57 replies to this topic

[amerikalei]

How do contemporary F1 programs evaluate driver potential, in addition to their results in lower categories (aside from business related factors like sponsorship funding and media chops)?

 

I recall the stories about Moss being able to read a postage stamp from across multiple continents... And how Jack Brabham apparently maintained a moderate pulse rate even under pressure of aircraft malfunctions or something.  I'm sure there are many such stories I'm not aware of, but I always enjoy hearing them.

 

There was an early 80's study of Villenueve and Pironi heart rates at various racing venues.  Sid Watson later cited it in his first book, but I recall hearing about it around the time both drivers were still with us.  Evidently GV's data showed him to be less "stressed" in driving situations, based on tracking of pulse rates.  Watkins goes into other details of his interest in the topic, but my primary impression at the time was that this data being public would serve as a boost to GV and undermine DP's confidence, the latter knowing his body was working harder under similar conditions.

 

All of which is indirect background to the question I had in relation to the current state of the sport.  With so many young driver programs out there, we rarely hear of any sort of evaluations that might be happening, but it seems likely that the teams would be doing some significant diligence on the mental and physical potential of their young talent, given the cost of developing someone like a Piastri or Antonelli.  They talk up "great new talents", but how do they know?

 

I recall Niki Lauda describing his physio program with Willi Dungl, focused specifically on operating an F1 car (no unnecessary muscle mass...or something to that effect was one takeaway).  These days the athletic training seems like a given at the top levels of the sport, but I'm wondering about how or if that "innate" potential is evaluated more than the way a driver might work to train himself to maximize their potential.

 

Is becoming a great F1 talent a matter of nature or nurture?  Or both and in what degree?  And what can we know about what are likely highly guarded secrets as teams jockey to evaluate and secure the next great talent?

Edited by amerikalei, 13 January 2025 - 15:59.

[RainyAfterlifeDaylight]

Looks fast!

[NotAPineapple]

I assume they just read the Autosport forums

[mirrorboy]

Comparing Jacques Villeneuve with Didier Peroni makes little sense. Gilles Villeneuve in the other hand... 

[SophieB]

I’m sure they will have all kinds of systems but ultimately I’m convinced picking future F1 winners is like William Goldman’s observation of Hollywood trying to come up with ways to work out in advance which movies will be hits - namely:

 

‘No-one knows anything’. 

[amerikalei]

Comparing Jacques Villeneuve with Didier Peroni makes little sense. Gilles Villeneuve in the other hand... 

D'oh... corrected.  But you knew what I meant!

[IrvTheSwerve]

ThE dAta.

[Dan333SP]

I don't think there is any specific metric that can mark a standout driver, other than laptimes. If you look at endurance sports, you can test someone's Vo2 Max and get an idea of whether they have the potential to train themselves into a world class athlete or not, but that's because sports like cycling operate on the edge of the body's ability to get blood to the muscles to continue doing work in extreme conditions, whereas in F1 they are up against the limit of a machine rather than the human body. Virtually all of the top line drivers from F3 on up are in excellent shape physically as they're all training like professional athletes year round now, so they're not differentiating themselves there. Even things like reaction time are not necessarily a key indicator. Schumacher was famously no quicker in reaction time tests than Ross Brawn, really around average for the general population. His advantage was all in feel and anticipation of car behavior, and you can't measure those things. 

 

I'd imagine the intangibles like comfort with media, setup feedback, work ethic, etc all play a huge role along with simulator times and actual performance on track. 

[mirrorboy]

D'oh... corrected.  But you knew what I meant!

 

I know, just joking ;)

 

Answering your question, I have no idea tbh, but nice OP, some anecdotes there I hadn't heard of.

[danmills]

I think it's gone more rogue now, F1 seems to be heading towards a shift of just throwing them in and trying youngsters out to see if they sink or swim, and having a short shelf life in which to prove so, if not they're gone.

 

Give it 3 more seasons and the average grid age is going to be incredibly low.

