Vettel vs Ricciardo 2014

[basti313]

The car can only be as good as the driver is. Or, with the WCC in mind, as good as the sum of both of your drivers. If you have a driver under contract who represents a long term investment and isn't exactly cheap (Vettel), it makes sense to optimize the strengths of each of your assets to get the maximum.

Remember Eddie Irivine at Ferrari? Largely forgettable in no small part to Schumacher. But what happened in 1999?
Schumacher breaks his leg, and Irvine becomes the focus of Ferrari's spearhead and he pushed Hakkinen to final race that year, narrowly missing the title by 3 points.

As a driver, he did not suddenly gain 0.5 seconds speed.

His team made him the focal point, the reference on baseline performance. Those results speak for themselves.

The car was now changed and developed to suit him at a time when testing was unlimited.
Quite telling.

You did not watch the 99 season, did you?
What you say is completely wrong. Irvine never gained half a second. It is the other way round: Before Schumacher broke his leg Irvine was competitive with not more than 4 tenth, rather 2 tenth deficit. When Schumacher came back he was 1 second faster in Malaysia and 1.5 seconds faster in Japan...
The Ferrari was competitive towards the McLaren just because it was fast and reliable in the race. Just similar to the 2012 season. And, of course, the many faults from Hakkinen.
There was absolutely no development in the direction of Irvine. Just the normal development.

[GitanesBlondes]

Hakkinen had some unfortunate incidents in '99 that left the door open for Irvine to challenge. Wheel coming off at Silverstone, exploding tire at Hockenheim, and throttle problem in Australia. The remaining two retirements were his fault - coming out of the Traguardo at San Marino and hitting the wall because he hit the curb on exit, and Monza when he locked up the rear end under a gear change and spun off. If the three retirements do not happen, he wins all of those races and would have had the championship locked up before Malaysia most likely.

[FoxHound]

@ basti

Wrong? You think Irvine would be challenging Hakkinen if Schumacher was able to race the entire season?
He wouldn't.

If not development...The GP weekend focal point became Irvine.

@gitanes
If's and buts. If Schumacher didn't break his leg he could have been an 8 time champion etc etc

[GitanesBlondes]

@ basti

Wrong? You think Irvine would be challenging Hakkinen if Schumacher was able to race the entire season?
He wouldn't.

If not development...The GP weekend focal point became Irvine.

@gitanes
If's and buts. If Schumacher didn't break his leg he could have been an 8 time champion etc etc

Certainly, but my point was that Irvine never should have been in a position to contest for the championship at Suzuka even with Schumacher not being around from Silverstone till Malaysia. McLaren and Hakkinen both made mistakes that allowed for it. It wasn't an if's and buts scenario since Hakkinen won, and all I was contesting was when he should have wrapped up the title.

Truth be told, Alain Prost very easily could have been an 8-time world champion as he was in a position to win the title in 1983, 1984, 1988, and 1990. Such is life.

[FoxHound]

It made a spectacle to the end and he was leading hakkinen until the final race. But yea, my point here is that the usually ordinary Irvine was made a contender from Schumacher's absence.

Im relation to this thread, it could be that the usual situation at Red Bull is upside down due to Vettels issues with not having EBD/coanda.
He is struggling, Newey admitted today.

What is interesting is that Red Bull are trying to replicate it or at least gain more rear down force to assist Vettel.
Could this be a tell tale sign of the problems he has been having?

[basti313]

Hakkinen had some unfortunate incidents in '99 that left the door open for Irvine to challenge. Wheel coming off at Silverstone, exploding tire at Hockenheim, and throttle problem in Australia. The remaining two retirements were his fault - coming out of the Traguardo at San Marino and hitting the wall because he hit the curb on exit, and Monza when he locked up the rear end under a gear change and spun off. If the three retirements do not happen, he wins all of those races and would have had the championship locked up before Malaysia most likely.

You are absolutely right with your conclusion. But aren't you missing a famous "wall of champions" incident? Think this was also 99...

