Suddenly and Surprisingly Strong Seasons (Drivers)

For a while, I've been wanting to take a look at drivers who against all expectations, suddenly enjoyed a great season, seemingly out of the blue, and surprising most people.

I am thinking of people who suddenly had a superb season, but afterwards never lived up to it again.

I have in mind Ukyo Katayama and his 1994 season for Tyrrell. This has always intrigued me, and a while back f1rejects also posted an article about it! (such a shame they closed down - I think it's because of Bernie, shame on him!)

Katayama wasn't particularly rated, but suddenly had the beating of Blundell all season long, a regular fixture in the top 10 on the grid, including two 5ths (almost 3rd in Hungary). Such a shame then, that he spoiled it with so many errors. Then after

Johnny Herbert in 1997 is another interesting case, suddenly looking very strong indeed. It seems a lot of it was due to his great ability to preserve his tyres, a huge bonus in tyre war 1997. So many strong weekends, finishing races right in the mix of McLarens, Benettons, Ferraris, even Williams. Yet he never looked so good again, save for a few races at the end of 1999.

I guess Frentzen in 1999 counts too, since he never really looked so good after that.

Maybe Maldonado in 2012? Seems a similar case to Katayama. Look at the gulf in speed between him and Bruno Senna that year, but lost a lot of points too.

I wonder if Ricciardo 2014 could end up under this?!! Or even Rosberg 2014 (though I think his 2010 season was fantastic).


Would love to hear some more examples from you guys and gals. They can be any motorsport I guess.

Hmm 2009 was a bit of a wake up call for one Jenson Button! ;)

9 times out of 10 you can put it down to car/engine/tyres being just right that season for them I suppose. Take Wurz for example, was amazing in the few races he did in 1997 but then was never in a decent car again.

Kubica in 2008 was also having a really good season and if BMW had put more focus on that season he might well have pulled off the title. Ironically they were too focused on 2009 and missed the one chance they really had.

Olivier Panis in 1997 until he crashed at Montreal. I doubt he would have done much more though because I don't think Prost could develop anywhere near the pace of the others.

It's always been my feeling that people must win the titles or races during those seasons when it all clicks because they only get one chance at it where as others like Michael Schumacher for example get lots of chances to win.

I don't think Button qualifies, because he had excellent seasons before and after, especially '04 and '11.

Kubica in 2008 was following a 2007 when he was pretty comprehensively beaten by Heidfeld, but that was effectively his rookie season, and he did also impress later on in the Renault.

Panis is a good call. Of course he had is win the previous year but that was out of the blue as well.

How about Wurz in 2005, coming in for one race as a sub for Montoya who had his infamous "tennis" injury and inheriting a podium.

Alexander Wurz from 1998 is a good case for me. His first full season, a string of good points and was a legitimate match to Fisichella that year. Whatever happened after that, is a mystery. He was nowhere near Fisichella and dropped out of F1 after 2000. Which is not what you would have expected based on 1998!

What about Ralf Schumacher in 1999. First season for Williams, utterly destroyed Zanardi and made people talk about him like future great. Like Frentzen, Ralf Schumacher also made his name that year. Ralf still had good seasons in 2000, 2001, but not quite as standouts and after that his career started to decline comparatively.

For whatever reason Barrichello stands out from 1999 too... But for different reasons. It was not his only impressive season and he had good seasons before as well. But it was the last season in which he looked like a future star. And he finally had a good car. Got podiums, got a pole, led races. Unique season for Rubens. Other than that he usually had just merely unremarkable midfield cars (before 1999) or he got consistently beaten by team-mates (from 2000 onwards).

Felipe Massa, 2008-2009 (so that contains two seasons). Before that he was either unremarkable in midfield (Sauber) and got beaten by team-mates even if he looked promising. But in 2008 he suddenly was a title contender, beat Raikkonen, and almost won WDC. His 2009 was decent too until accident, though not so spectacular in qualis. Since then has been getting beaten by his team-mates. But 2008 stands out massively.

Overall... I think in this thread any driver's best season can be added.:) Because all the other seasons would look inferior, so that best is the benchmark.:) Just maybe the performance differentiator is not big compared to other years and there are always factors, which influence the outcome. What about Alboreto from 1985? Regazzoni from 1974, almost WDC and beating Lauda? Hunt in 1976, only season he was ever a realistic title contender? Hulme in 1967? Pironi in 1982 - almost WDC after getting a trashing by G.Villeneuve in 1981?

It is interesting to ponder about reasons though. Sometimes it is a good car and bad team-mate combined, which makes driver look a standout.

Damon Hill (vs HHF '99), Zanardi (vs Ralf '99), Shinji Nakano (vs Panis '97), Bruno Senna (vs Maldo '12), Larini/Fontanta (vs Herbert '97) were all basically pretty much out of their depth in those seasons. Needless to say, the cars were good as well. I am not so convinced in the Supertec-powered Wiliams, but Jordan (99), Prost (97, heavily aided by Bridgestone tyres!), Williams (12) were certainly very good cars.

So then the lead drivers of those teams had standout seasons. But when they faced stronger team-mates and cars, which were not so good any more, they suddenly looked not so impressive. It is interesting for me personally to look back at Frentzen that when Trulli joined Jordan, HHF instantly looked like an ordinary good driver, like JT, and not the best he looked like in 1999.

It is a good thing to ponder. Was the driver in question really performing that well, or simply the stars aligned and luck was on his side? I think 2004 was also sort of a standout season for my favourite Trulli. Out of nowhere he suddenly matched Alonso. He didn't do it in 2003, and you'd expect he'd get beaten again after 2004 had they been teamed together again. But, 2004 was a different story. Räikkönen struggled in 2008, and Ferrari was great - so Massa looked great.

Katayama, IIRC, was also suffering from illness after 1994. And new weight rules were introduced after 1994, so these things were a factor.

Oh.... and what about Eddie Irvine, again 1999. So many examples from 1999! :D But I am struggling to get my head around the fact that he was absolutely nowhere in Ferrari in 1996-97, had a better season in 1998, but still well behind leaders in the points. But then suddenly won 4 races and almost won the WDC. OK, Schumacher got injured, but even after the British GP Eddie was just mere 8 points behind the leader - never happened before in his career. Another case of stars aligning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

I don't think Button qualifies, because he had excellent seasons before and after, especially '04 and '11.

---

You are totally correct here actually. Button withdrawn. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

How about Wurz in 2005, coming in for one race as a sub for Montoya who had his infamous "tennis" injury and inheriting a podium.

---

Yeah but he only did that one race, not the whole season, in car that was about to become the car of the season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

what about Eddie Irvine, again 1999. So many examples from 1999! :D But I am struggling to get my head around the fact that he was absolutely nowhere in Ferrari in 1996-97, had a better season in 1998, but still well behind leaders in the points. But then suddenly won 4 races and almost won the WDC. OK, Schumacher got injured, but even after the British GP Eddie was just mere 8 points behind the leader - never happened before in his career. Another case of stars aligning.