 

Teams seem more willing to gamble, I think the Colapinto effect will be a marker.

[Risil]

I dunno, Colapinto himself was just replaced by the highly experienced Carlos Sainz at Williams so it's not all out with the old and in with the new. And of course Sainz himself was replaced by somebody even more experienced.

 

Magnussen, Perez and Bottas all fell off the conveyor belt at the end of the year, but I don't know if that's a trend or if it's because they happened to lose their edge at the same time.

[amerikalei]

I don't think there is any specific metric that can mark a standout driver, other than laptimes. If you look at endurance sports, you can test someone's Vo2 Max and get an idea of whether they have the potential to train themselves into a world class athlete or not, but that's because sports like cycling operate on the edge of the body's ability to get blood to the muscles to continue doing work in extreme conditions, whereas in F1 they are up against the limit of a machine rather than the human body. Virtually all of the top line drivers from F3 on up are in excellent shape physically as they're all training like professional athletes year round now, so they're not differentiating themselves there. Even things like reaction time are not necessarily a key indicator. Schumacher was famously no quicker in reaction time tests than Ross Brawn, really around average for the general population. His advantage was all in feel and anticipation of car behavior, and you can't measure those things. 

 

I'd imagine the intangibles like comfort with media, setup feedback, work ethic, etc all play a huge role along with simulator times and actual performance on track. 

I recall back in the day a pro cyclist commenting that Greg Lemond had a really special Vo2 Max. 

 

Never heard that story about Schumi and Brawn before.  Actually kind of reassuring to think it comes down to more intangible factors than things that might be optimized in a petri dish environment someday. 

[Dan333SP]

I recall back in the day a pro cyclist commenting that Greg Lemond had a really special Vo2 Max. 

 

Never heard that story about Schumi and Brawn before.  Actually kind of reassuring to think it comes down to more intangible factors than things that might be optimized in a petri dish environment someday. 

 

LeMond was something like 93 ml/kg/min which is really really high, on par with the current generation of top level pros certainly. 

 

I think the way to look at reaction time in drivers is that it's not just how quickly their reflexes trigger a response, it's the instincts that drive the strength of the response that is more determinative of their "ability". Think feeling the rear tires slipping on a wet track and rather than just instantly countersteering, it's knowing exactly how much countersteer is required to catch the slip given the track and tire conditions. 

[Victor]

I assume they just read the Autosport forums

No. They ask Chatgpt.

[Autodromo]

Driving skill over one or more laps is one thing, but there is also the whole "adaptability to changing situations" as well as quality of feedback.  Days of Thunder style.  Personally I think driving in the wet is a good indicator of "feel for the car".

 

On a side note, like with fighter pilots it is astounding to me how much a modern F1 driver has to keep up with over a lap and a race.  I think some drivers are quick, but lack some of the mental capacity to keep up (lord knows I lack that mental capacity!) and they make more unforced errors.  

[Beri]

These days drivers are "managed" in every way. From nutrition to running simulator programs. From press training to physical training regimes. It is all arranged for by the team of the Junior Academy in question. Via this way the driver can be monitored and metrics can be held against the drivers performances. It is why Antonelli is so much hailed by Mercedes, whilst the majority of the people see Antonelli as nothing special due to his lacklustre performances in F2. It is Moneyball, the movie, all the way.

[balmybaldwin]

It's all about looking at their pockets.

 

If you see vast amounts of $$ going in then they are fast

 

If you see vast amounts of $$ coming out then they are slow.

[messy]

I think results in the junior series do still matter at least early in, because those really early days are when a McLaren or a Red Bull might see something in a 16 year old in Formula Renault or whatever, and from that point forward that driver gets everything they need. But even to get to that point, most of them need money and plenty of it. Those that don’t get picked up will inevitably find everything much more of a struggle and success for them will probably be LMP2 or GT World Challenge or something - not that there’s any shame in that - but you’ve got to be one of the ‘chosen ones’ at such a young age or you never even get on the ladder. And you can do that through being a really dazzling talent in karting or whatever, but also through having the right connections or being the son of a multi-millionaire, obviously.

