Separating car speed from driver speed

[izybluffen]

Like I said "I could be wrong" I'm just trying to establish some points to go by to evaluate the reason of this thread. Geez fella's dont hang me here ! If you can come up with some better ideas, I would love to hear them.

[Richard]

izybluffen - we're being good natured!

I'd say the following would be indicators:

- Generally, cars finish where they deserve in the WCC.

- Drivers who are able to achieve a very good finish in an otherwise poor car are likely to do that because they have the talent to take advantage of a perfect alignment circumstance for their car. However, that needs to be replicated to know if it is just luck or a genuine talent shining through.

- For example this season, I'd say Ferrari are probably behind McLaren on pace but Alonso has the talent to challenge RB when circumstances suit his car, while Massa is unable to have those stellar moments.

The above works for drivers at teams competing with other teams. The RB dominance this year means it is impossible to tell how much of that is down to Vettel or the car. If RB were tied on points in the WCC with another team, then we'd know how much Vettel was contributing, as opposed to reaping what has been given to him by Newey.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think Massa and Webber are crushed drivers.

Their results are worse that their talents dictate due to the number 2 nature of their roles.

[raymondu999]

They probably are; it's not easy for anyone's mental strengths to survive being outperformed consistently in qualifying and the race; especially over the course of a season; or even more than a season now for Felipe. The knowledge that the team is behind Fernando would also have contributed to that.

However n_smikle I must respectfully point out that this thread isn't quite about that; it's more, how do we know that a car was really on the limit? For example.

Let's say Driver A in Car X does a 1:20.000 lap time in Barcelona qualifying. How do we know that the car couldn't go faster? Sure the driver's gut feel/instinct/brain tells him he can't go faster; and that he got the maximum out of the car; but how do you actually know that it's not the driver lacking commitment? How do you conclusively say that the car couldn't have done a 1:19.000?

Let's say he took the apex of Turn 3 at 235km/h in that qualifying session; and he said it was absolutely on the limit. How do you know the car couldn't have gone; say, 240km/h? (the numbers are all just for illustration purposes).

For example a driver goes on power out of the corner and uses traction; and we see him accelerating off the corner slowly. The gut reaction is to say; that car has poor traction. But what if the driver actually could have gone on the power earlier? What if it actually had amazing traction; it's just that the driver wasn't confident enough to commit to the traction zone?

I know that some will say, "This is F1; if they can't do that then they shouldn't be here" but I'm not talking about gaps as massive as in my post; these are extreme examples for the purposes of illustrating my point

[bill shoe]

raymondu999,

You are talking about relative performance. American baseball has developed quite sophisticated measures of player performance relative to other players.

It would be simple for top-level drivers to participate in off-season tests to determine quickness in a direct and objective way relative to other drivers. However, established and/or top drivers always refuse to do this, even though it's common for up and coming drivers.

Even if you are confident that driver-A is quicker than driver-B, it would be useful to quantify how much quicker they are so you can decide how much additional money to offer driver-A.

It seems weird that F1 team managers would hire top level drivers that refused to directly and objectively demonstrate their services compared to their competitors. A baseball player that refused this would be laughed out of the league.

I supposed the conclusion is:
1. F1 is more political than baseball.
2. Money and/or sponsor connections are more important in F1. A mediocre driver can buy the second seat at Renault, but nobody can buy the shortstop position at the Yankees.

[Mr Alcatraz]

^v^v

[godlameroso]

At this point the number 2 drivers will have an advantage next year, as they are already probably trying out parts for next year. While the Number 1's focus on getting the best package for the circuit in hand.

[ringo]

Change the topic from "segregation" to separation.
You know when you have to do a double take to realize what you are reading, versus what your brain picked up initially?


About driver skill. I don't even think we can separate drivers even when they are in the same car, unless 1 is consistently quicker.
Car setup can make a fast driver look really slow.
It would take about 10 or so races together for me to separate which driver is more skilled in a team.

For different cars it's even worse to decipher.

I generally just go with how the cars move to tell who is more talented or quicker.
I kinda see what nuances of car movement a sharp as a razor driver would be imparting.

[ringo]

Yep, I've wondered about this quite a bit lately... Is the RB7 *really* faster than the MP4-26?

Is it that the car is faster and webber is doing a mediocre job, or is it that vettel is super fast and he's making it look like the car is faster than the McLarens.

The only hint I can get towards the answer is comments like "wow, you must have 30 points more downforce, you were disappearing through the last corner" after the race. What that doesn't say though is... how much more grip did the chasing driver have in the slow parts? How stable/unstable is each car, etc.

So really, the only way we ever see the car difference is if a driver says to another "wow, we simply couldn't do that in our car, we'd crash".

The redbull is faster. I don't even need Vettel to show me that.
Webber is enough trust me. You have to look how the car moves. Webber's onboards are amazing, even when he's doing crap.

[ringo]

izybluffen - we're being good natured!

I'd say the following would be indicators:

- Generally, cars finish where they deserve in the WCC.

- Drivers who are able to achieve a very good finish in an otherwise poor car are likely to do that because they have the talent to take advantage of a perfect alignment circumstance for their car. However, that needs to be replicated to know if it is just luck or a genuine talent shining through.