---

Yes I think he got his act together, Ferrari got behind him rather than Schumacher, Schumacher was injured and McLaren had built an unreliable car, a faster car but not reliable, plus Hakkinen made 2 driver errors during the year. I think it was more the case that he kept getting handed gifts on a plate rather than amazing driving.

Except for Ukyo Katayama. I don't see anything surprising about the seasons nominated drivers have put out.

Olivier Panis? Geesh! Some of you must've thought he was a peanut.

In fact. From my pov. It's been more about teams elevating themselves unexpectedly. Having not been familiar with Ligier as a good team, their performance in 93 came out of the blue to me. 3 podiums was quite a lot for a mid pack team. A number of point scoring finishes. The were good that year.

Stewart in 99. They'd gone from hopeless to threatening. The win at Nurburging wasn't really a huge surprise that year. Except for the fact it was Herbert that won it.

BAR in 04. I wasn't expecting such a sustained performance. Button, 10 podiums! Personally, it made me more annoyed JV got the boot. While I can't say for certain he'd have finished ahead of JB in the standings. He had the experience, so I reckon he'd have pinched a win off the Ferrari's, which Button couldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

In fact. From my pov. It's been more about teams elevating themselves unexpectedly.

---

Yeah, suddenly good seasons by teams is also a good topic.:)

Brawn GP is the best example here. So many favorable things came together for them that year, while they were nowhere in 2008 and only upper midfield as Mercedes in 2010. Yet Brawn GP was a cash-strapped private team, and Honda and Mercedes big manufacturers! One of the most stunning stories.

Toro Rosso from 2008 is remarkable, by far their best season to-date.

Toyota sort of had a green patch of form in 2005, though that period didn't last long.

Jordan and - as you mention - Stewart in 1999.

Super Aguri in 2007?! Sato making it into Q3 and beating Hondas was pretty amazing.:D The team went bankrupt a year later.

Force India in late 2009. Fisichella was fighting for a win in Spa and Sutil was up there as well in races. Force India has never replicated that form again, except Hülkenberg's charge in wet Brazil in 2012.

Sauber in 2012. Discounting BMW Sauber (06-09 period), this has been the only season ever, when Sauber has been competing for race wins on speed merit! And it wasn't just one race, but multiple!

I never quite understood, how was Arrows so fast with outdated Supertec engines in 2000. Yeah, point score doesn't really tell us much (7th with 7 points in WCC), but de la Rosa was running 3rd on merit in Austria, and 4th in Germany. Verstappen also had good races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

They can be any motorsport I guess.

---

Any motorsport?

Okay, I tell you one thing.

How did Nicky Hayden win the World Championship in 2006? While in other seasons he has proven to be inferior to all the Aliens, including Rossi, Stoner, Lorenzo, Pedrosa. And generally he has just looked like your standard good midfield rider.

But no, in 2006 he won the championship! This was the season, when Rossi's Yamaha engines were blowing up, Pedrosa was a rookie, Stoner was a rookie, so there was no good competition. Capirossi and Melandri were also title contenders IIRC, also for the only time in their Moto GP careers!

jens,
Next time please make it clear what championship you are talking about! It's only in the last line of your post that you mention Moto GP.

I remember Hayden stepping up in 2005, so doing well in 06 didn't surprise me. But winning the c'ship is something I'd wouldn't have expected. Despite all the reasons against, I would still say he was the best rider in 06. Even if he wasn't dominant.

As a kid whenever I'd watch the ATCC, it always confuse me when the commentators would mention Alan Jones being an F1 champ. These are back in the days where I was less aware of my motorsport history. When Alan Jones drove for Frank Gardner, in either the Ford Sierra or BMW. He wasn't often on the pace, even compared to his teammate.

So when AJ started winning in the 93 ATCC, it was definitely sudden and a surprise! Wins at Symmons Plains and Lakeside, and leading the series halfway. His team mate/boss Glenn Seton got over the top of him in the end. But Glenn winning the title wasn't as surprising as AJ challenging for it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

I remember Hayden stepping up in 2005, so doing well in 06 didn't surprise me. But winning the c'ship is something I'd wouldn't have expected. Despite all the reasons against, I would still say he was the best rider in 06. Even if he wasn't dominant.

---

Yeah I remember this one so well. I was following Moto GP pretty closely between 03 and 06 (mainly cos my brother got the 2002 game for the PS2, so we got into it through that).

Well I always felt Rossi was still the best rider, but I felt he got complacent. He seemed to make very heavy weather of his campaign that year. Hayden just kept bringing in solid points and managed to take it to the final race. Still thought Rossi would get his act together that day, and get the job done. Yet he made a mistake iirc? And ended up losing it - I was stunned! But I liked Hayden so was happy for him, but definitely felt it was more that Rossi threw that season away.


Whatever happened to Makoto Tamada btw? Seem to remember him being something of a rookie through these years, always improving and coming very close several times before finally scoring a victory at some point.

Getting really obscure now, but anyone remember Irish dude Matt Gilmore in British F3 in 2001? He was a rookie in the scholarship class that year and seemed to be the best driver in a very strong bunch, but had glandular fever and ended up losing the title to the more consistent (and bigger name) Robbie Kerr.

Always remembered that, cos afterwards he stepped up to the main class, but never impressed or looked as good again, and dropped off the radar. I never heard from him again.


Max Papis in CART 1999 is another good one, in the same year Frentzen had his time in the sun in F1. 5th in the championship on his debut in a top team (replacing Bobby Rahal). Incidentally, that seat left by Rahal's retirement was going to be a shoe-in for Frentzen at one point; his dreadful time at Williams resulting in HHF looking like he would have to leave F1 altogether!

Papis never looked so good after that. I feel tbh it was because the class of 1999 wasn't the greatest standard ever (drivers like de Ferran and Greg Moore were in less competitive teams). Kenny Brack then joined and completely overshadowed Mad Max.


In the WRC, Harri Rovanpera and Armin Schwarzs' 2001 seasons both really stood out for me, but they never looked so good again.

To recap, Rovanpera's risk to leave the works SEAT team for a tiny programme of private Toyota runs paid off as he bagged a 4th and a 3rd, earning him his big break as part time 3rd driver for Peugeot in 2001. He won on his debut in Sweden! He looked to emulate Gronholm's amazing story from the year before; he scored more podiums and was in the title fight throughout, finishing just 8pts off champion Burnsie. But then was completely overshadowed by Gronholm, never winning again.

