61 replies to this topic

[Risil]

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

 

Interesting, I've been saying Max Verstappen is good for almost as long and Red Bull keep employing him

[Frood]

Ran some numbers - the early 90s cohort is roughly equal the mid-60s guys. Since 1926, the only period where there are three years in which a Grand Prix winner wasn’t born are 1961-1963, and 1991-1993.

The 60s was even more sparse for a time - the first winner born in the 60s was Senna (1960); the second was Michael Schumacher (1969). Drivers born between 1961 and 1967 only scored 12 wins. Schumacher’s dominance is the likely reason for that.

[PlatenGlass]

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.

 

I also think things were very different for new drivers then and there was a much lower correlation between success in lower formulas and success in F1. Nowadays, very few drivers are awful when they get to F1 and the hyped ones are always at least OK. Back then, loads of drivers would win pretty much everything up to F1 and end up just being pretty disappointing once they got there. It wasn't just that they were blocked out.

[PlatenGlass]

On the subject of assessing driver potential, I remember when Kevin Magnussen replaced Sergio Perez at McLaren. I think it was Martin Whitmarsh that was interviewed about why they'd ditched Perez after just one year, and he talked about Magnussen as if he was the next big thing that couldn't be passed up, like he was their next Hamilton. There was also a BBC article that said that the data suggested that Magnussen was already faster than Perez (before he'd driven a race). Anyway, he went on to become Kevin Magnussen.

[Risil]

I also think things were very different for new drivers then and there was a much lower correlation between success in lower formulas and success in F1. Nowadays, very few drivers are awful when they get to F1 and the hyped ones are always at least OK. Back then, loads of drivers would win pretty much everything up to F1 and end up just being pretty disappointing once they got there. It wasn't just that they were blocked out.

 

Yeah, F3 was more fragmented then so you could have less confidence that your hyped driver had really beaten the best of the best. If you look at Jan Magnussen's 1994 F3 season where he won almost every race, the only driver he beat who went on to have a more successful career than him was Dario Franchitti. Or Jos Verstappen in German F3 -- he had to beat the likes of Max Angelelli, Sascha Maassen and Philipp Peter to the title. All had decent careers in the states but Jos was probably a cut above them.

 

You're also not going to have modern F1 drivers fail to fulfil their potential because they won't commit to physical training, give up the cigs, etc. I don't for a minute believe that every modern F1 driver really, deeply wants to be there, but the basic standard of professionalism is undoubtedly much higher and that will translate to fewer talented drivers dropping out.

[PlatenGlass]

On the subject of assessing driver potential, I remember when Kevin Magnussen replaced Sergio Perez at McLaren. I think it was Martin Whitmarsh that was interviewed about why they'd ditched Perez after just one year, and he talked about Magnussen as if he was the next big thing that couldn't be passed up, like he was their next Hamilton. There was also a BBC article that said that the data suggested that Magnussen was already faster than Perez (before he'd driven a race). Anyway, he went on to become Kevin Magnussen.

 

I found this article from 2013 https://www.bbc.co.u...rmula1/24903504

 

"McLaren's analysis of Magnussen's performance in their simulator suggests he is already faster than Perez, and he has been extremely impressive in his two F1 tests for McLaren, at Abu Dhabi in November 2012 and at Silverstone in July 2013."

[Risil]

Perhaps they'd set their sights too low by signing the first guy who could go quicker than Perez. Not that it mattered very much, McLaren's goose was cooked and as it turned out even Fernando Alonso made no difference.

[PrinceBira]

Shame the thread took a turn away from how to assess driver potential to a discussion about driver generations.

As to driver potential: I think certain requirements in F1 are not required in lower categories (tire management for example, apart from F2).

First point to understand is: what makes a good F1 driver?

[danmills]

Maybe not a lost generation as such but an overlap where the previous 'of age' drivers past their prime extended their years in F1 when on paper history saw others simply retire countered as you say by the next wave being naff or OK, but not exceptionally better. Enough to warrant extended careers.

[Wes350]

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

I read that Lauda wanted him when Rosberg retired, but merc went with Bottas. One of the biggest ‘what if’s’ …

Not that he would have beaten Hamilton, but with his quali ability I think he would have kept Hamilton honest like rosberg did. And could even take a wdc id things broke his way.

Edited by Wes350, 17 January 2025 - 07:25.

[Anderis]

I read that Lauda wanted him when Rosberg retired, but merc went with Bottas. One of the biggest ‘what if’s’ …

Not that he would have beaten Hamilton, but with his quali ability I think he would have kept Hamilton honest like rosberg did. And could even take a wdc id things broke his way.

Seeing how Hulkenberg fared against Ricciardo, I doubt he could threaten peak Hamilton and take a WDC the way Rosberg did. I rate him similar to Bottas.

[absinthedude]

I also think things were very different for new drivers then and there was a much lower correlation between success in lower formulas and success in F1. Nowadays, very few drivers are awful when they get to F1 and the hyped ones are always at least OK. Back then, loads of drivers would win pretty much everything up to F1 and end up just being pretty disappointing once they got there. It wasn't just that they were blocked out.

 

I recall a post in rec.autos.sport.f1 in the mid 90s asking if F3000 was a graveyard for careers.

 

In fact, it was more that F1 was a graveyard for careers in those days. Correlation between performance in F3000, F3 and IndyCar and in F1 was not consistent. Some guys who were mega in the formulae just below F1 were pretty mediocre even with decent F1 cars...and some who were nothing special turned out to be excellent in F1.

 

There's still an element of that, but less so.