Separating car speed from driver speed

[raymondu999]

Mnm- you could probably find some benchmark tests for feel too. Not sure how, but I'm sure it's possible

[Cam]

For sure you could. Feel is something quite personal though and I think it changes depending on lots of factors. Take Adam Scott recently. He choked completely. He lost the 'feel', yet he was still fit and obviously a very talented player. How would you measure that as it's so dependant on the environment and stress.

[mnmracer]

So, muscular reflex, nerv touch, body strength, brain awareness, the list goes on, means nothing? Guess all those personal trainers are there for show.

There is no one way to demonstrate this. But we could try to identify character traits and certain physical attributes that may form a pattern. This may show people with a predisposition to performing well in motorsports.

Think of it like a science experiment. What tests and results could we measure that don't have high variables.

Physical attributes are simply a requirement to be a Formula One driver in the first place. But having a condition that can make you race for 3 hours, will not make you a better racer over a 1.5 hour race. At most, you can filter out drivers that are not fit enough, but the fitness high does not add to driving skill.

[Cam]

I know what you're saying and I agree that feel is very important. Kimi is showing this. He's really not happy (or is he now?) with his steering wheel. Getting gthe right feedback and touch would be pertinent to his overall driving ability. Measuring that feel though is really hard, hence Lotus have given up (or have they?) on trying to solve his 'feel' problems.

I think feel comes naturally to a good driver. I can drive a domestic car, a kart, a race car, a truck, a boat and a motorbike all quite well. I must adjust to the 'feel' of each one as they all behave differently. But how do I show that? I'm sure a test can be done.

Maybe feel is measured through a simulator with various feedback settings that change, allowing the driver to adapt?

Having great feel is nothing without the physical attributes. The physical is nothing if you cannot feel the car. I wonder what some of the current drivers ratios are?

[gato azul]

interesting questions thoughts - well done again RM999
maybe take a look at the selection process/criteria the air force(s) use to find the most suitable candidates to become combat/fighter pilots (probably the closed thing in terms of skill set to an F1 driver).

Because of the cost associated with training a pilot, the selection process has become over the years very very critical. The Air Force (or other branches) have taken great pains to study past aviators and they now have a fairly accurate picture of the type of person they are looking for. They are looking for individuals that will not waste training dollars. That means they are looking for the type of person that will be able to go through the course successfully.

this implies, that they have developed a metrics, which filters out the best suited candidates early in the process.

Similar thoughts and considerations would apply (IMHO) to the likes of Red Bull or others who run junior driver development programs.
They would like (I assume) to find the next >> insert name of a very successful driver<<, not wasting there money on guys who will never make it into F1 drooping out along the way, or don't cut when finally there.

Would be interesting to see/know which metrics they use for their selection process, and if they do studies in this direction and if they take lessons learned by others military, NASA etc. into account.

[marcush.]

it´s a well known fact that winning in lower ranks and other series does not make you a contender in F1 .in fact lots of f1 champs for one reason or another have not shown a lot before grabbing their chance in F1 ...Damon Hill one very striking example.
i don´t think you can separate the driver from the car really..it may or may not be useful to have adaptiveness high on your selection critewria agenda...but then we have seen Webber and vettel or Alesi and berger swapping position in team speed hierachy depending on certain characteristics of the car.

[raymondu999]

it´s a well known fact that winning in lower ranks and other series does not make you a contender in F1 .in fact lots of f1 champs for one reason or another have not shown a lot before grabbing their chance in F1 ...Damon Hill one very striking example.

Aye. Some people (Pantano, Hulkenberg) dominated everything pre-F1, then didn't set the F1 world on fire. As in, good, but we don't see performances that stand out, a la Alonso-Minardi 2001.

I think at the end of the day - F1 is the wrong platform to judge the driver skill/speed, even when you put them in the same car as another driver (ie teammates)

[Cam]

Would that be contributed the the lower series being essentially (not completely) spec series cars, where setups and differences in makes etc are minimal?

F1 is a different beast and I agree that many drivers with great potential have come and simply not performed. So do we stop judging a driver once they get to F1? The connotations are the car simply plays a bigger part.

[gato azul]

F1 is a different beast and I agree that many drivers with great potential have come and simply not performed. So do we stop judging a driver once they get to F1?
The connotations are the car simply plays a bigger part.

Yes, it is, and as you say, and we have seen over the years, many drivers with exceptional skills and car control ( Alesi comes to mind, but there are others) have come and done, without making much impact in terms of WDC's etc.

which brings us to one of the air force requirements:

They want to see if your are a calm, problem solver with the ability to effectively communicate. You are not only be judged on your ability to fly, but in your ability to lead men into combat (you will be an officer) so they are interested in natural leadership qualities/tendencies as well.

