[Misc] F1 2021

[Icy Gull]

He just looks a bit of a beaten man Bottas, you have to feel for him as a driver that just cannot get close with any consistency to his team mate. He got the 2nd best seat in F1 for 5 years; just 9 wins in 92 races in that Merc...ouch.

Yep he is a very good driver but has not been able to get close to Lewis recently during a race even though he has been pretty competitive in Quali until lately.

I have had a rethink on how good Rosberg was, he was nearly always in touching distance and did, with some fortune, win the Championship.

I have a feeling Russell could be a replay of Alonso/Hamilton and Rosberg/Hamilton

 

[Audax]

His car as good as Lewis of course.

I just wondered about the practicalities of swapping them straight away.

With the title in the balance, you'd have thought it tempting to make the move to try to disrupt Max. Will Bottas listen to any more team orders?

Bottas knew about this before Spa. If he was going to ignore team orders, he wouldn't have aborted that fastest lap attempt at the end of the Dutch GP and instead would have set a time that would have needed Hamilton to take more risks to get it back.

Which, in my mind, is what sums up Bottas as an F1 driver. Seriously quick on his day, but lacks the selfish "I'm the best and I will win" side that typifies the majority of the greats. He doesn't have the extra edge on track that is a hallmark of the genuine greats. On the current grid, I would rate the following drivers higher than Bottas - all have at least as much raw talent as Bottas, but all also have a little something extra once on track that give them an advantage on Bottas:

Hamilton
Verstappen
Alonso
Russell
Ricciardo (despite his bad year and the * it puts against his status as a top driver)
Leclerc
Norris (but need to see him up against Ricciardo again next year, when hopefully the latter will be back on the pace)

And then there's some others who I'm 50-50 on:

Gasly (because he's only produced his best in the Alpha Tauri)
Sainz
Ocon (his form has been too variable to put him in the top group)
Mick Schumacher (rookie season, need to see more of him, keen to see him with a better car)

Bottas, for me, has been the modern day Coulthard. A damn good driver that any team on the grid would be happy to have, who has always justified his seat in F1, but any title-chasing team would want a better driver alongside him to go after the WDC. Mercedes with Bottas as lead driver over the last 5 years would not have won 5x WDC and WCC titles. There's been too many races he's been in a position to win and just not been able to produce that something extra to make it happen. Or even, as we saw on the weekend, where his team has needed him to hold back and delay another driver and he's not been able to do it. Compare and contrast: Alonso vs Hamilton at Hungary (to deliver Ocon a win) and Bottas vs Verstappen at Zandvoort. That's not the first time Bottas has rapidly made a mistake under pressure and lost track position as a result, and it's that side of him that has cost him any chance of ever competing against Hamilton across an entire season.

 

[zefarelly]

I think there are 2 types of driver, those who can drive extremely quickly, and those who will beat anyone who's in front of them.

Your Damon Hill/Button/Prost/Bottas, nice guys great drivers very slick quick and competitive according to the clock . . .

then you get the Senna/Schumacher/Hamilton/Verstappen etc . .I'm coming by, OR straight through you because I will be winning.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I think there are 2 types of driver, those who can drive extremely quickly, and those who will beat anyone who's in front of them.

Your Damon Hill/Button/Prost/Bottas, nice guys great drivers very slick quick and competitive according to the clock . . .

then you get the Senna/Schumacher/Hamilton/Verstappen etc . .I'm coming by, OR straight through you because I will be winning.

You've missed out the third option: The Mazepin.

 

[A1X]

You've missed out the third option: The Mazepin.

Pfft, Mazepin is just Pastor Maldonado for the kiddies

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Pfft, Mazepin is just Pastor Maldonado for the kiddies

I toyed with going with the Maldonado but didn't want to appear an old fuddy duddy so went with the latest kraze.

 

[zefarelly]

I toyed with going with the Maldonado but didn't want to appear an old fuddy duddy so went with the latest kraze.

remember this golden webpage.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/p1kQj/

 

[Audax]

I think there are 2 types of driver, those who can drive extremely quickly, and those who will beat anyone who's in front of them.