One they get onto that FRECA, F4, F3, F2 ladder then I think the academy talents are kind of able to compete in something approaching a meritocracy at least within their own academy, like Beri said they get a pretty good schooling in every aspect of being a professional racer and the really good ones can build momentum, that carries them all the way up quite rapidly. See Leclerc, Piastri, Antonelli etc. And there’s obviously plenty of data those academies/teams have access to aside from pure results. Once they start to take a youngster genuinely seriously in terms of thinking they’re the real deal, at that point I think the results cease to matter as much, like we’ve seen with Antonelli this year - but only at that relatively late point in their development.

[PrinceBira]

In endurance sports you have what is called ‘predictors of performance’

1. V02 max as talked about above
2. Lactate threshold (FTP)
3. Efficiency (how much oxygen does one need for power production X)

It’s measurable, repeatable and translates to race day performance.

What are ‘predictors of performance for racing’? Amazi gly interesting question.

I see a lot of talk about measurable indicators such as reaction time. I think that is false. I have not seem any correlation between better reaction times and highest performing drivers.

I think a better framework would be:

- Speed vs team mates
- Rate of development
- consistency (Verstappen!)
- adaptability to different cars/setups/conditions
- Technical knowledge / ability to interact with engineering
- leadership qualities
- charisma
- performance under pressure

And probably some more….

[absinthedude]

IIRC Sid Watkins' data showed that Villeneuve's heart rate would go very high, but returned to normal very quickly....indicating not only was he very fit but one could say his nervous system handled stress well. Pironi's max heart rate wasn't quite as high but it remained elevated throughout a race. 

 

Not that heart rate always indicates stress levels. I have a resting heart rate of 56-58bpm, which indicates Olympic athlete level of fitness. Yet I am pretty much permanently stressed with anxiety, though my cardiovascular system is indeed very efficient. 

 

These days even drivers in lower formulae must have lots of data for the experts to sift through. There's still the gut feeling "That boy/girl looks fast". There's still observable traits such as how confident they are, ability to perform under pressure. It's not just how fast they can be, it's how they act when things are going wrong. Take Perez, we all know he's a damned decent driver, has won grands prix and before he was in a position to do so he got podiums in mid-field cars. But ultimately he seems to have cracked. 

 

What is not always easy to predict, by gut feeling or data, is a driver's progress curve. Some simply don't display their full potential until they get to F1, having had OK but not stellar stints in lower formulae. Some even take some time to find their feet in F1...late bloomers. It's difficult to tell. For example, is Colapinto going to have a career trajectory like Senna or Alesi? Really nobody knows right now. He looks worth hiring though. But so did Felipe Nasr. 

[PlatenGlass]

56 to 58 doesn't indicate Olympic level fitness. It's quite normal for a fairly fit and healthy person.

[PrinceBira]

RHR of 56-58 is not low at all. Professional endurance athletes are rather between 30-40.

[absinthedude]

Normal resting heart rate is 65-85. For someone of sportsing age. I am in my 50s. A male athlete in his twenties, sure 40-50 (defnitely not as low as 30 that would be a medical concern). For someone my age, mid 50s bpm is considered very fit, athletic. Given my raised cortisol levels and generalised anxiety, 56 indicates a very high level of cardiovascular fitness....at least according to two doctors I see. On the level of an ex Olympic athlete. When asleep, mine does dip into the high 40s until I awake and the anxiety starts again. 

[markeimas27]

 

 

Not that heart rate always indicates stress levels. I have a resting heart rate of 56-58bpm, which indicates Olympic athlete level of fitness. Yet I am pretty much permanently stressed with anxiety, though my cardiovascular system is indeed very efficient. 

 

 

 

Err, nope.