O.K. let's forget about the military aspect of fighting etc., but the leadership aspect pretty much remains.
In the context of F1, it could mean being able to direct/lead a team with 300+ people to achieve what you want to achieve.
Now, some will argue, that this is what team managers etc. are for, but nevertheless it strikes me, that some drivers seem to better then others, in getting the most out of their environment.

F1 racing is a multidimensional problem/business, just being "a good" driver, may not be enough at this level to win the ultimate prize (WDC crown)

[Cam]

A wise man once told me "skills can be learnt, aptitude is all that matters to succeed".

Anyone can probably be taught to drive an F1 car and drive it quite quickly. If you don't have the 'want' then you'll never get it. What's the old saying, 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration?

[Richard]

Succeeding is different from winning. With a bit of hard work nearly everyone can become a competent driver. However, a driver needs an additional natural ability plus hard work in order to win against those who only have hard work in their favour. So a successful F1 driver has to be an outlier (ie freak) in order to have greater success than the general F1 gene pool.

There is research* about the maximum performance of athletes, dogs and horses. If you throw some statistical filtering at the numbers it appears that most sports see a rapid rise in performance as people get more knowledgeable and better at applying hard work. They then plateau unless something disrupts the established pattern.

It appears the overriding factor is the size of the gene pool. The bigger the participating population then the greater the odds of finding an outlier who'll set a new record. So that's why thoroughbred race horses have run at the same speeds for 60 years. They are from a static gene pool and modern technology for nutrition and training is making no difference.

So my hunch is that F1 is probably at that plateau stage, with a pretty uniform level of driver development and talent management - the only way to success is to be an genetic outlier.

* Have a read of this paper, I heard the autohr on the radio the other week... http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/24/3836.abstract

[Cam]

Would drivers who are more successful in the modern era actually have a better fundamental understanding of engineering. To put it another way, take 2 drivers of similar talent and give one an engineering degree with a major in aeronautics. Would this actually be where drivers need to go to stay ahead of the pack? Would it make a difference?

[Pierce89]

Would drivers who are more successful in the modern era actually have a better fundamental understanding of engineering. To put it another way, take 2 drivers of similar talent and give one an engineering degree with a major in aeronautics. Would this actually be where drivers need to go to stay ahead of the pack? Would it make a difference?

If so, maybe the degree I'm working will get me a drive instead of a job! Seriously though, I think you're onto something. While they still wouldn't allow the driver to do actual engineering, I think it could greatly increase the driver's ability to know what sort of chassis adjustment might help.(rather than just saying "I have undrsteer", Maybe he could say "I need a softer front bar to move some load transfer to the back")

[raymondu999]

Would drivers who are more successful in the modern era actually have a better fundamental understanding of engineering. To put it another way, take 2 drivers of similar talent and give one an engineering degree with a major in aeronautics. Would this actually be where drivers need to go to stay ahead of the pack? Would it make a difference?

If so, maybe the degree I'm working will get me a drive instead of a job! Seriously though, I think you're onto something. While they still wouldn't allow the driver to do actual engineering, I think it could greatly increase the driver's ability to know what sort of chassis adjustment might help.(rather than just saying "I have undrsteer", Maybe he could say "I need a softer front bar to move some load transfer to the back")

Perhaps not as far as a physics degree, but the more related portions - ie vehicle dynamics? It would help them in terms of setup, and understanding the dynamics of the car well enough to actually drive better. I personally think that most of the top drivers through the years have at least a basic understanding of vehicle dynamics, and probably better than the non-top drivers.

[natehall]

Personally I think the car masks a lot of a drivers skills / weaknesses, Vettel is clearly a good driver but a 4 time WDC calibre (in WDC Wins as good a Prost, better than senna? Really?), and then this year he is absolutely nowhere.. He did well in monza in the STR though to his credit.

Take a look at Senna, the toleman was probably one of the worst cars on the grid and he gave a masterclass to his teammate,
Prost had the early mcLarens and turbo's holding him back, and still managed some pretty impressive results, Schumacher gave first williams a run for there money in 1994 with the underpowered Benetton Ford, (not withstanding the issues Williams had with Active Ride and the unfortunately turmoil from the fallout of Imola '94) and in 1996 & 1997 in substandard Ferrari's, which If I recall correctly Eddie Irvine described as undriveable.

You should always take quotes from team mates as well as a definition of just how good the driver is upon signing for Jaquar:

The timing is really fantastic. I was really desperate to get out of Ferrari this season, and I am a lucky, lucky guy. I could not have coped with another year because Michael Schumacher is so damn good. He is a back-breaker. He saps you, and the effort of working and competing with him drains you.