Your Damon Hill/Button/Prost/Bottas, nice guys great drivers very slick quick and competitive according to the clock . . .

then you get the Senna/Schumacher/Hamilton/Verstappen etc . .I'm coming by, OR straight through you because I will be winning.

IMO that classification (while fair) puts Prost in with a bunch of drivers he doesn't belong with.

I'd go with:

1. Drivers who have 100% (plus ) confidence in their ability and that they are the best.

Within this group, some will be more ruthless than others (eg Senna vs Prost) but regardless they're all potential multi-WDC drivers or drivers who in a midfield car will regularly deliver results that make people take notice.

Drivers I'd put in this group: Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Verstappen, Ricciardo (prior to this season, and I'd back him to get back there again), Vettel (but only when the car suits him), Alonso.

Potentially also: Norris, Russell, Leclerc.

2. Drivers who, no matter how small, are missing that last little bit.

They might achieve 100% confidence when everything clicks together, but can't do it consistently and you regularly see things in their performances that show that they're missing something. For eg with Bottas - there's be a number of occasions where his team has needed him to hold track position and he's not been able to do it as he makes a small mistake and opens the door (as happened on the weekend when Verstappen passed ... compare that to Alonso vs Hamilton at Hungary). When paired in the same team with a 100%'er, drivers in this group will almost always be beaten (but might pull off a WDC if the stars align to limit the 100%'er).

In this group: Bottas, Webber, Button, Nico Rosberg, Barrichello, Perez, Berger, Alesi (so much wasted talent...), Fisichella, Trulli, Ralf Schumacher, Coulthard.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I toyed with going with the Maldonado but didn't want to appear an old fuddy duddy so went with the latest kraze.

The Maldonator, pretty much managed to terminate a Williams in an exhibition!?

 

[Guinness Boy]

When you Google "how many times did Maldonado crash" this comes up




Astonishingly he has a race win and is still younger than Kimi!

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

IMO that classification (while fair) puts Prost in with a bunch of drivers he doesn't belong with.

I'd go with:

1. Drivers who have 100% (plus ) confidence in their ability and that they are the best.

Within this group, some will be more ruthless than others (eg Senna vs Prost) but regardless they're all potential multi-WDC drivers or drivers who in a midfield car will regularly deliver results that make people take notice.

Drivers I'd put in this group: Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Verstappen, Ricciardo (prior to this season, and I'd back him to get back there again), Vettel (but only when the car suits him), Alonso.

Potentially also: Norris, Russell, Leclerc.

2. Drivers who, no matter how small, are missing that last little bit.

They might achieve 100% confidence when everything clicks together, but can't do it consistently and you regularly see things in their performances that show that they're missing something. For eg with Bottas - there's be a number of occasions where his team has needed him to hold track position and he's not been able to do it as he makes a small mistake and opens the door (as happened on the weekend when Verstappen passed ... compare that to Alonso vs Hamilton at Hungary). When paired in the same team with a 100%'er, drivers in this group will almost always be beaten (but might pull off a WDC if the stars align to limit the 100%'er).

In this group: Bottas, Webber, Button, Nico Rosberg, Barrichello, Perez, Berger, Alesi (so much wasted talent...), Fisichella, Trulli, Ralf Schumacher, Coulthard.

Really interesting thoughts there Audax.

Personally, I think Vettel might be the luckiest driver to have even raced in F1 to have got that Red Bull seat when he did. He massively underachieved in that Ferrari, particularly 2017-18 when it really had title winning pace and he folded under pressure. That is not to say he is rubbish, far from it, but I wouldn't have him in a list containing Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Hamilton - any one of them I think would have won the title with Ferrari either '17 or '18. I know he has 4 world titles, so by rights he has to be there, but not for me really. Once Webber went and Ricciardo came in and was completely faster in every respect, then his record since, it tells its own story.

Also think Ricciardo is massively overrated through being a great personality, another very good driver, but not close to being in that elite group, he was completely destroyed by a young VM, he knew it, the team knew it, hence he moved. I'd have him as just another Coulthard really, has the odd good race and qualifying, pulls off the odd great overtake, but nothing striking about his pace I don't think.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Also think Ricciardo is massively overrated through being a great personality, another very good driver, but not close to being in that elite group

Yes. Norris is beating him 8-5 in qualifying and has more than double his points total. Great driver though but can’t be named alongside people like Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton.