 

I am a 44 year old male marathon runner. Last year I ran 2000 miles of training and racing. I am doing the Boston Marathon in April. My resting HR today is 45 and my 7 avg is 47bpm. I wear my watch, all day, every day and only take It off to charge and shower.  My VO2 max is 57 currently but for racing normally is higher by the end of a training block. Having done the research, I can categorically say that I am as fit if not fitter than all of the F1 grid apart from maybe Valterri Bottas. What I am not though, is as strong as they are. They are significantly stronger than I will be. But then we compete in different sports. That is why it was always so impressive to see Jenson Button winning in F1 and also competing well at triathlons.

 

P.s. re: your response above, Doctors and especially GPs are notorious for saying the wrong things regarding cardio fitness. 

[IrvTheSwerve]

I'm a fairly regular runner, nothing special but I run about 80-100km a month. 37 years old with a VO2 max of 50 and avg resting hr varies between 40-50, sometimes more if I've had a day or two on the beer...I'm an anxious person and would consider myself miles off an athlete.

[PlatenGlass]

Err, nope.

 

I am a 44 year old male marathon runner. Last year I ran 2000 miles of training and racing. I am doing the Boston Marathon in April. My resting HR today is 45 and my 7 avg is 47bpm. I wear my watch, all day, every day and only take It off to charge and shower.  My VO2 max is 57 currently but for racing normally is higher by the end of a training block. Having done the research, I can categorically say that I am as fit if not fitter than all of the F1 grid apart from maybe Valterri Bottas. What I am not though, is as strong as they are. They are significantly stronger than I will be. But then we compete in different sports. That is why it was always so impressive to see Jenson Button winning in F1 and also competing well at triathlons.

 

P.s. re: your response above, Doctors and especially GPs are notorious for saying the wrong things regarding cardio fitness. 

 

(Sorry for the off-topic):

 

Good luck at Boston. Have you got a time you're aiming for? I did London last year and got about 3:02. But having recovered from that ordeal and having set a new half marathon PB of 1:21:10 in October, I might take another shot at a 2:50 in the autumn. I will be 47 though.

[PitViperRacing]

How did this thread turn into an ego contest for resting heart rate lol

[KWSN - DSM]

Results - Norris.

Hype - Vandoorne

Luck. - Colapinto.

[Autodromo]

Err, nope.

 

I am a 44 year old male marathon runner. Last year I ran 2000 miles of training and racing. I am doing the Boston Marathon in April. My resting HR today is 45 and my 7 avg is 47bpm. I wear my watch, all day, every day and only take It off to charge and shower.  My VO2 max is 57 currently but for racing normally is higher by the end of a training block. Having done the research, I can categorically say that I am as fit if not fitter than all of the F1 grid apart from maybe Valterri Bottas. What I am not though, is as strong as they are. They are significantly stronger than I will be. But then we compete in different sports. That is why it was always so impressive to see Jenson Button winning in F1 and also competing well at triathlons.

 

P.s. re: your response above, Doctors and especially GPs are notorious for saying the wrong things regarding cardio fitness. 

Bottas doing a spontaneous iron man "in-situ" was pretty impressive.  Not his time, but just that he made it!

[Ultravox]

Simulators.

[flymo]

Voltmeter.


I'll get my coat.

[markeimas27]

Results - Norris.

Hype - Vandoorne

Luck. - Colapinto.

 

It's a good way of looking at it. Results are the only real barometer for a driver. But how do you 'weight' the relative competitiveness of the team they are driving with in that series in that particular year? Take Prema in F2 last year. Didn't have the best year and yet both drivers are rated incredibly highly and one (Bearman) has already gone someway to proving that. But from the outsiders point of view he wasn't doing anything amazing before that. Just solid results with the occasional highlight.

 

How did this thread turn into an ego contest for resting heart rate lol

 

Testosterone and the fact that we want to compete against each other and the spectre of what level of fitness an F1 driver really has? As above, am I fitter than Bottas? Probably not quite. Fitter than Verstappen? 100%.