Schwarz meanwhile stunned me by hustling his massive Skoda Octavia to 4th in Monte Carlo, right up with the works Fords on the podium, before leading the legendary Safari, looking on for 2nd, before problems dropped him to a still amazing podium in 3rd. He followed that up with 5th in Rally GB. He was then made to look average by Freddy Loix at Hyundai, and by various new team mates on his return to Skoda, before retiring.

I've got a cracking stat about the 2006 MotoGP season. I read it in a magazine the week afterwards, and it's one you never forget. So you remember Troy Bayliss competing in the season finale in Valencia, his only MotoGP race for the year? He won it leading every one of the 30 laps of that race. Nicky Hayden lead 29 laps for the whole year!

It may be a stat to diminish Hayden for that year, but I'll still maintain he was best.

With Rallying, Tommi Makinen winning the 96 title come out of the blue for me. It's harder to follow Rallying. The veteran fans on here can confirm that.

The 93 CART season? Not Nigel Mansell, but Raul Boesel. He did very well without winning. The Motor racing Gods should've gifted him at least one Indycar win during his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

I've got a cracking stat about the 2006 MotoGP season. I read it in a magazine the week afterwards, and it's one you never forget. So you remember Troy Bayliss competing in the season finale in Valencia, his only MotoGP race for the year? He won it leading every one of the 30 laps of that race. Nicky Hayden lead 29 laps for the whole year!

It may be a stat to diminish Hayden for that year, but I'll still maintain he was best.

With Rallying, Tommi Makinen winning the 96 title come out of the blue for me. It's harder to follow Rallying. The veteran fans on here can confirm that.

The 93 CART season? Not Nigel Mansell, but Raul Boesel. He did very well without winning. The Motor racing Gods should've gifted him at least one Indycar win during his career.

---

Right I'm off work this week so I'm gonna drag up this chestnut.
Yeeeeah I vaguely remember Troy Bayliss at Valencia - I completely forgot about that! I really liked Hayden and was so happy he won, but I felt Rossi definitely got a bit Sebastien-Loeby* and nearly threw it away, except unlike Loeb he actualLy did. Going into the last race, for whatever reason, Rossi had not sealed the deal yet, and I felt in truth he had gotten complacent. No matter, I thought, he will get his head into gear now push has come to shove and get the job done. Except, no, he went and made a mistake iirc and threw the thing away, and so against my expectation Hayden won!

*Loeb's 2009 season - made very heavy weather of that in a way which would make Hamilton proud :D

CART
As for Raul Boesel I don't know enough about him, but I remember hearing his name around late 98/early 99, and he seemed very well regarded. He filled in for Paul Tracy at the opening CART race in 99 (since he had a ban from the previous season!). Tbh I don't really rate Boesel as like I said I only knew anything of him from 99 onwards which wasn't much. Also I remember early last year, I had a couple of hours to kill, so was in the town library reading Tommy Byrne's book (WOW could start a whole thread about him!) and I remember reading how he didn't get on with Boesel in junior formulae basically saying he was a privileged rich guy with a bad attitude who had the best of everything. (He also said something similar of Roberto Moreno, though he was much nicer) IIRC!


Back to F1
Olivier Panis has already been brought up for 1997, but I would like to submit his 2001 season.

In hindsight I can see that I managed to both underrate and overrate Panis. Given I only started following F1 in 1997/98 my memories are of Monte Carlo where listening to Murray and Martin, I got the impression he was definitely one of the better drivers who usually won a race or two every year. But then he broke his legs (incidentally that crash on youtube looks comparatively minor imo. Can't believe that did so much damage. In 2015 I'm sure he would be absolutely fine).

So 1998 and 1999 were my first full Panis seasons. I was surprised at how in 1998, he wasn't able to make any impression at all, though neither were most midfielders sadly due to the huge performance gaps which had opened up between cars after 97. ;( His stock was low after that.

In 1999 however, although at first glance it may not appear so, the car did improve, and I was delighted to see Panis come 6th at the 2nd race in Brazil. It was very rare for me to witness him scoring any points at all since I got into F1 just as he was breaking his legs.

I didn't rate him highly at all, but in hindsight I would say he was quicker than say Johnny Herbert, and quite a few other drivers through that time, so did better than I thought at the time. Though at the time I was impressed with his late season 1999 form, qualifying in the top 6 a few times and running a great 3rd in Japan for a good while till retiring.


It was when he was booted out and given the test driver role at McLaren his stock went up. (I believe this is where the term "3rd driver" originated, from Ron Dennis - surprise!) He compared well with the regular drivers and come the summer he was back in demand, and was either going to go to Benetton or BAR.

Panis's 2001 season was a real highlight for me early on. I expected him to generally be around 0.4sec off Jacques, and definitely be an improvement on Zonta but not much more.

So in the first race, he already qualifies 9th and finishes 4th! Until being penalised to 7th (iirc that was the first ever post-race 25sec penalty) Then in Brazil outqualifies JV and finishes 4th for real. Imola was fantastic as I'm sure I remember him running 3rd for a time amongst Ferraris McLarens etc during the stops. Then he was 5th at Austria.

IIRC he then qualified a great 6th at Canada ahead of Hakkinen!

During 2001-2003 I really thought he was the bees knees. His average qualifying time over 01-02 was only 0.011 slower than Jacques I think! This led me to believe Panis was on the same level as Frentzen or Irvine. It was only much later I realised it was as much to do with just how bad Villeneuve was those years too.

Also in hindsight Panis dropped off at the end of 2001 and didn't shine nearly as well in 2002. I now believe this was because a seat at McLaren had become vacant, filled by Kimi Raikkonen, and Panis realised he had left at just the wrong time, and if he had still been there, he'd have had a great chance of that seat.

Well that's all then.

Olivier Panis...

Fun fact to remember is that after 1997 he never got a podium again, even though he raced in F1 for 6 seasons after that (98-99, 01-04).

If you compare Panis to others, in my estimation comparing him to Irvine sounds just about right. Irvine was also sort of a solid driver, not spectacular, but could have his days. Irvine's statistics were heavily inflated due to the Ferrari period though.

Another thing. I was a Trulli fan. And I remember I used the Panis comparison quite a fair bit to "prove he was good". Because I thought Trulli in 1998-1999 against Panis looked every bit as good as Villeneuve against Panis a few years later. So I thought - this shows Trulli can be as good as your former WDC! Not to mention Trulli matched and then in 2001 beat Frentzen, another highly rated driver from 1999.

If I recall my personal Panis rating, I believe I put him a notch lower than the Trulli/Villeneuve level, but yeah just about where Irvine did sit. Rating him alongside Herbert would have made sense too, but Herbert was older and well past his prime in 2000. I think the Herbert of 1992-1994 reminded Panis. Good midfield driver.

