Vettel vs Ricciardo 2014

[FoxHound]

Or that the number 2 driver now has the complete spectrum of the teams efforts behind him.
The best engineers, the best of everything.

A team will only divert a certain amount of its resources on a gp weekend to a number 2.
Irvine benefited from that.

Any number 2 would benefit from that. As Newey mentioned, cars are not designed for a driver. They are designed to be as neutral and usable as possible.
But, what happens after is dictated by the general consensus within an F1 team. Usually the engineers will give feedback based on telemetry and driver feedback to the design staff who will make improvements based on this.

If a number 2 is struggling with a certain aspect of the car, its less of a priority than if a number 1 had the issue.
It's cyclical, and can make number 1's look alot better and number 2's alot worse than what we see.

Not even statistics can explain the anomalous way us humans operate.

[basti313]

Or that the number 2 driver now has the complete spectrum of the teams efforts behind him.
The best engineers, the best of everything.

WRONG : In 1999 Luca Baldiserri was Irvine's race engineer and the pit crew stayed the same. For Salo they got Paoli Cantoni as a new race engineer and Schumacher's pit crew. There was an incident before the race in Germany about that. Schumacher invited his crew to the kart circuit and not Irvine's crew.
And Salo was clearly not the Nr.1 driver.
And actually it was Luca Baldiserri with whom Schumacher won the title in 2000...so no Nr. 2 engineer...

A team will only divert a certain amount of its resources on a gp weekend to a number 2.
Irvine benefited from that.

Also WRONG: There were rumors that Ross Brawn and Luca Baldiserri had their issues with trading data within the team. Both pit crews and race engineers were rather working on their own, with or without Schumacher. Irvine profited from nothing.

As Newey mentioned, cars are not designed for a driver. They are designed to be as neutral and usable as possible.
But, what happens after is dictated by the general consensus within an F1 team. Usually the engineers will give feedback based on telemetry and driver feedback to the design staff who will make improvements based on this.

Newey also mentioned, that driver feedback does not play a role in his car development.

[bhall]

I appreciate it if this is as far as you can go.

Frankly, I don't understand your position on the matter. You cited the recent reintroduction of a tool used to prevent excessive performance gaps (107% rule) to introduce your view that "...it is obvious that nowadays the cars are closer just because the teams are better."

That strikes me as a non sequitur, because if the latter is true, doesn't it render the former a bit superfluous? It certainly doesn't seem like a good way to support such a position.

As I said before, though, it's all opinion, and none of it really matters. Especially when it's entirely possible we're both wrong...

[GitanesBlondes]

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.

The qualifying gap is a simple illustration. Points scored shows the same result. Anything other than "because I say so" concludes the same thing.

Though now I am curious how you conclude a difference in competitiveness without using facts and numbers.

Yes if all race results were determined solely by qualifying order, and the gap between each position in qualifying, you'd have a point.

Using points scored with current points allocation system compared to the 1999 season isn't accurate either since only P1 thru P6 were awarded points in 1999, versus P1 thru P10 now. The change in points allocation to an extra 4 positions was a way of putting blinders on to people to make it seem as if the overall quality of the competition is greater than it actually is (look more drivers are scoring points!).

You're making the fatal flaw of assuming that qualifying gaps coming down for the reasons bhall mentioned somehow translates to more competitiveness on the track. The drivers are already on record as saying they aren't actually doing what one might be expected of a race driver, which is to actually drive hard. The entire race is a tire and fuel management exercise. I guess if how bunched up cars are on the track for the duration of a grand prix is a barometer of competitiveness for you, or others, then that might seem as if things are more competitive.

[mnmracer]

...

The "simple illustration" of the qualifying gap refers to illustrating how Irvine did not perform better in Schumacher's absence: it was the same before and after the crash. Same for the points: same number of points before and after the crash.

None of those refer to the closeness of the field. That was just a throw-away comment: seeing the qualifying gaps again reminded me of how big they were back then. Nothing more, nothing less.

