn’t so much he braked later but braked deeper into the corner, because he really needed to turn the car in. It was confusing initially because he’d talk about his understeer and un- dersteer and understeer.’

 

If drivers have little indiosyncracies like THAT, it is very hard to come-back...and I think many of the great drivers have their 'thing'.


Edited by Nemo1965, 17 December 2015 - 21:51.


Advertisement

#20 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 2,876 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:02


 

If drivers have little indiosyncracies like THAT, it is very hard to come-back...and I think many of the great drivers have their 'thing'.

No, I think it is more about losing that "intensity of a maniac" that you mentioned earlier. When you never hesitate. There is no room for hesitation when you turn in. Not if you want to be fast. If you hesitate, you must make room for it and then you are no longer fast. And of course, making that space for hesitation and actually hesitate will make your car misbehave. The turn in is the most important moment of a corner, it needs to be distinct but fluent because the weight transfer is part of the setup, part of the cars balance. Do it too abrubt and you brake traction, do it to slow and you don't get that extra load that gives you that extra grip.



#21 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:11

Watson was really really good.


Someone did some statistical ranking thing that had Watson about 11th best all time or something, because it was based on using team mates as yardsticks. Watson did surprisingly well against some great team mates, but the flaw is that those team mates weren't usually at their peak when Wattie was paired with them. He was good, but not quite as good as that analysis reckoned!

#22 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:31

Wasn't it Jim Clark who said; 'When I want to go faster I don't drive any faster, I just concentrate harder'?

 

Correct. It was also Clark that noted (I can't find the damn thing) in an article that sometimes when you try to drive slower, you will drive faster! I believe there was some hilarity when he 'wrote' it in a newspaper-column. What he meant was that HE sometimes would get a signal from the pits 'slow' (to conserve brakes or something) and then HE would discover that he would drive even faster than before. I believe it was John Surtees that quipped: 'That only happens to YOU, Jim, not to us.'


Edited by Nemo1965, 18 December 2015 - 07:53.


#23 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,281 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:37

Someone did some statistical ranking thing that had Watson about 11th best all time or something, because it was based on using team mates as yardsticks. Watson did surprisingly well against some great team mates, but the flaw is that those team mates weren't usually at their peak when Wattie was paired with them. He was good, but not quite as good as that analysis reckoned!

A ranking that put both Prost and Senna outside of the top 15 and on par with Frentzen (!) and it placed Rosberg on 7th, far ahead of his current team mate. Just to name a few odd things about that ranking. As you said Watson was good, but not that good...

Edited by Marklar, 17 December 2015 - 22:38.


#24 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:43

It was also Clark that noted (I can't find the damn thing) in an article that sometimes when you try to drive slower, you will drive faster!'


Jackie Stewart described a similar thing at Monza one year I think. Jackie was told to slow down and ended up doing faster lap times - he put this down to becoming more relaxed, and hence smoother, and hence faster by mistake.

#25 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,122 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 December 2015 - 22:53

Once you've experienced the dark side you can never return



#26 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,129 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 17 December 2015 - 23:12

I thinks its also much to do with just forgetting. I played a lot of texas holdem poker a few years. Online with 20 tables and so on. I quit for 5 years. After that I was trying to teach one of my friends for fun how to play. I couldn't remember the sequence in which you had to put the cards on the table. I ended up going to internet to check. That's crazy.

 

I think as a top professional your edge is quite a lot to do with all the skills and knowledge you build up. If you forget 5-20% of it it could be enough. Yes, eventually it will come back to you, but will you ever be the same!?



#27 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 5,630 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 December 2015 - 23:46

Depends on 3 main points.

 

1. How much speed and reaction time you loose during your time out. ( More as the years go on I would assume)

2. How good the car is.

3. If the desire to compete, and take risks is a big as it was during the 1st spell. ( in a lot of cases I have seen it seems it's simply not the same)

 

Prost's 93 come back shows it can be done even though he only took 1 year off.


Edited by Massa_f1, 17 December 2015 - 23:49.


#28 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 4,653 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 18 December 2015 - 01:29

Are Lauda and Hulme the only champions not to have a pole in a winning season? Lauda was not as quick as Prost over a single lap, he begrudgingly accepted this and by concentrating on race setup found a way to beat the fastest man out there. How this can be seen as a negative is beyond me.

It's not a negative that he won the title, but it wasn't that he found a way to beat Prost with set-up - Prost was generally faster in the races too, although not by quite as much as qualifying. Lauda just had a bit of luck on his side.