Vettel is probably his level but got lucky with the car.

 

[Audax]

Really interesting thoughts there Audax.

Personally, I think Vettel might be the luckiest driver to have even raced in F1 to have got that Red Bull seat when he did. He massively underachieved in that Ferrari, particularly 2017-18 when it really had title winning pace and he folded under pressure. That is not to say he is rubbish, far from it, but I wouldn't have him in a list containing Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Hamilton. I know he has 4 world titles, so by rights he has to be there, but not for me really. Once Webber went and Ricciardo came in and was completely faster in every respect, then his record since, it tells its own story.

Also think Ricciardo is massively overrated through being a great personality, another very good driver, but not close to being in that elite group, he was completely destroyed by a young VM, he knew it, the team knew it, hence he moved. I'd have him as just another Coulthard really, has the odd good race and qualifying, pulls off the odd great overtake, but nothing striking about his pace I don't think.

I wrote that post twice (because the first time a mandatory browser update ate it before I could post it), and forgot to make a note in group 1 that would have addressed your point re: whether Vettel / Ricciardo can go into the "greats" category - there's still scope for variability in the actual talent levels within the group (and, beyond talent, how they apply that talent).

So, for example, looking at the drivers I mentioned in that group, I'd further subdivide them:

1. Sublime natural talents

Senna, Hamilton, Verstappen, Russell(?), Alonso(?)

2. Near-sublime natural talents supported by extreme work ethic / mental strength

Schumacher, Prost (aka The Professor)

3. Great, but limited*, natural talents

Vettel, Ricciardo, Leclerc, Norris(?)

*eg not adaptable enough to specific car characteristics, or if they are their talent just doesn't quite match the top-echelon and they don't (but maybe still could?) put in enough work to mitigate that.

4. Flawed natural talents - never achieved what their talent deserved for whatever reason - either through over-confidence or off-track problems

Struggling to think of any modern day examples, but looking at the past you could potentially include Hunt (aka "Hunt the Shunt")


If drivers from sub-groups 1 and/or 2 are present on the grid and have a capable car, they'll generally beat sub-group 3. But sub-group 3 are nevertheless of a standard and self-confidence level that they have the potential to win titles. And they still stand apart from primary "Group 2" type drivers: I would always back a Ricciardo or a Leclerc against a Group 2 driver.


Edit: Vettel is an odd one. At STR and his title-winning RBR seasons, he was absolutely a Group 1 level driver. I would have put him in the "Sublime natural talents" group back then. But I think that his reputation at the time was somewhat enhanced by a) only being against a Group 2 driver within the team, b) Hamilton being hamstrung by his cars in those seasons, c) Alonso being tripped up by failures within the team at Ferrari. Now, I would re-assess him into sub-group 3 with a note that, as you say, he was lucky about timing to get his 4 WDCs. Definitely since then he's a shadow of his former self and fades into Group 2 standard in the twilight of his career.

 

[zefarelly]

I'd put Hill (both) in Group 2, certainly Graham, he was a good mechanic and a grafter. succesful drivers back then were good engineers with mechanical sympathy to get to the end, and I guess a survival instinct, as opposed to a death wish.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I wrote that post twice (because the first time a mandatory browser update ate it before I could post it), and forgot to make a note in group 1 that would have addressed your point re: whether Vettel / Ricciardo can go into the "greats" category - there's still scope for variability in the actual talent levels within the group (and, beyond talent, how they apply that talent).

So, for example, looking at the drivers I mentioned in that group, I'd further subdivide them:

1. Sublime natural talents

Senna, Hamilton, Verstappen, Russell(?), Alonso(?)

2. Near-sublime natural talents supported by extreme work ethic / mental strength

Schumacher, Prost (aka The Professor)

3. Great, but limited*, natural talents

Vettel, Ricciardo, Leclerc, Norris(?)

*eg not adaptable enough to specific car characteristics, or if they are their talent just doesn't quite match the top-echelon and they don't (but maybe still could?) put in enough work to mitigate that.