[FoxHound]

WRONG : In 1999 Luca Baldiserri was Irvine's race engineer and the pit crew stayed the same.And actually it was Luca Baldiserri with whom Schumacher won the title in 2000...so no Nr. 2 engineer...

That he was promoted to be MSC's engineer tells you he was very good.
I wouldn't say my assessment is wrong senhor Basti. Just different to your own, as my point didn't say Irvine had to change engineers.
He had more access within the team, as he was now the spearhead....do you not concur? Sharing is caring after all.

Also WRONG: There were rumors that Ross Brawn and Luca Baldiserri had their issues with trading data within the team. Both pit crews and race engineers were rather working on their own, with or without Schumacher. Irvine profited from nothing.

Again, I wouldn't go as far as suggesting WRONG. You are basing your opinion on a rumour, Monsieur Basti.
I'm basing mine on Jean Todt and Ross Brawn getting the job done and making sure a WDC title tilt works.
If Brawn had an issue with Baldiserri, Baldiserri will be yielding quicker than a scolded cat. Brawn had rank after all.

Newey also mentioned, that driver feedback does not play a role in his car development.

Newey said no such thing.

Q: So it was never a Mansell, Prost or now Vettel car, but rather a Newey car…
AN: Well, what does happen is that when we have continuity in drivers like we’ve had for the last few years with Sebastian and Mark (Webber) then you listen to their feedback and the car evolves at least in parts as a result of their feedback. That does happen.

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 15315.html


Anyhow this is all sidetracking from the initial point that a number 2 driver elevated to number 1 status will perform better in terms of results.
And how this relates to Vettel and Ricciardo, is that at some point Red bull will have to make a choice based on which feedback will give them the greater chance of success.
It is clear Vettel is hurting from lack of EBD and or/rear DF.
If Red Bull cannot replicate this sort of DF quickly, Ricciardo will have a greater say in how things move forward as he is dealing with the issue better than Vettel.

Which is also why I'm intrigued as to how this sort of DF can be replicated. Because I don't think it can, unless you place a barn door rear wing and suffer down the straights, which is not going to happen at Red bull.

[basti313]

I appreciate it if this is as far as you can go.

Frankly, I don't understand your position on the matter. You cited the recent reintroduction of a tool used to prevent excessive performance gaps (107% rule) to introduce your view that "...it is obvious that nowadays the cars are closer just because the teams are better."

That strikes me as a non sequitur, because if the latter is true, doesn't it render the former a bit superfluous? It certainly doesn't seem like a good way to support such a position.

Well, than I have to explain or devide that:
I mentioned the 107% rule as a reply to your "it's virtually impossible to produce anything less than a reasonably capable car". With the new teams it was necessary to introduce it is still possible to build bad cars, so it is not the rules, it is the expertise of the teams, that gave us often 8 cars or more within one second in Q.

As I said before, though, it's all opinion, and none of it really matters. Especially when it's entirely possible we're both wrong...

http://i.imgur.com/CZcETcx.jpg

I think this is one of the worst comparisons you can make. You are comparing a year (1999) with 5? years of stable rules and development with the year (2014) with the biggest rulechange in the history of F1.
Take for example 1994 towards 2014 or compare 1999 with 2013 and you can see the development of the gaps.
Or take something before 1990...as stated before not even half of the field managed to finish half of the races whereas good teams like McLaren had one or two technical DNFs. The last years we had most races with only one or two technical DNFs.

[mnmracer]

Anyhow this is all sidetracking from the initial point that a number 2 driver elevated to number 1 status will perform better in terms of results.

You have still provided not a single shred of evidence to support this theory, especially since the whole Irvine discussion showed that the one time in modern times we've had a chance to see that happen, proofed there is little basis to be found for that claim in hard data of the results.

It is clear Vettel is hurting from lack of EBD and or/rear DF.
If Red Bull cannot replicate this sort of DF quickly, Ricciardo will have a greater say in how things move forward as he is dealing with the issue better than Vettel.

The problem with concluding "Vettel hurting from lack of EBD/DF" based on 6 races full of mechanical issues, is that you will base all your knowledge about Red Bull on that assumption.