#29 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 10,268 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 18 December 2015 - 01:54

I think it's because F1 is more of an individual sport than the cynics like to admit. It's difficult for someone who's been outside the intensity it demands to dial themselves back in. Not to mention that most people who return from comebavks are dealing with return from injury or advancing age - this leads to self-doubt, amd I really think that self-doubt is crippling for a racing driver.

#30 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 4,536 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 December 2015 - 04:31

Its rather easy if the rules remain the same.

 

If Michael Schumacher returned for Ferrari in 2008, he would have probably been the world champion.

 

The car is also a huge factor as well, IMO. 2010-2012 Mercedes simply were not good enough. And of course, the huge changes in 2009 were way different than 2006-2008.

 

2009-2013 rule changes, and then came 2014 with the V6 turbos, its quite a challenge for comebacks to be successful.


Edited by George Costanza, 18 December 2015 - 04:34.


#31 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 20,502 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 18 December 2015 - 05:03

 

 

Why are comebacks so difficult?

Because, for it to be a comeback, you have to be behind in the first place.



#32 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 December 2015 - 08:41

Maybe Watson was better than most of us think?

Anyway, Lauda's 1982 win at Long Beach is easily one of his best.

 

The thing with Watson is that he was Lauda's team-mate in Brabham in 1978 too, and then he got beaten by Niki. Of course there is a chance that Watson upped his game for 1982-83, but greater chance is that Lauda lost a bit of his game...



#33 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:06

It's not a negative that he won the title, but it wasn't that he found a way to beat Prost with set-up - Prost was generally faster in the races too, although not by quite as much as qualifying. Lauda just had a bit of luck on his side.

 

Nothing lucky about having more retirements than your team mate.



#34 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 5,775 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:13

Not all comebacks are tough.

I give you the best example I can. Mike Hailwood.

Did it cleverly by not coming back to GP level in 78, but used a good bike and picked the TT and one off events, was almost majestjc still in his ability to win races, but very aware he was not a GP rider.

#35 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:21

You could add Lauda to the list. He wasn't exactly impressive against someone like Watson in '82-'83. Even in 1984 he was horrendously outpaced by Prost on many occasions but lucked his way to the title in the end. I think the qualifying head-to-head was something like 15-1 for Prost in 1984 and 13-1 in 1985.

 

I read somewhere that, for his comeback, Lauda had perfected Jackie Stewart's mantra about winning at the slowest speed. although in this case it was the WC, not individual races. I notice he made fastest lap in five races, more than anyone else, which suggests he was perfectly able to push when necessary.

 

The more you practice, the luckier you get.



#36 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,300 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:24

Jackie Stewart described a similar thing at Monza one year I think. Jackie was told to slow down and ended up doing faster lap times - he put this down to becoming more relaxed, and hence smoother, and hence faster by mistake.

 

Was that 1965 when he and Hill were battling for the lead? They were ordered to slow down, but kept getting faster, and when pulled up about it, gave the above reason as an excuse. If it wasn't them, I must be thinking of two other team mates in the same situation.



#37 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 23,183 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:39

Was that 1965 when he and Hill were battling for the lead? They were ordered to slow down, but kept getting faster, and when pulled up about it, gave the above reason as an excuse. If it wasn't them, I must be thinking of two other team mates in the same situation.

 

Could well be an excuse, but I've found the same thing happening to myself whilst playing racing sims so it could be a legitimate thing that sometimes happens. Of course professional world class racing drivers in a real life environment have a much better feel for speed so it might be a rarer thing for them, who knows.



#38 keeppari

keeppari
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:42

How many points did Prost gain for qualifying?

 

Amazing retort. Wow. So much argument.

 

That was just an example of how drastic the pace difference between the two actually was. And although it seems to be popular to claim that Lauda was concentrating on his race setup and that allowed him to win the title there's not much backing to that statement either. Prost had 7 wins to Lauda's 5 and of the four McLaren 1-2 finishes Prost lead three of them home. If we look at the races where both of the McLaren cars finished:

 

Kyalami: Lauda 1st, Prost 2nd. Prost started from the pitlane.

Dijon: Lauda 1st, Prost 7th. Prost with extra pitstop to change a wheel.

Montreal: Lauda 2nd, Prost 3rd. Prost struggling with misfire.

Hockenheim: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

Zandvoort: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

Nurburgring: Prost 1st, Lauda 4th.

Estoril: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

 

Also, at Brands Hatch (gearbox), Monza (engine) and Osterreichring (oil on track) Prost was running ahead of Lauda at the time of his retirement allowing Lauda to pick up the wins. Lauda retired from the lead in Brazil.