Yeah I felt the same about Trulli at the time too. He was consistently qualifying in the top 10 in the Prost in 1999, doing so in his quiet unobtrusive way. It didn't escape my attention.

Oh yeah I was also aware of that stat about no podiums for Olivier too. It's strange that in later years it looked like he didn't really get it together in races. I don't really know why. In 2001 and 2002 he qualified on average 1.591 and 2.13sec off MS IIRC compared to Jacques with 1.600 and 2.11sec, I think. That's basically equal, yet in both years Jacques clearly got more points in races.

I was also VERY aware of the thought of Trulli Vs Villeneuve around 2001. I hypothesised back then that if they were in the same team Jarno would have the beating of JV, and I still think so.

As for Irvine, I totally agree, he could have some great days, such as Monaco 2001 and Monza 2002, but was otherwise solid not outstanding. I think I actually underrated him in my early years though. Much of my early thoughts on drivers were formed from Grand Prix 2 which I had early 1998. Because on that game in the quickraces Irvine tended to be upper midfield, and only scored 6pts that season compared to Barrichello's 19, I thought he wasn't anything special. I also thought Brundle was a bit cr@p at the time cos the quickraces had him around 13th-15th.

(It's also why I was stunned that Alex Zanardi who was announced for Williams during mid-1998 was the same Alessandro Zanardi who trundled around at the back in a Lotus in 23rd in the game - I thought how can he possibly have gotten so good, since I only knew of him through the game. It was like Jean-Marc Gounon suddenly getting a drive in a top team).

I do think Eddie had at least a couple of tenths on Panis though and I have him very similar to Frentzen, though HHF would have more peaks and troughs, and I gave him the edge.

I would rate those drivers in ultimate ability like this, and give a rough gap of how I think they would compare to MS in a normal season. Villeneuve's is from when he was good, his last good season being 2000.

1.Trulli +0.3s
2.Villeneuve +0.4s
3.Frentzen +0.5s
4.Irvine +0.5s
5.Panis +0.7s

What do you think?

Well, interesting thoughts.

Frentzen is an interesting case, now that we start talking about him. Fundamentally I believe he was as talented as Villeneuve. Just that the 1997 season didn't work out at all for him. In 1998 they were much closer, and obviously 1999 was a fantastic season for Frentzen. Prime Frentzen was a treat, but he was mentally somewhat sensitive and could fall apart, if it didn't work out for him/didn't adapt to the car (1997, 2001). Other than that I'd put Trulli, Villeneuve and Frentzen pretty much on the same level, perhaps JT with a slight edge in qualifying.

I remember Villeneuve's starts were fantastic, especially in 2000. He could regularly gain 3-4 places off the line, which helped his season a lot really! Just like HHF's 1999, JV's 2000 was a great season. In retrospect though - did it look good only because his team-mate was rubbish (like HHF had past-it Hill, JV had Zonta)??? But JV seemed like a top 3 driver on the grid in 2000, which he certainly didn't seem like in 2001 any more.

Panis... now that you mention it. Yeah it seems he was slightly better in qualis than races. But I don't remember all the details about how his races went in BAR. He had some good ones too I think (6th at Monza in 2002, some in 2001). But also had many technical problems. In retrospect impossible to recall, where did he sit against JV in race trim comparison. Perhaps slightly lagging behind overall.

You may have a point that Irvine might have been slightly more convincing than Panis in races, but in qualifying not so. Didn't de la Rosa outqualify Irvine a lot in 2001? Though in races Irvine was better.

I like the Zanardi-Gounon comparison though.:D

Edit: I remember Panis even qualified in top 3 in the Toyota, but they were often low on fuel. But in Toyota he seemed to have a similar tendency. IIRC Panis outqualified da Matta a lot, but in races CDM was often better or at least a match.

Frentzen/Villeneuve
Yeah with Frentzen, I certainly estimate he was better than Villeneuve from 2001 onwards. Well I'm not sure about 2001 since HHF had some dud races like spinning in France and somehow only finishing 7th at Silverstone behind the Saubers after qualifying 5th (Trulli started 4th) - despite Coulthard Trulli and Ralf all retiring. His races seemed to lack in the Prost too, though his qualifying was immediately a big improvement over Alesi. Villeneuve got podiums and 4th in Monaco, so his races seemed good even though his qualifying was bad (JV still outqualified Panis 12-5 though, strangely). I also remember Jacques saying he drove a perfect race at the Nurburgring, yet for all that it only translated to 9th so no-one noticed. There was also a collision between the BARs at the start at Silverstone, which had Panis furious. He even suspected it might not have been totally accidental!

I think Villeneuve did better than Frentzen in 2000 and was slightly quicker in 1999 imo, though he had nowhere near the points gathering ability of Frentzen, even taking into account his terrible unreliability imo.

Even in 2000 Jacques could still be daft in races. Canada seemed to sum up what he was about. He started 6th, made a great start and was running in the top 3 for a good while early on, right up with MS and Hakkinen, which was exciting! Then later on, when it was wet, he T-Boned Ralf at the hairpin in the true spirit of Maldonado. That's why the hairpin got moved back from the following season IIRC, to give drivers more run off if they crash.

Now you mention it, I remember the great Villeneuve starts from 2001 very well! I remember Autosport or somewhere saying it was because Jacques set his car up with a long 1st gear for races, even though that would compromise his overall performance. He figured since he was never really going to beat the McLarens and Ferraris, the long 1st gear would help him get a great start ahead of all the other best of the rest runners, where he could then spend the rest of the race holding them up. Honda power helped at the time, since they had 800bhp (more than they have now I bet), one of the most powerful engines going.

The definitive example of this for me was always Imola 2001, where Jacques started 9th, drove past the rest at the start then spent the race holding onto 5th, despite huge pressure from his friend Salo (another @sshole to be frank, though I liked him).

Eddie Irvine
With Eddie, yeah Pedro de la Rosa, recently having joined Jaguar, outqualified him 6 times in a row mid season in 2001, at exactly the time Irvine declared he was the 2nd best driver in the world and "quicker than Mika"! He did claim he was having a bad run of things at the time, which was maybe partly true, though he was very quick to point out (more than once over those years) that during their entire time at Jaguar together, de la Rosa never once finished a race ahead of Irvine. Amazingly this is true! Irvine really did have a great knack in later years of getting the result that was possible (scarce as those chances were) when you couldn't trust PDLR to do the same.

Olivier Panis
I so remember Panis qualifying 3rd in that Toyota at Indy 2003. It wowed us back home. It caused such a stir that ITV opened their race coverage with the end of Panis' lap the previous day. There was talk of a BIG result for Panis that day, especially with the rain, but no, Toyota threw the result away with absurd strategy that would make the current Mercedes pitwall look like Ross Brawn, and Panis trailed home 9th out of the points. They then locked out the 2nd row in Japan, with da Matta 3rd this time, only to convert it into a measly 7th and 10th. Still it led to me expecting big things from Toyota in 2004.