When Vettel starts beating Ricciardo again, your explanation will be "well, obviously they regained 50 megaton of DF again because see, NOW Vettel is competitive again", and before long you will tell everyone as if it's fact.

[FoxHound]

You have still provided not a single shred of evidence to support this theory, especially since the whole Irvine discussion showed that the one time in modern times we've had a chance to see that happen, proofed there is little factual basis.

You provided it earlier for me. Thanks for that by the way. And let me say, it's 7 GP not the 6 you mentioned.
This is what gets my goat(s) up(and a fair few others) about your statistics.

Irvine had 26 points up to the French GP which is an average of 3.714 pts per race.
From Silverstone (where Schumacher crashed whilst in second place due to brake failure) until Schumachers return in Malaysia (7 races including Silverstone) he averaged 4.857. pts per race.

An improvement of around 25%!

Your "Calculation" uses Schumacher's DNF as a Negative result against the mean statistic to suite your argument.
I can counter balance that by adding it to my favour. See why stats mean jack?
The simple truth is, that the very moment Schumacher's leg broke, Irvine became number 1.

The problem with concluding "Vettel hurting from lack of EBD/DF" based on 6 races full of mechanical issues, is that you will base all your knowledge about Red Bull on that assumption.

Vettel must be in the same boat as me. (Please note, I did not say this is his ONLY issue. Again please do not be so presumptuous)

One of the problems Vettel has been coping with on the RB10 is excessive oversteer, he said

“We don’t think there was anything wrong with the old chassis but nevertheless we decided to change so we should get an answer this weekend. I think in general I don’t mind when the rear is moving, I don’t mind suffering or having oversteer in the car. But if it is too much obviously it starts to bother you when the car slides too much. Then you find yourself correcting more than actually being able to push or get the maximum out of the car and it slows you down.
So I think that has been part of the problem so far. There’s lots of reasons behind it so it would be nice to have just one problem and one fix for that but obviously it got a lot more complex this year, there’s a lot more factors than just the car set-up so we’re still learning a lot.
We did already a lot of improvement but there’s still obviously a lot to do. But I think generally you never change your… I think, the way you like to drive the car or your style I think doesn’t change.”

When Vettel starts beating Ricciardo again, your explanation will be "well, obviously they regained 50 megaton of DF again because see, NOW Vettel is competitive again", and before long you will tell everyone as if it's fact.

This is just paranoia at work. Please do not put words into my mouth, I have been polite and expect some form of politeness back.

[mnmracer]

You have still provided not a single shred of evidence to support this theory, especially since the whole Irvine discussion showed that the one time in modern times we've had a chance to see that happen, proofed there is little factual basis.

You provided it earlier for me. Thanks for that by the way. And let me say, it's 7 GP not the 6 you mentioned.
This is what gets my goat(s) up(and a fair few others) about your statistics.

Irvine had 26 points up to the French GP which is an average of 3.714 pts per race.
From Silverstone (where Schumacher crashed whilst in second place due to brake failure) until Schumachers return in Malaysia (7 races including Silverstone) he averaged 4.857. pts per race.

An improvement of around 25%!

Your "Calculation" uses Schumacher's DNF as a Negative result against the mean statistic to suite your argument.
I can counter balance that by adding it to my favour. See why stats mean jack?
The simple truth is, that the very moment Schumacher's leg broke, Irvine became number 1.

Speaking of manipulating statistics, this is under the very odd, and still unsubstantiated by you, assumption that Irvine gained some magic #1 driver benefits in between Schumacher's crash and the restart roughly half an hour later.

The problem with concluding "Vettel hurting from lack of EBD/DF" based on 6 races full of mechanical issues, is that you will base all your knowledge about Red Bull on that assumption.

When Vettel starts beating Ricciardo again, your explanation will be "well, obviously they regained 50 megaton of DF again because see, NOW Vettel is competitive again", and before long you will tell everyone as if it's fact.

This is just paranoia at work. Please do not put words into my mouth, I have been polite and expect some form of politeness back.