@ basti

Wrong? You think Irvine would be challenging Hakkinen if Schumacher was able to race the entire season?
He wouldn't.

What I called wrong: You stated Irvine was 0.5sec faster, because development changed. This is completely wrong, because Schumacher was much much faster than Irvine when he came back.

And yes, Irvine would have been challenging Hakkinen:

If not development...The GP weekend focal point became Irvine.

If I remember it right, there was only two incidents with teamorder favoring Irvine, one in the second to last race. The other cases Irvine was either nowhere or clearly in front of Hakkinen. He would have been challenging Hakkinen for P2 just like Webber was challenging Button in 2011.

@gitanes
If's and buts. If Schumacher didn't break his leg he could have been an 8 time champion etc etc

Does not need a lot of imagination to see that...not a big "if"....

It made a spectacle to the end and he was leading hakkinen until the final race. But yea, my point here is that the usually ordinary Irvine was made a contender from Schumacher's absence.

But this had nothing to do with teamorder or car development. This was just due to the fact, that Irvine was MUCH slower than Schumacher.

What is interesting is that Red Bull are trying to replicate it or at least gain more rear down force to assist Vettel.
Could this be a tell tale sign of the problems he has been having?

I think that "to assist Vettel" is not a case of Vettel being the vocal point. Having more rear downforce makes the car faster for every driver. That Vettel prefers more rear downforce is just a sidemark and has nothing to do with the car development.

[mnmracer]

Looking back at 1999, first, I was shocked how big the gaps in qualifying are; anyone saying racing was more competitive in the '90s really needs to look back without rose-tinted glasses.

It made a spectacle to the end and he was leading hakkinen until the final race. But yea, my point here is that the usually ordinary Irvine was made a contender from Schumacher's absence.

Had you taken Vettel out of the equation in 2011, and nothing else changed, Webber would also have been a contender for the championship. Context is ever-important.

Taking out the French Grand Prix (pooring wet) and the Italian Grand Prix (can't find the data for some reason), Irvine's average gap in qualifying to Häkkinen is exactly the same before the British Grand Prix, and after: 0,7 seconds. Actually, if you take out Malaysia and Japan, when Schumi returned, the latter half goes up to 0,8 seconds.

The suggestion that with Ferrari focusing on the number two driver, Irvine suddenly did get the skills to become a championship contender, is simply false. Irvine was no faster and no slower being the #1 driver in Maranello.

[Phil]

Aren't we discussing a non-issue?

If you have two drivers, one competitive, the other not - the problems can be in two places or both: a.) issue is with the underachieving driver b.) the car suits one driver more so than the other (differing driving styles)

A team in this instance has a few options; tell the underachieving driver to try harder or/and find ways to make the package more suitable for that driver while either compromising it for the other driver or using differing set-ups/chasis for both, hoping that will narrow the gap.

If for whatever reason one driver falls away due to accident or whatever and you only have one driver to consider, it's kind of logical that a team would then focus their efforts into getting the maximum from that remaining driver.

Back to RedBull - this isn't a first really; Hasn't the team already in the past, I think 2010, reverted chasis to accomondate one of their drivers better? I also thought that at another team, I think Lotus (or was it McLaren), one driver prefered a slightly shorter wheelbase car so that's what they gave him?

As a team, you're only ever as good as the sum of both your drivers. Sometimes, one of your driver is so good that the 2nd driver doesn't need to be considered as much (Schumacher/Ferrari, Vettel/RedBull-2010-2013) because your lead driver is already flying in the points for both the WDC and WCC or in other cases, like McLaren during Hamilton/Button where both drivers getting the maximum out of the car is essential, so you really need to focus on both.

To what extend you can find a solution for your struggling driver without compromising too much for the other or the team as a whole, I guess is the crucial point. As a team, I guess you do what you can. If it's too complex and one of the drivers is getting the results, I guess the other just needs to adapt, as hard as it may be.

[GitanesBlondes]

Looking back at 1999, first, I was shocked how big the gaps in qualifying are; anyone saying racing was more competitive in the '90s really needs to look back without rose-tinted glasses.

