EVALUATING DRIVER TALENT IN F1 Comparing Formula 1 drivers in different cars is notoriously difficult, but at least we can draw firm conclusions about the relative abilities of team-mates, right? Not always, as Mark Hughes explains... Its a sad fact that motorsport in general and F1 in particular is machinery-dominated. In equal cars, with equal preparation, the difference between the fastest and slowest driver in F1 is unlikely to be much more than one second per lap. The difference between the fastest and slowest cars is around three times that. As such, the car is roughly three times as strong a factor in overall competitiveness as the driver. This is why the competition between team-mates becomes such an intense area of study within the paddock especially. With no way of definitively knowing the exact order of speed of the cars and drivers once you unstitch their combination, all you have left as an apparently definitive straight comparison is how team-mates compare to each other. But actually, even that is not all that definitive. Take for example the comparison of Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli at Toyota. This season was the third in which they have been paired there, so there should be ample data from which to form a view. To keep the comparison as simple as possible, lets look only at qualifying speed. In 2005, their first year together, there could be absolutely no question that Trulli was the faster driver by a significant margin. Before that season was very old even Ralf was resigned to that fact, saying that he just had to accept Jarno could do things with the car in qualifying that he simply couldnt. But in the following year something changed: In 2006 there was virtually nothing between them. When you averaged out their times from each session where a straight comparison was possible, Ralf was quicker by the insignificant margin of a few thousandths of a second. Then into this season and we were back to 2005 again, with Ralf only rarely getting anywhere near Jarno. There are some specific technical factors that have a bearing on this that dont need to detain us here; the point is that even with an apparently perfect basis for a straight comparison between two drivers three years in the same cars the results were not clear-cut. And historically, this is not an unusual situation. The sport is littered with anomalous match-up results between team-mates. Driver A was faster than driver B who had been faster than driver C the year before. Yet when driver A and C were then paired up, it was C who was much the faster. Keke Rosberg was quicker than Nigel Mansell at Williams in 85. Rosberg was slower than Alain Prost at McLaren in 86. Yet when Prost and Mansell were paired at Ferrari in 90, there was absolutely nothing in it in terms of speed (even though Prost won four times and Mansell only once). Carlos Reutemann was slower than Alan Jones at Williams in 80 but faster in 81. Jean Alesi was faster than Gerhard Berger at Ferrari in 93 but slower in 94 and 95, etc. Its to do with the difference between core ability and how much of that ability the driver can access. The core ability is pretty much static its what hes been blessed with at birth and is largely to do with his inner ears sensitivity to changes in lateral force and the efficiency of his motor responses. But the level of access varies wildly. At its most basic level, its about experience. In the initial stages of his career, a drivers improvement curve will be very steep as he builds up a data bank of what is possible and what isnt and why. But that levels off. By the time drivers graduate to F1, theyve got plenty of experience. It then comes down to how well they can match up their preferred driving style with the characteristics of the car, and how much application they bring to the job. Here are the real driving factors behind the variations we see. In 2007 we saw several drivers struggling to make the transition from Michelin tyres to the standard-supply Bridgestones, something with a big impact upon technique and therefore with variation in the extent to which it compromised individual drivers. The extreme technique of Robert Kubica was probably hardest hit, with Fernando Alonso quite close behind for similar reasons. Alonso furthermore initially had to struggle with brakes that were of a harder compound than ideal because the McLarens brake cooling was inadequate for the first few races. Because of his greater reliance on the brakes for direction change, this further compromised his performances relative to his team-mate. All we can say with certainty is that with circumstances as they were in 2007, the team-mate performance comparison stacked up as follows. Ferrari: Raikkonen slightly quicker than Massa. McLaren: No clear winner between Hamilton and Alonso. BMW: Heidfeld ahead of Kubica. Renault: Kovalainen quicker than Fisichella. Williams: Rosberg very significantly quicker than Wurz. Red Bull: Webber quicker than Coulthard. Toyota: Trulli ahead of Ralf Schumacher. Toro Rosso: Liuzzi quicker than Speed, Vettel marginally quicker than Liuzzi. Honda: Button quicker than Barrichello. Super Aguri: Davidson quicker than Sato. Spyker: Sutil quicker than Albers or Yamamoto. But next year we have a reset button: new cars, new technical regs, new circumstances, new motivations. So the above list cannot in any way be taken as definitive. As with most things in F1, the targets are forever moving. Its at once a fascination and frustration of the sport. END OF ITV ARTICLE Becauae it's so close, it takes a long season to sort things out IMVHO.