Pierluigi Martinin in the Minardi in bumble bee Minardi. Was appearing near the front of starting grids and even led the odd race.

Richard, looking from that angle you have a point about putting Villeneuve a fraction ahead of Frentzen, though I’d still put the German ahead of Irvine. JV’s 2000 was good as discussed. Perhaps slightly more convincing than HHF, who showed cracks of inconsistency. As for 1999, HHF was excellent, but JV was as well. However, JV’s problem was like Alonso’s now. The car was a bit rubbish with chronic unreliability, so the driver couldn’t showcase his skills properly.

In retrospect I also wonder, how good was Frentzen in the Sauber early on. He was rated super highly back then, so that even Frank Williams was desperate to sign him.

But now that we have been discussing all these drivers, where do all their other contemporaries like Coulthard, Barrichello, Fisichella, R. Schumacher, Salo, Alesi, Wurz, Diniz fit in. Though I am sure you have got all GP2 gaps worked out already.:p:

By the way, I remember playing GP2 briefly back in 2005 (long time ago!). Katayama was incredibly good there!

Yeah I know I was always taken aback by Katayama in that game. He was around 6th best driver ahead of Hakkinen!

I think with JV in 1999 he did have some offs as well, so while I think he was a bit quicker than Frentzen, I don't think he put together as good a season.

Frentzen at Sauber is very curious. Drivers usually start off slowly as a rookie while they have to understand everything, then as they do they get quicker and quicker each year, but it looks to me like Frentzen started off very well. I can't figure it out. He outqualified his highly-rated team mate Wendlinger 3-0 in his first 3 races! This is also what I couldn't understand. I am a big fan of Wendlinger but it seemed to me he didn't look that good against Frentzen being outqualified like that. I never watched the season so I don't have context. However in races, Wendlinger looked better, coming 4th at that Imola race with Frentzen 7th. HHF also saw off de Cesaris and JJ Lehto easily, only being outqualified once all year and none at all the next year.

As for the others, I love trying to figure out the form, something I'm fascinated by. It seems to me that though there are fluctuations in form, there seems to be a 'general' level the drivers perform at. Team-mate comparisons are helpful, though can't be trusted blindly. I mean I don't think many people really thought the Vettel of 2013 is really about 0.3sec slower than Ricciardo.

Well if I take say 1999, how about this:

1999 drivers

FERRARI
1.M.Schumacher - obviously at the top
2.Irvine - His average against Michael in qualifying was +0.54s However this is muddied by Michael missing races, but that figure looks about right, given that in 1996 it was about 0.9s I think, then +0.82 in 1997 and +0.66 in 1998.

It's definitely guesswork when you start adding in other teams since you can't know for sure the car performance. I mean could two drivers be doing a terrible job in a rocketship and looking good, or could they be great drivers flattering a bucket and looking the same? We can't tell, but in these cases, there tends to be a general feeling amongst the paddock which is usually close to the truth.

Coulthard had a bad 1999, not liking the grooved tyres and getting the no.2 treatment (David spoke of the preferential treatment Mika got after leaving McLaren). As I remember, he qualified +0.374s behind Hakkinen. Now it was regarded that Irvine had done a slightly better job in 1999. There was even talk of McLaren signing him, and Ron Dennis said he felt Irvine was/did better than DC, but not by enough to risk signing him. I feel that in 1999 this was about right and I would put it roughly

1.M.Schumacher
2.Irvine +0.540
3.Coulthard +0.574

This would put Hakkinen 0.2 behind Michael. How do we know they weren't equal? I don't, but I have always felt they weren't, not as much as people said. I think if Hakk and MS had been teammates Mika would have done very well, but also been shown up whenever something wasn't perfect for him. I mean who would have thought Kimi would have been shown up as he has been recently? (I did actually, but even I didn't think the gap would be so big).

If they were both equal, that would make the first 4

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.000
3.Coulthard +0.374
4.Irvine +0.540

Now was Coulthard really that much quicker than Irvine, in theoretical equal cars, in 1999? I'm not sure, so while it is basically guessing, I feel my version is closer to the truth.



Now for Williams, these days I put Ralf at about +0.4sec off Michael in 1999. I don't know where I get that figure from actually now I think about it. He was just over half a second quicker than Zanardi. I make the top 4 teams drivers as this, taking their qualifying times

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.2
3.R.Schumacher +0.4
4.Frentzen +0.5
5.Irvine +0.54
6.Coulthard +0.574
7.Zanardi +0.91
8.Hill +1.17

Now I'm doing this, I'm suddenly having a sort of crisis of doubt and can't remember how I came up with these! :o I just woke up though so maybe it will come to me :)

Anyway here's the rest based on qualifying

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.2
3.R.Schumacher +0.4
3.Barrichello +0.4
3.Villeneuve +0.4 These 3 too close to call
6.Frentzen +0.5
7.Irvine +0.54 Well I know that one for a fact :D
8.Coulthard +0.57
9.Trulli +0.6
10.Fisichella +0.6
11.Wurz +0.78
12.Alesi +0.80 (curiously I seem to make Alesi out around this same level almost every season... o.o)
13.Zanardi +0.91 (Zanardi did actually outqualify Ralf 5 times, it was in races he totally sucked)
14.Panis +0.93?
(=14.Salo - I'd put him exactly around Panis I think. Compare that to what I've given to Irvine and Diniz and does it seem right?)
15.Herbert +1.04
15.Takagi +1.04
17.de la Rosa +1.1
18.Hill +1.17
19.Diniz +1.2
20.Zonta +1.3
21.Badoer +1.6
22.Gené +2.0


Now looking at that I myself am surprised at Zanardi, but he really wasn't all that bad in qualifying, and what we do know for a fact is that he averaged just over 0.5sec off Ralf over 1999 in qual. So to put him lower I'd have to put Ralf lower too. It was widely regarded that Ralf was "scintillating" in 1999, some suspecting he did better than even Frentzen. Remember that the previous season he had outqualified Damon Hill 10-6 and was only defeated by Fisichella 10-7 before that. He also did compare well with Montoya, so to put him a little ahead of Frentzen for speed, and at least equal with the more experienced Barrichello and Villeneuve seems about right.

I am also surprised at Panis since back then I'd have rated him lower. He did look invisible in 1999, and 1998 in particular. In hindsight I think it was more the car though Olivier wasn't on great form for most of that time. We can know he was +0.322s slower than Trulli (not including France) so if I put him lower, I would have to put Trulli lower. Trulli did peter out a little at the end of 1999 having fallen out with Alain Prost, but thru the season he was a fixture around the top 10 and drove very well I felt.

