Driver styles/preferences

[Just_a_fan]

Different drivers prefer different handling traits. The best drivers are able to be quick in various cars and can drive around different traits to a degree. They also are able to adapt their driving to what the car requires. The current cars on the current tyres are very different to the cars and tyres back in 2007, for example. They will need different handling by the drivers but the drivers will still have a "sweet spot" where they want the car to be, in terms of handling.

That Hamilton is quick in the current cars and was quick in 2007 suggests he is able to adapt and be quick whatever. But he will still have a comfortable "sweet spot" that he would choose if he could.

[Wass85]

Different drivers prefer different handling traits. The best drivers are able to be quick in various cars and can drive around different traits to a degree. They also are able to adapt their driving to what the car requires. The current cars on the current tyres are very different to the cars and tyres back in 2007, for example. They will need different handling by the drivers but the drivers will still have a "sweet spot" where they want the car to be, in terms of handling.

That Hamilton is quick in the current cars and was quick in 2007 suggests he is able to adapt and be quick whatever. But he will still have a comfortable "sweet spot" that he would choose if he could.

Tbf fair he's been in good cars all his career, even the 2009 car ended up competitive at some point in the season.

[PlatinumZealot]

The 2009 McLaren was good on street circuits looking back in it. Maybe aerodynamics was its problem. Hamilton did well to put it in a podium position in Melbourne, and probably would have challenged for a podium in Monaco if he hadn't crashed in qualifying.

[Just_a_fan]

Tbf fair he's been in good cars all his career, even the 2009 car ended up competitive at some point in the season.

The 2009 car was rubbish. They developed it in to something that was reasonable. That was it. It needed a decent driver to get anywhere.

[raymondu999]

“Now, Michael didn't didn't drive like that. Michael drove what I call 'off the front of the car'. He wanted a front end [where he could] absolutely just turn the wheel and bang, into the corner and he would kind of look after the back.

And so was born the idea that Schumacher wanted an oversteering car. He didn't want it to oversteer, it's just that he was comfortable looking after the back end so long as the front went where he wanted it to. I remember an interview with Irvine where he was trying to get the team to give him more front end. They kept trying to stop him because it would be more than Michael had and everyone thought that he liked lots of oversteer so Irvine's car would be undriveable. But Irvine wanted a really responsive front end, hated understeer with a passion.

Kimi is similar - hates understeer and is confident enough in his ability to control the rear so long as the front goes where he wants, just like Michael. Hamilton is happy looking after the rear too, especially in his early days where he seemed to back the car in to corners under braking. Button hated the rear to be anything other than planted. Vettel is like Button, it seems. Likes the rear to stay in place especially under braking in to the corner. But he then wants the car to pivot in the corner so he can get the power on early. This was why he loved the blown diffuser - it suited his style exactly: as soon as the car was turned, he could stamp on the throttle and the downforce would jump at the rear giving him traction. Webber was much more traditional and that played against him with the blown diffuser.

I think the difference in preferred car behaviour in to the corners is why Kimi struggled at Ferrari with Seb. The need to look after the rear tyres, along with Seb's preference for an inherently stable rear meant that Kimi was always dealing with a car that didn't turn in fast enough for him. We often heard him complaining about understeer. We've heard Ferrari saying that Seb hasn't been happy with the car's stability last year and how they were working to improve it for him. Charles, on the other hand, was enjoying the car which suggests that he is happier to deal with the rear so long as the front obeys.

I dont think thats entirely true with Kimi. I think Kimi wants a responsive front - that much is clear - but I think rather than "I'm willing to deal with the back end" I think he was more "I'm willing to slow down if it means I can get the rotation." - He seems to sometimes sacrifice a lower minimum speed for the sake of better rotation. I think Irvine is a similarly-styled driver (not saying similar pace)

I think Hamilton still likes this kind of loose car - but he has had to dial it back because of the tyre grip characteristics of the Pirellis.

[PlatinumZealot]

Repost, but a good one.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Didnt the overcut use to be like 2-3 seconds per lap though? The tyres didnt have much degradation, just wear... and then it would be you on 2 laps fuel vs the other guy on 23 laps fuel

That was what I was waiting for. Well if the overcut was worth that much time then it really was a big benefit to be faster in Q2.