Good article, which I agree with. I would add, it's a strong aspect of a drivers talent in how he adapts to new things. I would say a driver who picks up things quicker, and adapts his style to new tires or whatever has an advantage that ultimately shows in the results. The problem with having a driver who doesn't pick up things that quick, no matter what his potential may be, is that while he is learning and trying to adapt, the car could be going quicker, and thus points are lost.
interesting article - not sure i agree 100% but there are a lot of good points made, especially that of mating driver style to car characteristics. however it didnt mention wet weather driving - this is the area i think we can see just how good a driver is pretty much regardless of car.
+1 UK drivers should be good at wet weather driving. They should have lots of practice in the wet, right?
I thought that Liuzzi and Speed were about the same or Speed had a slight advantage. Speed did well this year especially in Monaco.
Davidson faster than Sato? Well, there goes this article's credibility. Sato passed Alonso on track, he must be faster. Sato is my hero. And Massa still has the advantage over Kimi of race fast laps.
Ted, there weren't 25 races in the season. So that is impossible. I am talking about fastest lap of any race. If I remember correctly, Massa leads fastest race lap with 6 to Raikkonen's 5. I also believe Massa leads this statistic over Alonso and Hamilton. I will double check later when I get home.
Career fastest race laps. I can't think of any metric less relevant. Ayrton Senna, indisputably the fastest man over a single lap in F1 history, had only 19 career fastest laps. Exactly what is relevant about a fastest lap? If a driver runs away with a race to the point that he coasts to the finish while the 2nd place driver drives balls to the wall to catch him and earns a fastest race lap, exactly what does that say? I am reminded of the phrase "When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". All people have to point to is that Massa has more fastest race laps than Kimi? Maybe he had to drive his arse off just to catch up?
...and overall more pole possitions...I DO think Massa is faster...just a tad faster...he did some incredible pole times, saving Ferrari from McLaren just in time more than once... Wet conditions have always posted a bigger challenge for drivers, and in the wet all possibilities multiply...including the one that makes you shine on the podium...racing in the wet is rare and if GP are sheduled properly they should not see rain all year...but unpredictible weather can happen like Malasya and Brazil were tropical stroms have made for great entertainers throught the years... Michael was the best in the wet...Alonso aint bad , Kimmi is very good and Massa...is still learning and improving.
They finished the season 6 to 6. Kimi won the new fastest lap trophy (I don't recall what the tie breaker was, maybe most wins or the judges just know he is faster)
How many of those fastest laps from Massa came when he wasn't in contention, at the end of a grandprix?
ROTFL Guess you'd like Sato to replace Phil then? No Nakajima?...Guess he's too hard on the pit crew.
Good article and very relevant. A couple of other variables; Wet or dry ? Generally accepted as the test of driving ability BUT some are just plain fast in the wet and other genuinely fast drivers on a dry track " just don't get it " when it rains. How close to contract time ? Fear is an incredible motivator. Keeps Ralphie employed for years past his " expires on " date. Favorite or Home track ? Experience and knowing a track like the back of your hand helps. And lets face it, your not just going to collect a pay check in front of the Homeys This article explains why I'm such a Nico proponent.
at least one more person out there thinks 'core ability' , what we could call "talent", isn't a "skill" that you acquire by "learning, studying, practicing" ... a topic we've been beating on about in another thread...
...well, in the end,-AND IM BEING VERY SARCASTICAL- I dont see why Massa is under contract with Ferrari, driving an F1 car that actually races on the regular GP calendar, had more poles than anybody else this season,and is backed by the bigger dog LDM, Jean Todt and Even Michael nobody... ...he must be one fast driver with an empty track too!