On the other hand this could all be junk though (it is qualifying only as well). :p




EDIT: Have you ever seen this? This guy goes way ahead of me. Pretty much what I just tried to do, but done properly. :D

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.co.uk/


You know the rest of you can speak up too. Don't leave it all to Jens, would love to hear what you think. :D :p

Now that you mention this is qualifying, it is a very significant mention. Because there is a difference between qualifying/race/overall performance.

For starters. Even though Ralf's 1999 overall was fantastic, I felt his weakness was qualifying that year. He often barely made it into top 10 and even qualified 16th a few times. He beat Zanardi, but TBH he was not much of a benchmark. Ralf was great in races, but I'd put Barrichello, Villeneuve, Trulli, Frentzen above him in qualifying speed. Race speed is another matter!

Also - Häkkinen v Schumacher. Häkkinen was rated as a great qualifying driver. He may have been a match to Schumi there, but not so much in races. Coulthard v Irvine? DC may well have been faster than Irvine in qualis. It was the races, where DC didn't quite deliver (except Spa!) Remember Italy - Coulthard qualified third, but had lackluster race pace.

Irvine in contrast - often from average grid slots had strong race pace. I think it was only in Spain and Hungary and to a lesser extent in Canada, where he excelled in qualis.

Yeah that is interesting to think. I agree there's not much reason to think the Williams drivers could have been a little slower in qualifying but one made up for it in races. When I come up with these figures it tends to be where I feel their 'natural' speed level was that season and doesn't really account for fluctuations, since we can't really know...

Even taking into account that we can be surprised at how well drivers do/don't do when going up against a new team-mate Zanardi seems pretty high here.

With Trulli I'm guessing cos he did taper off a bit as well I felt it would bring his average down to where it was. Panis was beating him fairly often at the end. Also, it means he is about a tenth down on Frentzen, then he was around equal with HHF in 2000, then ahead in 2001. Taking that momentum of a few years getting up to speed, that's also why I put Trulli where he was.

Irvine was great in Spain 1999. He was on pole until Hakkinen put in one final bitz at the end and nicked it. That was also the first time he really outqualified MS properly, with no issues/reasons, which had Michael very tetchy indeed. Then I think Irvine followed him closely in the race (or maybe that was only when they were both behind Villeneuve's BAR for that long time).

P.S do you remember Alesi being on provisional pole for a long time in that same session? Such an anomaly, like Maldonado's win. I never did hear an explanation for it, except that somehow Jean and the car just nailed it at that moment. He only qualified +0.300s off pole in the end, yet that was only enough for 5th.

I think Panis outqualifying Trulli in the end should not degrade Trulli. We have just recently established that Panis himself was a good qualifier as well, and as always drivers have fluctuations. I think Trulli was a genuine qualifying master already back then, the only thing that was missing, was reputation (reputation comes with years and especially GOOD cars).

Also if you put Ralf S. down, it will bring Zanardi down, which makes sense. I don't feel Zanardi was quicker than Hill or Herbert, even in qualifying.

I don't feel Frentzen was slower than Barrichello, Villeneuve, Coulthard in qualis. HHF qualified quite a lot at the front, even split the two McLarens on fast circuits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

Frentzen at Sauber is very curious. Drivers usually start off slowly as a rookie while they have to understand everything, then as they do they get quicker and quicker each year, but it looks to me like Frentzen started off very well. I can't figure it out. He outqualified his highly-rated team mate Wendlinger 3-0 in his first 3 races! This is also what I couldn't understand. I am a big fan of Wendlinger but it seemed to me he didn't look that good against Frentzen being outqualified like that. I never watched the season so I don't have context. However in races, Wendlinger looked better, coming 4th at that Imola race with Frentzen 7th. HHF also saw off de Cesaris and JJ Lehto easily, only being outqualified once all year and none at all the next year.

---

I remember watching 1994 San Marino Grand Prix retrospectively. I think I may have watched this race even multiple times. Due to obvious reasons I guess! But what I wanted to mention is that I am pretty sure Frentzen stalled on the grid, which is why he finished outside the points, while Wendlinger was 4th.

But you are right. HHF was right up to speed. I just checked that Frentzen qualified 5th in his very first F1 weekend! That was Brazil 1994. Talk about taking F1 by storm! Reminds me of Eddie Irvine, who also took F1 by storm with a strong race weekend at Suzuka the year before.

I guess what helped Frentzen (and also Irvine), was that he was already somewhat older, when he made his F1 debut. I think HHF was like 26 on his debut? So he wasn't a 20-year-old green bloke, but already a well-experienced racing driver in general, who was on form and did not need time to adapt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

It's definitely guesswork when you start adding in other teams since you can't know for sure the car performance. I mean could two drivers be doing a terrible job in a rocketship and looking good, or could they be great drivers flattering a bucket and looking the same? We can't tell, but in these cases, there tends to be a general feeling amongst the paddock which is usually close to the truth.

---

Yep... This is the big thing. You can say driver A beats driver B in the same team, but how do they perform generally in relation to the car? Are both good or bad?

This is where often gut feeling and common sense have to be used. So that overall context makes sense. But it is often hard to achieve...

For example... yeah... I do feel that Prost drivers in 1999 qualifying are slightly undervalued (both of them!), and neither Williams driver completely capitalized on car potential. Even qualifying results somewhat confirm it. Prosts often qualified in the top10 or even top6, but rarely got points in races. Williams often barely made it into top 10 in qualis, but one of their drivers was usually top 5 in races.

Yeah, it can be explained with car characteristics as well. But overall I believe Williams had tad more potential than Prost as a car, and I have no reason not to believe this wasn't the case in qualifying as well.

The one I wonder about is Villeneuve... Zonta was a non-benchmark, and Salo was also well off JV's pace, but he never had the opportunity to adapt to the car (only 3 race weekends). But Villeneuve was often flying in qualis. In top 10. It looked like he did a masterful job. But how masterful?

But 1999 is one of my favourite seasons of all times.:D I always enjoy discussing this season. Because the scenario was so odd and that season challenges the way you rate drivers. M. Schumacher got injured and Häkkinen had a below-par season with plenty of mistakes. And other two WDCs VIlleneuve and Hill... One had a rubbish car, other was not performing at all.

So you had drivers like Irvine, Frentzen, R. Schumacher, Barrichello performing possibly their best ever seasons. But how good were they? 1999 may have been the season in which they were performing closest to the front they have ever done, due to the dropped standards of benchmarks mentioned above. Fascinating thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

EDIT: Have you ever seen this? This guy goes way ahead of me. Pretty much what I just tried to do, but done properly. :D

http://grandprixratings.blogspot.co.uk/

---

Just noticed that...

:D Wow, that's one heck of an amount of information. I don't know... should we start a new thread about how to "accurately" rate drivers? :D Then we can put all our methodologies in there that we can possibly think of, and see, how each methodology works.:D

I must admit... my methodology is mostly gut feeling though.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Just noticed that...