 

(Sorry for the off-topic):

 

Good luck at Boston. Have you got a time you're aiming for? I did London last year and got about 3:02. But having recovered from that ordeal and having set a new half marathon PB of 1:21:10 in October, I might take another shot at a 2:50 in the autumn. I will be 47 though.

 

Thanks! I haven't done sub 3 yet. That was my aim for last year and is my aim for Boston too (despite the hits). I did Edinburgh (which was the race I used to qualify for Boston) in 3.01. But it was awful and heavy rain and then hot etc. It killed my effort as did under fuelling. Amazing half PB. 1min quicker than me! 

[danmills]

I dunno, Colapinto himself was just replaced by the highly experienced Carlos Sainz at Williams so it's not all out with the old and in with the new. And of course Sainz himself was replaced by somebody even more experienced.

 

Magnussen, Perez and Bottas all fell off the conveyor belt at the end of the year, but I don't know if that's a trend or if it's because they happened to lose their edge at the same time.

 

What I meant RE ages is there is over half a generational gap between the 3 eldest (Alonso, Hamilton, Hulk) to fourth eldest Sainz of 7 years difference, then another 2 years to Gasly, Albon and Ocon who are the next eldest.

 

That's a clear era shift once the top 3 retire which is highly likely in the next three seasons.

 

Meaning the next eldest 3 drivers come 2027/28 would be just shy of a decade younger than the equivalent now.

 

So the grid once the elder statesmen retire could very much be the same for a while bar a pinch of stragglers fighting for a few seats, in which case rotation for these might well be highly cutthroat.

 

I think I've forgotten what I was ultimately trying to say 

[KWSN - DSM]

What I meant RE ages is there is over half a generational gap between the 3 eldest (Alonso, Hamilton, Hulk) to fourth eldest Sainz of 7 years difference, then another 2 years to Gasly, Albon and Ocon who are the next eldest.

 

That's a clear era shift once the top 3 retire which is highly likely in the next three seasons.

 

Meaning the next eldest 3 drivers come 2027/28 would be just shy of a decade younger than the equivalent now.

 

So the grid once the elder statesmen retire could very much be the same for a while bar a pinch of stragglers fighting for a few seats, in which case rotation for these might well be highly cutthroat.

 

I think I've forgotten what I was ultimately trying to say 

 

Be as that it may, you raise a good point in regard 'generations' in F1, there is a gap in age - Did we have a lost generation, did the old ones block some from ever getting there? Confirmation that F1 is actually a young mans sport now.

Alonso 	        43
Hamilton 	40
Hulkenberg 	37
Sainz 	        30
Gasly 	        28
Ocon 	        28
Albon 	        28
Leclerc 	27
Verstappen 	27
Stroll 	        26
Russel 	        26
Norris 	        25
Tsunoda 	24
Piastri 	23
Lawson 	        22
Doohan 	        21
Hadjar 	        20
Bearman 	19
Antonelli 	18

Verstappen at 27, 11 seasons, 4 World Championships.

[danmills]

It does seem a lost generation. Would be an interesting hypothetical experiment to forecast if, for example, Lewis retired after 2021; Ricciardo got dropped by Mclaren sooner; if Kmag wasn't called back etc and the butterfly effect of each / multiple exits.

 

Probably infinite variables but I imagine in such a situation we would have seen the likes of Drugovich, Pourchaire, Piastri and Lawson on the grid or at least joining earlier.

 

Still wouldn't account for a seemingly lost generation it seems between Sainz and Hulkenberg.

 

Perhaps it was more to do with the Kimi and Alonso sabbaticals, Grosjean returning etc around that time where we would have had drivers a bit older than Sainz' and Gasly era. Would that stretch earlier to when we lost Caterham, Manor etc? We lost 4 seats, kept 4 older drivers.

 

Sort of 2015/16.

 

Wehrlein, Ericsson, Vergne, Kvyat, Nasr would fill that gap between Sainz and Hulk.