There was no benefit to being faster in q2, nothing within the team was decided by q2 like you have alluded to. At the beginning of the season Alonso was given the better strategy be it lower or higher fuel load and then after Monaco they alternated first choice, none of it was based on q2 as you claim. Hamilton was clearly faster in qually than Alonso except for a couple occasions. They were never on the same fuel in q3 so that can not be a source of information, But there were several occasions were Hamilton was faster with more fuel. There were times, like usgp where Alonso had the better fuel strategy and still couldn't beat Hamilton. Hamilton made less driving mistakes than Alonso in 2007. Hamilton was clearly better overall regardless of whatever nonsense you like to make up out of thin air.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Q2 was always the balls-out flat-out session back then. Low fuel, new tyres... etc.

Not always new tires, then as now the point of q2 was merely to advance to q3, nothing more. Now, you have to start the race with your q2 tires but that was not the case back then.

[ENGINE TUNER]

Sometimes I think we try and over complicate things.

I bet a drivers style is governed by the car he's driving and with the setup he runs.

That's why Hamilton doesn't drive the Mercedes car like he did the early McLaren cars he drove.

Hamilton changing his driving style is more a function of the poor pirelli tires vs the Bridgestones than the differences in the cars. The cars can be set up differently, but there is only a small window to optimize the tires, especially the pirelli garbage.

[raymondu999]

Didnt the overcut use to be like 2-3 seconds per lap though? The tyres didnt have much degradation, just wear... and then it would be you on 2 laps fuel vs the other guy on 23 laps fuel

That was what I was waiting for. Well if the overcut was worth that much time then it really was a big benefit to be faster in Q2.

There was no benefit to being faster in q2, nothing within the team was decided by q2 like you have alluded to. At the beginning of the season Alonso was given the better strategy be it lower or higher fuel load and then after Monaco they alternated first choice, none of it was based on q2 as you claim. Hamilton was clearly faster in qually than Alonso except for a couple occasions. They were never on the same fuel in q3 so that can not be a source of information, But there were several occasions were Hamilton was faster with more fuel. There were times, like usgp where Alonso had the better fuel strategy and still couldn't beat Hamilton. Hamilton made less driving mistakes than Alonso in 2007. Hamilton was clearly better overall regardless of whatever nonsense you like to make up out of thin air.

The only way to conclude this argument is if anyone did fuel-corrected calculations for their Q3 times. Or did that only start in 2008? I remember they started in 2007 or 2008

[ENGINE TUNER]

That was what I was waiting for. Well if the overcut was worth that much time then it really was a big benefit to be faster in Q2.

There was no benefit to being faster in q2, nothing within the team was decided by q2 like you have alluded to. At the beginning of the season Alonso was given the better strategy be it lower or higher fuel load and then after Monaco they alternated first choice, none of it was based on q2 as you claim. Hamilton was clearly faster in qually than Alonso except for a couple occasions. They were never on the same fuel in q3 so that can not be a source of information, But there were several occasions were Hamilton was faster with more fuel. There were times, like usgp where Alonso had the better fuel strategy and still couldn't beat Hamilton. Hamilton made less driving mistakes than Alonso in 2007. Hamilton was clearly better overall regardless of whatever nonsense you like to make up out of thin air.

The only way to conclude this argument is if anyone did fuel-corrected calculations for their Q3 times. Or did that only start in 2008? I remember they started in 2007 or 2008

Those were never accurate enough. There were several occasions where Hamilton qualified higher with more fuel on board, I don't remember Alonso doing so.

[hollus]

Guys, let’s not discuss here if Alo or Ham was fastest in 2007.
Thank you.

[raymondu999]

The 2009 McLaren was good on street circuits looking back in it. Maybe aerodynamics was its problem. Hamilton did well to put it in a podium position in Melbourne, and probably would have challenged for a podium in Monaco if he hadn't crashed in qualifying.

Iirc it was a mechanically strong car. The mechanicals and suspension were good. It was good in slow corners

[Just_a_fan]

The 2009 McLaren had weak downforce as they had followed the rules where others had been "creative". That's McLaren's problem, of course, and might have been caused by them fighting the whole season to win the title in 2008.

[ENGINE TUNER]

The 2009 McLaren had weak downforce as they had followed the rules where others had been "creative". That's McLaren's problem, of course, and might have been caused by them fighting the whole season to win the title in 2008.

It wasn't just the double diffuser, McLaren had the wrong front wing concept for 2009 as well. The car was trash aerodynamically, but the strong KERS system helped them alot.