#39 keeppari

keeppari
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:52

Nothing lucky about having more retirements than your team mate.

 

Yeah, 6-5 for Lauda with him binning it twice himself. Another great argument.



Advertisement

#40 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,844 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 December 2015 - 10:59

The thing with Watson is that he was Lauda's team-mate in Brabham in 1978 too, and then he got beaten by Niki. Of course there is a chance that Watson upped his game for 1982-83, but greater chance is that Lauda lost a bit of his game...

 

I think it were, mainly, the tyres. Lauda was very conservative in his approach to tyres. He always chose the 'C'-type, the medium. Pierre Duspaqier of Michelin knew - if he had a clever idea- he would never have to approach Lauda. What Niki did not choose himself, he would not do. Simple. So often before a race, Pierre would say to Wattie: 'You know, you should try B's in front and C's in the rear, except for left rear, that should be an A (I am just making something up, as example.'

 

Then Watson would have the perfect tyre, the perfect feel for the car... and he could have his drives up the field (Detroit 17th tot 1st, 1982, Long Beach 21st tot 1st 1983).



#41 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,599 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 December 2015 - 11:09

Prost had 7 wins to Lauda's 5


Which would have been enough, but unfortunately he only had 6.5 wins to Lauda's 5.

#42 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 18 December 2015 - 11:26

Amazing retort. Wow. So much argument.

 

That was just an example of how drastic the pace difference between the two actually was. And although it seems to be popular to claim that Lauda was concentrating on his race setup and that allowed him to win the title there's not much backing to that statement either. Prost had 7 wins to Lauda's 5 and of the four McLaren 1-2 finishes Prost lead three of them home. If we look at the races where both of the McLaren cars finished:

 

Kyalami: Lauda 1st, Prost 2nd. Prost started from the pitlane.

Dijon: Lauda 1st, Prost 7th. Prost with extra pitstop to change a wheel.

Montreal: Lauda 2nd, Prost 3rd. Prost struggling with misfire.

Hockenheim: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

Zandvoort: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

Nurburgring: Prost 1st, Lauda 4th.

Estoril: Prost 1st, Lauda 2nd.

 

Also, at Brands Hatch (gearbox), Monza (engine) and Osterreichring (oil on track) Prost was running ahead of Lauda at the time of his retirement allowing Lauda to pick up the wins. Lauda retired from the lead in Brazil.

 

It is quite obvious and of no particular consequence that Prost was often running ahead of Lauda at the time of his retirement, quite obviously because he qualified higher and his retirements came very early in most races.  Hardly a great suggestion of overall race strategy. Simple fact is Lauda went about his job the way he intended and consistently finished on the podium which left him in the running for the championship.   You also mention Lauda binning it twice for a retirement, one of which when he was already running on a few less cylinders, the other being in a deluge at Monaco with poorly performing carbon brakes. Lauda gave himself the chance to win the championship. Over the entire year, luck played little part in it.  Prost has said he learnt a great deal from Lauda's strategy that year also.

 

We obviously disagree.  I won't resort to responses in the same tone as yours however so I'll leave it there.



#43 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 December 2015 - 11:34

It is quite obvious and of no particular consequence that Prost was often running ahead of Lauda at the time of his retirement, quite obviously because he qualified higher and his retirements came very early in most races.  Hardly a great suggestion of overall race strategy. Simple fact is Lauda went about his job the way he intended and consistently finished on the podium which left him in the running for the championship.   You also mention Lauda binning it twice for a retirement, one of which when he was already running on a few less cylinders, the other being in a deluge at Monaco with poorly performing carbon brakes. Lauda gave himself the chance to win the championship. Over the entire year, luck played little part in it.  Prost has said he learnt a great deal from Lauda's strategy that year also.

 

We obviously disagree.  I won't resort to responses in the same tone as yours however so I'll leave it there.

 

The big question though is...

 

What WAS that so-called Lauda's superior strategy? Especially if as you mention, Prost retired from races early on...

 

I can understand if Lauda beat Prost to race wins in a straight fight from inferior grid slots, then we could talk about winning strategy...

 

I am sure Prost learnt a thing or two, how to make a good comeback from midfield grid slots. Prost himself famously won the 1990 Mexican Grand Prix from 13th position on the grid. And in the fuel-saving era of 1986-87 Prost also had strong races, while starting behind his main rivals.

 

However, I see that Lauda had a very good car in which he underperformed in qualifying, so he had to race smartly to make it past most of the field in Grands Prix. However, this is comparison to the field in general, and not Prost himself, who was way in front and didn't constitute the "general field", where Lauda was navigating.