:D Wow, that's one heck of an amount of information. I don't know... should we start a new thread about how to "accurately" rate drivers? :D Then we can put all our methodologies in there that we can possibly think of, and see, how each methodology works.:D

I must admit... my methodology is mostly gut feeling though.:D

---

That post the link goes to is just the most recent post - I wasn't trying to hint to you that your methods are all wrong!! :p

Well I often go by gut instinct too. Especially in 2015 it's so hard to rate drivers, especially when their form changes like Hulkenberg's appears to have done a bit? I mean how would you rate Button V Hulkenberg for example? Tough work.

Come to think of it, I went entirely by feelings in the past, but I never thought of actually ranking the drivers in a list. I can see now how mistaken I was at times, I'm sure I am much better now. 2005 with Fisichella was a real wake up call, and I kinda realised I might have put too much stock in his good performances while somewhat brushing off the bad ones as just "oh he has a bad car".

I wonder how I would have ranked drivers around 1998-1999 say? It would probably stack up like this:

1.M.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen
3.Hill
4.Villeneuve
5.Barrichello
6.Fisichella
7.Alesi
8.Coulthard
9.Frentzen
10.Irvine
11.Wurz
12.R.Schumacher
13.Salo
14.Trulli
15.Herbert
16.Verstappen
17.Takagi
18.Diniz
19.Panis
20.Nakano
21.Magnussen
22.Tuero
23.Rosset

I actually have no idea, writing that out just now. At the time I just had my feelings and never thought of ranking them all together.

Obviously I always thought Michael was the best, but in my household, Damon was always really 2nd best since he had fought for the title against Michael for years, with Hakkinen 3rd for his recent form. Actually, back in 1998 I spoke up and said I thought Hakkinen was actually better at the time, but Damon still clear 3rd. That didn't go down very well at the time.

Villeneuve would definitely have been 4th. He was very highly rated as a top 3 driver after Damon left, with talk of him going to McLaren during 2000. Autosport even published that he had been virtually signed by Benetton for and it was agreed, as much as the Bottas/Ferrari story now. Then everyone was shocked when he stayed after all. The world really was Jacques' oyster back then, remember Alonso, Kimi and JPM weren't around then and Button wasn't established.

I always rated Barrichello VERY highly, especially because I learned he came 6th in 1994 for Jordan with 19pts. That was hugely impressive to me, especially since Irvine only had 6pts, and in Grand Prix 2 Rubens was always in the top 6-10 with Irvine around 10th-15th it seemed. I couldn't understand for the life of me why Barrichello wasn't more highly rated and struggling in a Stewart while others had the good drives. Remember I only came to F1 in 1997 so my only experience was of Barrichello mired in midfield and anonymous.

I always thought Alesi had the potential to be right in there, because he was thought of as very talented even if he didn't deliver when in barren periods. Like even in 2001 when he joined Jordan, I thought he could have higher highs (though also lower lows maybe) and that he could do better than Frentzen - simply because he was Alesi! So I'd probably put him 5th on that list, for how I imagined he would drive when in the mood!

Likewise for Damon, simply because he was world champion I would put him 3rd or 4th for how I felt he would perform when he felt like it, such as before the 1999 season started. I thought that was his level but he simply underperformed a bit in 1998. I still thought him quite a bit better than Ralf in 1998 even though in Ralf actually outperformed him. It was simply all about reputation rather than reality at the time.

I'm not sure if I actually would put Fisi that high even then?? As time went on (late 2000) I began to realise he was often a bit tepid and he dropped a little in my estimation, though I always believed if he could get a top drive and lots of love, similar to Vettel at Red Bull, he would shine mightily, and ultimately do better than Barrichello etc. Even up to 2005 I still believed this.

I never thought much of Frentzen and Irvine at the time. They were pretty good but nothing special in my eyes, and tbh I couldn't understand how Irvine had managed to get a Ferrari drive! I thought Fisi would be much better. I thought highly of Coulthard thru 1998 thanks to the influence of British press, then he went down a bit, then up again over 2000-2002. But I was frustrated he had a top drive and Fisi didn't, and thought if Giancarlo had that seat he'd prove more talented.

Wurz is up there as in 1998 he was very hot stuff indeed. Finishing 4th 5 times, almost a podium in Argentina and outqualifying Fisi a lot early on too. Even during his struggle in 1999 he still had a big reputation.

Ralf was up there but I didn't think so much of him. I had thought he'd been fairly obliterated by Fisi in 97, only to realise years later it wasn't the case. My opinion of Fisi being better than Ralf stood for years, and I was especially frustrated around 2002-2004 that he was wasting a good drive while Fisi languished. I now believe Ralf was less experienced and actually did do better than Fisi certainly in 1999-2000 - to be fair I acknowledged those 2 years at the time, but still thought Fisi would be better if he could just get a top drive. My perception was that Ralf had been handily beaten by Hill over 1998, reinforced by F198 for the Playstation having a default grid position of 6th for Hill, while Ralf was 10th.

Salo was well regarded and I loved the story of Brazil 95, running 3rd, then onto finishing 5th before spinning due to fatigue. At the time reading of his Tyrrell years, it seemed he was fantastic. Then his Monaco 1998 performance, really in the spotlight. People seemed to really think very highly of him.

Trulli I thought well of, but he was quiet and invisible, no fault of his own. Many other drivers took the limelight which in hindsight was unfair. I still really liked him in the Prost and was sad he was in no way in a position to replicate his Austria or Hockenheim performance of 1997 and was always stuck out of the way. I still thought well of him.

Johnny Herbert - now even in the late 90's, I heard a lot of how he had a great latent talent and would have been on for WDCs if not for breaking his legs. He was considered like Lewis Hamilton is today. I knew that wasn't what we were getting in 1998-1999 but I still believed if he was happy he had that potential. His Australia 1998 performance, plus the end of 1999, even after winning that race only re-inforced this.

Verstappen was another one extremely highly regarded, at times almost as much as Max is now. I remember reading how if the world was a fair place, Jos would have his pick of top drives. Then I found out about his Simtek performance in Argentina 1995, on for points before retiring. I was flabbergasted when I found this out and thought he must be amazing. Then in 2000, he was running right up there in Australia and especially Brazil, 3rd at one point. I read he should have finished on the podium (2nd or 3rd). In hindsight did he really do that well...? Then in Silverstone on pole very briefly then holding off Michael in the race. At the time, he overshadowed de la Rosa for me. He beat PDLR in Monaco, a drivers track, so reinforcing my opinion, then in Canada with his new helmet design, charging up the field past both Jordans (considered an absolute top team then), then ran highly in Austria ahead of de la Rosa iirc. Then in Monza he chased Ralf all the way for a podium.