Edited by danmills, Yesterday, 12:04.

[1player]

If there was a working system, everybody on the grid would be a world champion, or a guaranteed future one.

 

If there was a working system, any form of sports would be utterly boring.

 

SophieB said it best.

[Beri]

Or, hear me out, perhaps, bear with me, there simply wasnt any real and obvious talent during that era. Meaning nothing was lost. But certainly nothing was gained from that era.

[PayasYouRace]

If there was a working system, everybody on the grid would be a world champion, or a guaranteed future one.

If there was a working system, any form of sports would be utterly boring.

SophieB said it best.

Even if you were able to fill a grid with 20 Max Verstappen clones, they’d not all become world champions. Only one can be champion each year.

[messy]

Dunno about the 'lost generation' thing, if we're talking drivers born between Hulkenberg and Sainz - we've had Ricciardo and Bottas (1989) who have both been successful race winners and only just dropped off the grid, then after that Magnussen, Vandoorne, Vergne who were all highly rated but didn't quite hit the heights they were expected to. I suppose there's an argument that there were also a fair few very highly rates junior talents in that era who didn't make it though- Felix Da Costa, Robin Frijns, obviously the 'what might have been' situation with Jules Bianchi. But there are drivers like that in every generation.

[noikeee]

It was a lost generation as in they were lost to the fact none of them were good enough.

[PayasYouRace]

I don’t see a lost generation. I just see a few standouts from an earlier one hanging on.

[PlatenGlass]

Dunno about the 'lost generation' thing, if we're talking drivers born between Hulkenberg and Sainz - we've had Ricciardo and Bottas (1989) who have both been successful race winners and only just dropped off the grid, then after that Magnussen, Vandoorne, Vergne who were all highly rated but didn't quite hit the heights they were expected to. I suppose there's an argument that there were also a fair few very highly rates junior talents in that era who didn't make it though- Felix Da Costa, Robin Frijns, obviously the 'what might have been' situation with Jules Bianchi. But there are drivers like that in every generation.

Perez (1990) is also a multiple GP winner. I don't see a lost generation there. You can't have a WDC born every year.

I think the overall lack of success of drivers born in the 70s is something we could talk about though. Just two titles - Villeneuve (1971) in 1997 and Raikkonen (1979) in 2007.

Plus also of drivers who made their debuts from 1985 to 1990 there were just three winners with five wins between them - Herbert (3), Nannini (1) and Alesi (1). So that's a lot of the 60s too.

Edited by PlatenGlass, Yesterday, 14:08.

[KWSN - DSM]

It does seem a lost generation. Would be an interesting hypothetical experiment to forecast if, for example, Lewis retired after 2021; Ricciardo got dropped by Mclaren sooner; if Kmag wasn't called back etc and the butterfly effect of each / multiple exits.

 

Probably infinite variables but I imagine in such a situation we would have seen the likes of Drugovich, Pourchaire, Piastri and Lawson on the grid or at least joining earlier.

 

Still wouldn't account for a seemingly lost generation it seems between Sainz and Hulkenberg.

 

Perhaps it was more to do with the Kimi and Alonso sabbaticals, Grosjean returning etc around that time where we would have had drivers a bit older than Sainz' and Gasly era. Would that stretch earlier to when we lost Caterham, Manor etc? We lost 4 seats, kept 4 older drivers.

 

Sort of 2015/16.

 

Wehrlein, Ericsson, Vergne, Kvyat, Nasr would fill that gap between Sainz and Hulk.

 

And they were 'loseable' - meaning nothing special, much as it grate I likely have to include Magnussen there - But I have high standards, meaning can easily get rid of

 

Stroll

Albon

Ocon

 

On this years grid.

[NewMrMe]

Perez (1990) is also a multiple GP winner. I don't see a lost generation there. You can't have a WDC born every year.

I think the overall lack of success of drivers born in the 70s is something we could talk about though. Just two titles - Villeneuve (1971) in 1997 and Raikkonen (1979) in 2007.