4. Flawed natural talents - never achieved what their talent deserved for whatever reason - either through over-confidence or off-track problems

Struggling to think of any modern day examples, but looking at the past you could potentially include Hunt (aka "Hunt the Shunt")


If drivers from sub-groups 1 and/or 2 are present on the grid and have a capable car, they'll generally beat sub-group 3. But sub-group 3 are nevertheless of a standard and self-confidence level that they have the potential to win titles. And they still stand apart from primary "Group 2" type drivers: I would always back a Ricciardo or a Leclerc against a Group 2 driver.


Edit: Vettel is an odd one. At STR and his title-winning RBR seasons, he was absolutely a Group 1 level driver. I would have put him in the "Sublime natural talents" group back then. But I think that his reputation at the time was somewhat enhanced by a) only being against a Group 2 driver within the team, b) Hamilton being hamstrung by his cars in those seasons, c) Alonso being tripped up by failures within the team at Ferrari. Now, I would re-assess him into sub-group 3 with a note that, as you say, he was lucky about timing to get his 4 WDCs. Definitely since then he's a shadow of his former self and fades into Group 2 standard in the twilight of his career.

In some respects your group 2 category can often make a more successful driver. As Hamilton has got older, you could argue he has morphed into group 2 as he is far more calculating, backing out of moves etc. that his young self wouldn't have. His battle with Alonso, while Alonso got great plaudits, also told a story that 33pts behind LH takes the risk at Copse because he needs to. Then when ahead in the title race stuck behind Alonso, he battles, but he takes no risks and effectively loses his chance of winning the race, but keeps his title lead. I think regardless of points, a young LH goes for a gap much earlier on Alonso to win the race regardless of the title situation.

Of course the above logic applied to Verstappen keeps him well out of group 2. Those group 2 drivers, 33 pts ahead in the championship, probably let LH through at Copse without risking contact having the confidence that they'll take the place back later in the race, and at worse will be 26pts ahead still at the end. If VM is to win multiple championships, he will need some group 2 attributes!

 

[Audax]

Yes. Norris is beating him 8-5 in qualifying and has more than double his points total. Great driver though but can’t be named alongside people like Senna, Schumacher and Hamilton.

Vettel is probably his level but got lucky with the car.

I'd wait until next season before using the Norris comparison to judge Ricciardo. Ricciardo's clearly not getting on with the traits of the McLaren car, whereas Norris had 2 seasons of learning the car while that trait was being developed into it. With the massive change in rules for the cars for next season, there's a good chance that trait disappears from the car (or is reduced enough that Ricciardo can live with it) and the pendulum swings the other way.

Similar story for Verstappen vs Perez at RBR - from what I've read recently, RBR have finally admitted to themselves that the struggles of the #2 drivers in recent years has been due to them designing a car that only a very-special talent in Verstappen can actually deliver performance from.

Also, on Ricciardo vs Verstappen and Ricciardo leaving: Yes, Ricciardo was absolutely leaving to get away from Verstappen. But I don't believe it was because he didn't think he could beat him on a level playing field. I believe it was because he was already seeing the influence that Verstappen's camp had within the team and that regardless of how good he was/is, he would never actually get that level playing field. He could see the car development swinging towards Verstappen and got out (that, and he had big doubts about the Honda). The irony is that I firmly believe if he'd stayed he would have been far closer to Verstappen than any of the #2's RBR have had since then. But still - ultimately I do think Verstappen has the natural talent edge on Ricciardo but over a season, I think Ricciardo in a car that suited both equally could and would have fought Verstappen close through a superior mental approach.

 

[A1X]

In some respects your group 2 category can often make a more successful driver. As Hamilton has got older, you could argue he has morphed into group 2 as he is far more calculating, backing out of moves etc. that his young self wouldn't have. His battle with Alonso, while Alonso got great plaudits, also told a story that 33pts behind LH takes the risk at Copse because he needs to. Then when ahead in the title race stuck behind Alonso, he battles, but he takes no risks and effectively loses his chance of winning the race, but keeps his title lead. I think regardless of points, a young LH goes for a gap much earlier on Alonso to win the race regardless of the title situation.