In 2001, he overtook Frentzen and Hakkinen(!!) in wet Malaysia, and with Ferraris down the order, it really looked possible he might win. I'm sure in Austria he again ran 2nd for a while. Then for Minardi in 2003, 15th in Canada qualifying before pole on Friday in France!! This was after Brazil, when he was running ahead of Fisi with enough fuel to finish the race - think about that, since Jos was considered a rain specialist - Paul Stoddart will insist to that day he would have won! So even then I still thought Jos was the boss.

I considered Takagi a huge talent for qualifying 13th on debut, but realise I hyped him too much.

Around 1998-99 Pedro Diniz was thought highly of, having done a lot to shed his paydriver image. Joining Alesi, he finished strongly in 6th on 3 occasions and looked like joining Benetton for 2000, and there was even a big deal about him joining Ferrari! Which at one point was considered a done deal around the British GP, more so than Bottas now!

In my estimation, Panis' stock was very low while the other drivers below weren't great at all.

Yeah.:) Not prepared to write such a long post right now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

As for the others, I love trying to figure out the form, something I'm fascinated by. It seems to me that though there are fluctuations in form, there seems to be a 'general' level the drivers perform at.

---

I think this claim has a point. There is a saying - "form is temporary, class is permanent." It can be seen in any sports. In a football league in an odd match a top squad (Chelsea, ManC, ManU, and the likes) can lose to a backmarker. But over a full season they still come out on top regardless of individual results.

In F1 in an odd race even Maldonado can win and Hamilton come last, but over a full season we have a different story based on average performance.

And then... "career performance". How many good seasons has a driver had? % wise how many good weekends in there? I think it becomes more accurate with experienced drivers, who have driven 10+ seasons. Then we can analyze pretty adequately. With those, who have had a short career, it is more unclear. Magnussen drove just 1 season. He was nowhere in the last 1/3 of the season, which basically cost him the seat in favour of Button. So what was it? Did he just have a bad patch of form, and fundamentally he is more talented than that?

As for methodologies. Just out of interest. What was Barrichello's average qualifying loss to Schumacher, when they were team-mates? Because I remember some seasons were pretty close. So based on gut feeling that 1999 was one of RB's best seasons, his Q average of 1999 might be pretty close to the top. Some 2-3 tenths off benchmark only? Which would make him faster than DC, which also has some sense in it in the context of that season.

Also - Frentzen/Barrichello/Villeneuve. I don't have a methodology to separate them for 1999. They all shared some things - drove for 3 separate teams, beat their team-mates consistently and seemed to qualify well (in good positions) relative to car potential. So, what else can be taken into account?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Yeah.:) Not prepared to write such a long post right now though.

---

That's ok, you don't need to do that :)

Quote:

---

I think this claim has a point. There is a saying - "form is temporary, class is permanent."

---

Yeah that saying is a better way of putting it. It's like a driver has a natural level from which they can either overperform or underperform for a while. But with overperforming, it seems it can't be kept up forever, only when they pick up momentum and a 'following wind' or something like that. I actually think this probably applies to Hamilton in 2007. And I'd also say Sebastien Ogier in the WRC in 2010, on searing form, but then dropped it a little at the end finishing 4th in the WDC instead of 2nd.

Quote:

---

Magnussen drove just 1 season. He was nowhere in the last 1/3 of the season, which basically cost him the seat in favour of Button. So what was it? Did he just have a bad patch of form, and fundamentally he is more talented than that?

---

I found 2014 quite hard to understand. My thoughts are it may because the cars were so new and different that to a degree all drivers were kinda like rookies having to learn, a bit like Villeneuve in Australia '96; it was a new track for everyone which levelled the field a bit. Jacques put it on pole and easily led, but he did only outqualify his team-mate I think 3 more times after that.

I think this is also a factor in Kvyat doing well and Gutierrez outqualifying Sutil a lot, though in all 3 cases (Button, Vergne and especially Sutil) their higher weight definitely counted against them, giving their lighter teammates an advantage before anyone turned a wheel. I also think Button was a bit demotivated with the form of the car and his dad's passing, he went a bit missing midseason, before then driving out of his skin to save his job, getting a bunch of 4ths and 5ths at the end, running rings round Magnussen.


As for Barrichello, off the top of my head, his qualifying average in 2000 was around 0.4s off MS. This doesn't include wet Hockenheim qualifying where the time gaps were crazy big. In 2001 it was a disappointing 0.560s, Rubens didn't like the car. The 2001 cars seemed slightly harder to drive with lower downforce and it looks to me like some time gaps opened up slightly through the field for drivers as well as cars, but I'm not sure.

In 2002 he was much happier and I think he qualified 0.23s off MS. I think he improved slightly in 2003 and maybe 2004 but it's hard to tell with that kind of qualifying, and I think the gap opened up to at least 0.3s again in 2005. Not certain about all this though.

As a guess, I would put Barrichello, if he drove a theoretical 3rd Ferrari in 1999, would be around 0.4s off MS pace. Given that Irvine was around 0.54s off if I remember and Rubens was about 0.64s ahead of Herbert, that seems about right to me (then again I don't have a clue really!)

Where does self-belief come into the equation? I'm thinking of how some drivers' performance seemed to take a quantum leap after their first win. Nigel Mansell is the most obvious example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Where does self-belief come into the equation? I'm thinking of how some drivers' performance seemed to take a quantum leap after their first win. Nigel Mansell is the most obvious example.

---

Yeah that's a good point. I was hoping for the same for Barrichello when he won his first race but he was further adrift in 2001. BTW my personal belief is that the Ferrari of 2001, while I think the best overall package, was actually not at all dominant and it was Schumacher that made the difference. I really don't think Rubens was that bad.

Self-belief and generally the factor of psychology is difficult to consider. Every driver and his personality is different. You may make a point about Mansell, who won a race, but there are loads of drivers, who have won just 1 race in their career, or won just a couple, and their careers petered off.

While reaching a benchmark (win, WDC) is an important personal milestone for any driver, I think overall it doesn't influence their performance levels. Because in the end you still need to have the right cars in which you feel comfortable in. If you are talented and get top cars, you'll win races, even if you hadn't won before. If you won an odd lucky race (and got "monkey off your back") and later got only average cars or have lots of unluck with unreliability, you won't win anything.

In Mansell's case, it should not be forgotten that ever since 1985 he got to drive lots of fantastic cars in F1. I think this is a big factor, which also influences motivation. If you are talented and get pace-setting cars, you will win a fair amount. Chances will come your way.

From psychological point of view the most important thing is that you "like the car"/"feel comfortable in it". This will give you self-confidence. Because you know you are fast, and competitive, and can push. And if the car allows, also reach significant achievements.