I think it's a fair assumption based on similar behavior with Webber in the first races of 2012 (where beating Vettel in 3 out of 10 races means "OMG he can't handle no downforce").

If a similar situation occurs and you will not use this argument, I will buy you a beer (gift card or I'll PayPal you whatever a beer costs at your local pub).

[FoxHound]

Speaking of manipulating statistics, this is under the very odd, and still unsubstantiated by you, assumption that Irvine gained some magic #1 driver benefits in between Schumacher's crash and the restart roughly half an hour later.

1.He had the full undivided attention of the Ferrari team from lap 2.
2.He did not have a rear gunner role he was brought to the team to fulfil.
3.He had optimum strategy call.


Not magic.

[turbof1]

Speaking of manipulating statistics, this is under the very odd, and still unsubstantiated by you, assumption that Irvine gained some magic #1 driver benefits in between Schumacher's crash and the restart roughly half an hour later.

I don't want to be too tangled up in this discussion, that ultimately only serves as a comparison to the vettel-ricciardo case but began to ran it's own life, but I think it's pretty THE logical move to do so. Once the scan was made of Schumacher's leg, it was pretty much clear he would be out for a too long of a time. This made Irvine de facto the number one, as he still had a reasonable chance to get the driver's championship, while Schumacher's replacement was never a realistic contender for the championship and only served to get points in for Ferrari. So what do you do? Are you going to divide resources fair 'n square over both the championship contender and the fill-in, or are you going to promote the number 2 to number 1 because he's your hope for the championship?

It doesn't take statistics to figure that out. This all is logical, reasonable and consistent with Ferrari's team management. Any team would do this. If Hamilton puts his mercedes into the wall of championship and breaks both his hands, Rosberg will become the de facto number 1. That's nothing more then a very rational and obvious decision.

[mnmracer]

Speaking of manipulating statistics, this is under the very odd, and still unsubstantiated by you, assumption that Irvine gained some magic #1 driver benefits in between Schumacher's crash and the restart roughly half an hour later.

I don't want to be too tangled up in this discussion, that ultimately only serves as a comparison to the vettel-ricciardo case but began to ran it's own life, but I think it's pretty THE logical move to do so. Once the scan was made of Schumacher's leg, it was pretty much clear he would be out for a too long of a time. This made Irvine de facto the number one, as he still had a reasonable chance to get the driver's championship, while Schumacher's replacement was never a realistic contender for the championship and only served to get points in for Ferrari. So what do you do? Are you going to divide resources fair 'n square over both the championship contender and the fill-in, or are you going to promote the number 2 to number 1 because he's your hope for the championship?

It doesn't take statistics to figure that out. This all is logical, reasonable and consistent with Ferrari's team management. Any team would do this. If Hamilton puts his mercedes into the wall of championship and breaks both his hands, Rosberg will become the de facto number 1. That's nothing more then a very rational and obvious decision.

Did they do the scan of Schumacher's leg during the British Grand Prix, and relocate development during the British Grand Prix and redesign the car during the British Grand Prix? Because that's what he's claiming.

[turbof1]

Again, I'm not intending on getting tangled up too much in this. And I don't know enough about that season to do so anyway, only that Schumacher broke his leg and that Irvine was a contender until the penultimate race, at which point Schumacher was back in the fray and duly handed his place over to Irvine.

I don't think he's actually claiming they reallocate development. The car is being developed by engineers; a driver has some input, but not to the point it changes the development path. I think this'll go down to set up, checking the car for any possible mechanical issues and race strategy.

[mnmracer]

Again, I'm not intending on getting tangled up too much in this. And I don't know enough about that season to do so anyway, only that Schumacher broke his leg and that Irvine was a contender until the penultimate race, at which point Schumacher was back in the fray and duly handed his place over to Irvine.

There was roughly (from the top of my head) half an hour between Schumacher's crash and the restart of the race. Even without knowing anything about the season, does it make sense that during that half an hour, Ferrari re-assigns resources, redesigns and rebuilds the car for that very same race? Relocating, redesigning, rebuilding and have it on the grid in half an hour?