Oh you mean compared to now where one team is walking away with the championship and no one else has a chance of coming close to their performance?

The 1999 season was quite good and saw some fantastic races with multiple winners over the course of the season. The European GP at the Nurburgring was stunning to watch. While the rain is what made the entire race unpredictable, so did driver errors. Johnny Herbert winning in the Stewart was as fun of a moment to watch as any. Nothing from the last 5 seasons matches up with '99.

No thanks mnm, I'll take unlimited engines, refueling, in-season testing, in-season engine development, and on the limit driving over anything 2009 thru 2014 has given us. So the racing wasn't close? Big deal. Grand prix racing was never generating artificial close racing. I'd say the whole thing worked pretty well for oh I don't know, the first century before the present fans ruined the whole thing with their ADD.

The other thing that often gets overlooked with the 90s was mechanical failures and the like were still more commonplace, so such a thing was what could get a backmarker into the points far more than we see now. Bianchi scored points at Monaco because of accidents and mechanical failures, which was a more regular occurrence before we got bans on development and were given super-safe circuits.

[GitanesBlondes]

It made a spectacle to the end and he was leading hakkinen until the final race. But yea, my point here is that the usually ordinary Irvine was made a contender from Schumacher's absence.

Im relation to this thread, it could be that the usual situation at Red Bull is upside down due to Vettels issues with not having EBD/coanda.
He is struggling, Newey admitted today.

What is interesting is that Red Bull are trying to replicate it or at least gain more rear down force to assist Vettel.
Could this be a tell tale sign of the problems he has been having?

I'm curious to see how, or if they can replicate that sort of downforce without the exhaust assistance.

[FoxHound]

I'm curious to see how, or if they can replicate that sort of downforce without the exhaust assistance.

I'm guessing it will be a while before they get anywhere near half what they used to have.

Had you taken Vettel out of the equation in 2011, and nothing else changed, Webber would also have been a contender for the championship

Vettel did not break his leg. Webber was not promoted to team number one. He was still subject to his normal role of Red Bull number 2.
There is no comparing the 2 situations.

Context is ever-important.

That it is, that it is.

Now had Vettel suffered the same misfortune, I've no doubt in my mind that Red Bull would've galvanised around Webber to give him his title shot.

[mnmracer]

Looking back at 1999, first, I was shocked how big the gaps in qualifying are; anyone saying racing was more competitive in the '90s really needs to look back without rose-tinted glasses.

...

I thought it was clear I was talking about the performance gap between cars. Seasons like this are an anomaly but even now, the gap between Mercedes and the midfield is smaller than most years in the earlier years of F1.

[mnmracer]

Had you taken Vettel out of the equation in 2011, and nothing else changed, Webber would also have been a contender for the championship

Vettel did not break his leg. Webber was not promoted to team number one. He was still subject to his normal role of Red Bull number 2.
There is no comparing the 2 situations.

Context is ever-important.

That it is, that it is.

Now had Vettel suffered the same misfortune, I've no doubt in my mind that Red Bull would've galvanised around Webber to give him his title shot.

So after now seeing clearly how "galvanizing around" a driver is no proof it makes a difference in performance, on what basis do you think it would have made a difference?

[FoxHound]

I'm sorry I could not make sense of your reply.

As in no way did I say being a number 1 driver does not improve your performance.
Maybe this will help

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2010/07/v ... ng-change/

[GitanesBlondes]

Looking back at 1999, first, I was shocked how big the gaps in qualifying are; anyone saying racing was more competitive in the '90s really needs to look back without rose-tinted glasses.

...

I thought it was clear I was talking about the performance gap between cars. Seasons like this are an anomaly but even now, the gap between Mercedes and the midfield is smaller than most years in the earlier years of F1.

Trying to judge competitiveness based purely on a qualifying gap is an exercise in stupidity. I know you think you can somehow divine answers solely from numbers, but as the saying goes, a statistician once drowned crossing a stream, that was on average 6 inches deep.