Plus also of drivers who made their debuts from 1985 to 1990 there were just three winners with five wins between them - Herbert (3), Nannini (1) and Alesi (1). So that's a lot of the 60s too.

 

All just a consequence of being squeezed out by dominant eras. The lack of success of drivers born in the 70s is down to the Schumacher (born in 1969) era.

 

The lack of success of drivers making their debut between 1985 and 1990 was down to Senna, Prost, Mansell and Piquet winning the majority of races from 85 to 93 between them. When they went we were then straight into the start of the Schumacher era.

[Benchulo]

Alonso and Hamilton staying into their 40s is an audity. Alonso making a successful comeback encouraged Haas to sign Hulkenberg. Maybe it also gave Hamilton some inspiration to prolong his career.

Without those three, Bottas(born in 1989), Vettel(1987) - seemed to me Vettel was not keen to retire, and Magnussen (1992) would be on the grid, IMO.

[messy]

Perez (1990) is also a multiple GP winner. I don't see a lost generation there. You can't have a WDC born every year.
I think the overall lack of success of drivers born in the 70s is something we could talk about though. Just two titles - Villeneuve (1971) in 1997 and Raikkonen (1979) in 2007.
Plus also of drivers who made their debuts from 1985 to 1990 there were just three winners with five wins between them - Herbert (3), Nannini (1) and Alesi (1). So that's a lot of the 60s too.

Gotta laugh that I forgot Perez given 60% of the F1 news through 2024 was discussing him.

Also, it’s a good point PAyR makes about the older generation. The 1989/1990 born drivers leaving F1 at the end of 2024 is probably about right really. But in years past Hulkenberg would be right at the Gerhard Berger end of his career and Alonso/Lewis would be long since playing golf. Albeit probably not together.

There are a number of real veterans really staying beyond their expected shelf-life at the moment and that’s creating a gap because the next generation below them are leaving F1 at the traditional 34-36.

[PlatenGlass]

Hulkenberg is staying until he gets a podium.

[Risil]

Perez (1990) is also a multiple GP winner. I don't see a lost generation there. You can't have a WDC born every year.

I think the overall lack of success of drivers born in the 70s is something we could talk about though. Just two titles - Villeneuve (1971) in 1997 and Raikkonen (1979) in 2007.

Plus also of drivers who made their debuts from 1985 to 1990 there were just three winners with five wins between them - Herbert (3), Nannini (1) and Alesi (1). So that's a lot of the 60s too.

 

Fewer opportunities to win in F1 cars, more opportunities to earn a living as a racing driver that nonetheless excluded the possibility of giving F1 a proper go. 1990-2008 saw the proliferation of many highly professional and internationalized racing series that would've made some great talents be less inclined to risk their careers to get on a Grand Prix grid. That must be part of it. But also in the 1990s and 2000s there were long stretches where if you're not driving for 2-3 top teams you're making up the numbers.

[Frood]

The lost generation is the drivers born in the early 90s. Between Vettel and Hamilton dominating for long periods, and then Verstappen starting his domination at a young age, there’s a decent gap. Arguably, the drivers of that age weren’t good enough, either, but there are some factors at play.

Verstappen was the first driver born in the 1990s to win a race, and he was born in 1997. Drivers born between Bottas (the last 80s-born driver to win his first Grand Prix) and Verstappen, in that 1989-1997 period, have won a grand total of 12 Grands Prix. 6 for Pérez, 4 for Sainz, one each for Gasly and Ocon.

I was born in 1992, and I’m equal first on the list of Grand Prix winners born in 1992.

EDIT: I wrote this earlier but didn’t press send until now, so I see we’ve already covered most of these talking points!

Edited by Frood, Yesterday, 16:35.

[Spillage]

I assume they just read the Autosport forums

No way. i've been banging on about Hulkenberg deserving a top seat for a decade and nobody's listened to me yet!