- For example this season, I'd say Ferrari are probably behind McLaren on pace but Alonso has the talent to challenge RB when circumstances suit his car, while Massa is unable to have those stellar moments.

The above works for drivers at teams competing with other teams. The RB dominance this year means it is impossible to tell how much of that is down to Vettel or the car. If RB were tied on points in the WCC with another team, then we'd know how much Vettel was contributing, as opposed to reaping what has been given to him by Newey.

I don't always agree with you,

but when i do...

[raymondu999]

The redbull is faster. I don't even need Vettel to show me that.
Webber is enough trust me. You have to look how the car moves. Webber's onboards are amazing, even when he's doing crap

I appreciate the points you're bringing up ringo; about how "stable" if that's the right word; a car looks as it's being pushed/thrashed around a lap. But you mentioned setup yourself; so how do you know that:
a) the stable car; is a massively understeering car; and it's just so overly stable that you can't slide the rear
b) it's not a matter of setup? It might be that the driver that "looks" more "wobbly" or "unstable" has purposely done it that way because that's how he drives.

I appreciate and understand what you're saying that generally the more "planted" a car looks; it means it's not being "pushed" or "thrashed" as hard; but it could also be other things.

About your thread name change; I'll change the thread title accordingly right after I post this

[ringo]

The RB7 is funny, in that it's not pointy and it's not stubborn.

It just glides over the track.

About setup now. Some days the car can be on a bad setup where it simply degrades the tyres too much or it has the wrong wings or balance. Those days the faster guy can look like the slower driver.

When it comes to how a driver manages his setup. This is where Vettel edges webber.

His speed this year can be down to him knowing what makes the car faster, more than raw talents like braking and reaction.

If you watch Vettel closely, he depends heavily on early throttle, and opening up the steering with a light grip; almost allowing the car to under steer itself out of the corner.
He is taking full advantage of the blown floor more and the total grip than webber who is driving the car on the wrong "wave length" with his choppy style.

Funny thing is Vettel's current driving style cannot work in the ferrari and Webbers would work. Though maybe Vettel would adapt to it and change for it.

He's simply just more adaptable, by taking note of certain things about the car.

[raymondu999]

Fair enough; but what's the proof? I'm not doubting what you're saying, but I was looking for more of a technical explanation of things;.

Also I don't quite buy that the choppy style works better for the Ferrari (in this specific example). If you looked closely at Alonso on boards from Renault/McLaren, compared to the Ferrari; he has softened up a lot and become more progressive than the Ferrari.

In terms of RB7s handling however; I don't think it's that clear cut Ringo. Yes it's a very good car and handles very well. However it's not perfect. I've announced a theory of mine a while back in another thread. From the 2.5 years we've seen Vettel and Webber together it seems to me (Mark Hughes and Anthony Davidson also commented on this) that Seb is better at handling rear instability than Webber. he doesn't mind a loose rear while Mark isn't so happy with a loose rear. Mark has also said this before in an interview with Autosport or F1 Racing magazine. I can't remember which right now unfortunately. He said, explicitly, (this was done in 2010) that "the narrower front tyres mean that the rears have a lot more lateral stability and that's played into my hands. Seb prefers it the other way around."

I do have a point I'm going with this so hang on a sec.

We've seen in qualifying that sometimes opening DRS is a game of dare as to how early you can open it. We've seen on several pole laps from the Bulls this year that they open the DRS slightly too early, and the rear just steps out. Examples would be at Turkey Turn 8 and at Shanghai Turn 13. With Mark's seeming preference for rear stability over front strength; I'm wondering; could it be that he has set his car up with extra stability, to counter a bit of the DRS effect? As in to give him a bit more rear stability when DRS is open; and in turn when DRS is not used in corners; Mark's car gets a lot of understeer.

Martin Brundle picked up on this (that Mark's car was having a lot of understeer). Bruno Senna also catches it here; on Mark's Q1 lap in China (knocked out in Q1 to refresh your memories)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-u9tkFzo4[/youtube]

And this goes back to your example of the car seeming to be stable even when Mark's not doing great. There are, clearly, some instances where Mark is fighting understeer; which would probably cause the car to be overly stable. Going back to how "edgy" the car looks; Mark's car in 2010 Singapore, in contrast, looked like it was at sea; but it was also a lap that got nowhere.

(Please note I'm not bashing Webber; it's just that by unfortunate coincidence my examples were all of Mark struggling)

[Mandrake]

- Generally, cars finish where they deserve in the WCC.

This for example is what I'm not sure about this season. McLaren "could" be very close to RedBull, had they not cocked up all season. Reliability issues, drivers crashing each other....Lewis' agression in certain races etc.

RedBull have an outstanding season with mega reliability, however, all the other teams have hindered each other, which is why the gap is that large.

Just wanted to show that reliability sometimes is better than raw pace alone with poor reliability.

[Richard]

aha - now we onto the triumvirate of F1: Driver-Car-Team.

This conversation is assuming the "team" part is neutral. However to take up your point, varying a single factor only nudges a team up or down a bit. I guess I'm saying that what you win on the swings is lost on the roundabouts. A team will end up in its natural place in the WCC.