Of course the above logic applied to Verstappen keeps him well out of group 2. Those group 2 drivers, 33 pts ahead in the championship, probably let LH through at Copse without risking contact having the confidence that they'll take the place back later in the race, and at worse will be 26pts ahead still at the end. If VM is to win multiple championships, he will need some group 2 attributes!

I agree with this. I think a group 1 driver who never develops the ruthless streak needed for group 2 will only ever win 1, possibly 2 if in a good car, drivers titles. To win multiple times (especially for different teams as Hamilton has) absolutely requires a group 2 driver.

 

[JJ McClure]

Also, on Ricciardo vs Verstappen and Ricciardo leaving: Yes, Ricciardo was absolutely leaving to get away from Verstappen. But I don't believe it was because he didn't think he could beat him on a level playing field. I believe it was because he was already seeing the influence that Verstappen's camp had within the team and that regardless of how good he was/is, he would never actually get that level playing field. He could see the car development swinging towards Verstappen and got out (that, and he had big doubts about the Honda). The irony is that I firmly believe if he'd stayed he would have been far closer to Verstappen than any of the #2's RBR have had since then. But still - ultimately I do think Verstappen has the natural talent edge on Ricciardo but over a season, I think Ricciardo in a car that suited both equally could and would have fought Verstappen close through a superior mental approach.

Absolutely agree with that. Much like with Vettel and Webber, once Marko and Horner have found their golden child the 2nd driver may as well not be there. Ricciardo could see the writing on the wall from the moment they clashed in Baku and knew he was best of out of there.

 

[Audax]

Absolutely agree with that. Much like with Vettel and Webber, once Marko and Horner have found their golden child the 2nd driver may as well not be there. Ricciardo could see the writing on the wall from the moment they clashed in Baku and knew he was best of out of there.

Yeah, absolutely - Baku was the nail in the coffin there. The way the team backed Verstappen after that, completely out of proportion with the events that actually caused the clash, will have been eating in the back of Ricciardo's mind from that point onwards. He'll have become hyper-aware of anything within the team pointing towards Verstappen being given priority.

It's got more to do with Marko than Horner IMO. Marko is the true power in both RB owned teams when it comes to the day-to-day running, despite Horner being the nominal Team Principal at RBR and Tost at STR / AT. The only reason Webber stayed at RBR as long as he did is because Mateschitz himself made sure of it, over-ruling Marko who always wanted to bring in one of his juniors.

 

[Audax]

In some respects your group 2 category can often make a more successful driver. As Hamilton has got older, you could argue he has morphed into group 2 as he is far more calculating, backing out of moves etc. that his young self wouldn't have. His battle with Alonso, while Alonso got great plaudits, also told a story that 33pts behind LH takes the risk at Copse because he needs to. Then when ahead in the title race stuck behind Alonso, he battles, but he takes no risks and effectively loses his chance of winning the race, but keeps his title lead. I think regardless of points, a young LH goes for a gap much earlier on Alonso to win the race regardless of the title situation.

Of course the above logic applied to Verstappen keeps him well out of group 2. Those group 2 drivers, 33 pts ahead in the championship, probably let LH through at Copse without risking contact having the confidence that they'll take the place back later in the race, and at worse will be 26pts ahead still at the end. If VM is to win multiple championships, he will need some group 2 attributes!

Yep, agree on all that. One of the reasons the Senna vs Prost era was so compelling was because you had a sublime talent in Senna up against a thinking talent in Prost. What Prost lacked in talent he easily made up on the mental side, while for Senna he mostly just trusted in his talent (and some dodgy tactics as a last resort).

It's obviously difficult with some drivers ... there's no clear boundaries, any given driver can slide in and out of these classifications over time, and the classifications themselves have grey areas in between. For me, Hamilton is still a sublime talent - but he's definitely added a level of maturity and mental aptitude that wasn't there in the early years (or maybe was but was suppressed by youthful exuberance).

It's actually for the reasons you mention above that I put a ? mark next to Alonso. He *was* a sublime talent as a youngster. At this point in his career, though, I think he's lost some of the edge off that talent - but replaced it with a well developed craftiness that he always had, but has refined over the years.