#44 SpeedRacer`

SpeedRacer`
  • Member

  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 December 2015 - 11:41

 

Someone did some statistical ranking thing that had Watson about 11th best all time or something, because it was based on using team mates as yardsticks. Watson did surprisingly well against some great team mates, but the flaw is that those team mates weren't usually at their peak when Wattie was paired with them. He was good, but not quite as good as that analysis reckoned!

 

Didn't that also say Frentzen was the best driver of all time or something?  :rotfl: 

Age is the big issue, but whether that is because of physical or mental side is interesting to debate.

 

Young drivers showed no problem with having a break early in their careers: Hulkenberg, Alonso, Massa, Grosjean.

 

Sutil had his best year in 2011 but then looked average in 2013 and 2014. It probably also depends how many years you were doing it before you took the break - too long and it's easy to relax too much.



#45 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 December 2015 - 11:50

 

 

Young drivers showed no problem with having a break early in their careers: Hulkenberg, Alonso, Massa, Grosjean.

 

 

Alonso and Massa had a lot and lot of testing in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Certainly they didn't lose any feel of the car, even if they didn't update their racecraft.

 

Grosjean continued in GP2, in a very high profile series.

 

Good point about Hulkenberg, and also later Bottas. They had some free practice running, but that's only little. However, I think they had lots of simulator work, and nowadays simulator is a pretty advanced way of keeping yourself up-to-date in F1.



#46 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 11,808 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 18 December 2015 - 12:26

Mika Hakkinen - He was a serious contender for coming back in 2007 to partner Alonso. McLaren gave him a testing session in 2006, but was 3 seconds away from the pace and that was the end of that.
 

 

I sincerely doubt that. The little that was publicly told at the time was that he only used a single set of tires and drove with much higher down force setting than typical for the track being tens of kilometers down on speed on straights. Whether he was seriously considering attempting a come back at the time, cant tell, but the lap times very probably not at all representative. Nor do I think McLaren would have been so quick to dismiss him.



#47 keeppari

keeppari
  • Member

  • 356 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 18 December 2015 - 12:42

We obviously disagree.  I won't resort to responses in the same tone as yours however so I'll leave it there.

 

Apologies for the tone. That's just a reaction to random pseudo-witty one-liners thrown at me.

 

 

It is quite obvious and of no particular consequence that Prost was often running ahead of Lauda at the time of his retirement, quite obviously because he qualified higher and his retirements came very early in most races.  Hardly a great suggestion of overall race strategy.

 

As opposed to qualifying so horribly that you can't challenge for the win unless your teammate runs into mechanical trouble? The problem is that Lauda with his superior race strategy was able to beat Prost on track for a combined total of 0 occasions. Whenever Prost had a mechanically trouble-free race he would finish ahead of Lauda. I can't remember a single occasion of Lauda making his way up and actually getting past Prost without the latter breaking down.

 

 

Simple fact is Lauda went about his job the way he intended and consistently finished on the podium which left him in the running for the championship.

 

Both had the exact same number of podium finishes.

 

It's not about consistency either if you have more DNFs than your teammate and I don't know what consistency has to do with mechanical DNFs anyway.

 

 

Over the entire year, luck played little part in it.

 

A post before that you insinuated that Lauda was unlucky to retire once more than Prost. Which is the natural outcome if you crash the car into walls more. It's also a bit misleading to leave out the circumstances of those retirements. Lauda retired from in front of Prost in Brazil and if I recall correctly on every other occasion Prost was running ahead of Lauda every time either of them had to pull over.



#48 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,814 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 December 2015 - 12:46

What WAS that so-called Lauda's superior strategy?

Crossing his fingers.

#49 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 12,230 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 December 2015 - 13:41

Could well be an excuse, but I've found the same thing happening to myself whilst playing racing sims so it could be a legitimate thing that sometimes happens. Of course professional world class racing drivers in a real life environment have a much better feel for speed so it might be a rarer thing for them, who knows.

 

I remember something like that in racing sims as well...  although that's a while ago I last played.

 

I believe racing drivers have a term for that - it is being "in the zone".

 

It is complete commitment, but also sort of relaxation. It means you are not "thinking", but only using reflexes. Your driving is so refined that you do not need to think or analyze. Because thinking process also required energy - energy, which is better to use for driving activities.

 

I remember I could cut down a full second per lap if I was "in the zone" - completely "in the game/in the driving", while not thinking.



#50 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 18 December 2015 - 15:02

Crossing his fingers.

 

Better than pointing at the sky as it turned out...