Circuits where the driver can still make the difference?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As we all know, the car is the dominant factor in F1 these days. But on some circuits the driver can drive around the issues with his car and make a difference. Think back to Kubica last year and his great qualifying drives at Monaco, Spa and Suzuka.

So how do we rank these circuits?

1) Monaco
2) Spa
3) Montreal
4) Suzuka
5) Singapore
6) Nurburgring
7) Albert Park
8) Silverstone
9) Monza

It would seem the rest are aero circuits where the car is king.

[i_max2k2]

As we all know, the car is the dominant factor in F1 these days. But on some circuits the driver can drive around the issues with his car and make a difference. Think back to Kubica last year and his great qualifying drives at Monaco, Spa and Suzuka.

So how do we rank these circuits?

1) Monaco
2) Spa
3) Montreal
4) Suzuka
5) Singapore
6) Nurburgring
7) Albert Park
8) Silverstone
9) Monza

It would seem the rest are aero circuits where the car is king.

I dont think thats the case, as soon as there is a trun, aero comes into picture, last year Kubica probably had his car setup really well for these circuits is which is what I believe boasted his performance.

[555-04Q2]

The driver can make a difference at any and every circuit.

[jens]

Monaco is often called to be a drivers circuit, but nowadays this is IMO a bit incorrect as car characteristics play a major role in the outcome there as well. Jon Brown, you say that on aero circuits car plays a role, but on several circuits you mention, mechanical grip plays a major role. From what I recall, the gaps between team-mates haven't been bigger at Monaco than on other circuits. Perhaps the only circuits, which may have represented bigger team-mate gaps than normal, are Montreal and Spa. In latter's case the length of the circuit plays a role too.

Another aspect needs to be mentioned. Drivers themselves have different characteristics. Some drivers may be struggling on street circuits, but on contrast they excel on so-called aero circuits. It can be the other way around too. I remember Massa was considered to be a specialist of Tilkedromes a few years ago. It doesn't mean he was a worse driver just because he may have not excelled on traditional circuits so much, he simply had a different skillset.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Looking back, the Toyota's were useless at Monaco in 2009, yet got pole at Bahrain.

[DexDexter]

Spa is the one circuit that seems to allow drivers to make the difference. You can call me a fanboy, but Räikkönen won there in 2009 with a car that wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the top of the podium. Schumacher in 91 is another good example, De Cesaris did not usually put Jordan 7th on the grid.

[donKey jote]

I agree with Dex... anywhere where Kimi won is such a circuit :p

[N4D13]

But Spa is a unique circuit with very special characteristics. Fisichella came in second in 2009 with a Force India after taking pole position, and his car wasn't supposed to be near the podium either in any of the other races. Do you believe that Fisichella is a great driver as well?

[jens]

But Spa is a unique circuit with very special characteristics. Fisichella came in second in 2009 with a Force India after taking pole position, and his car wasn't supposed to be near the podium either in any of the other races. Do you believe that Fisichella is a great driver as well?

Fisichella is actually a contrasting example to Massa. He used to be impressive on street circuits, but not so impressive on "ordinary" racing venues. Which reinforces the point that a lot is dependant on different characteristics rather than black-and-whitish "drivers circuit" stuff. A great driver is someone, who is capable of putting in high-caliber performances on a variety of tracks over a full season, not on a chosen circuit, which demands specific - although demanding - skills.

[ioan]

I agree with Dex... anywhere where Kimi won is such a circuit :p

:rotflmao: :up:

[DexDexter]

But Spa is a unique circuit with very special characteristics. Fisichella came in second in 2009 with a Force India after taking pole position, and his car wasn't supposed to be near the podium either in any of the other races. Do you believe that Fisichella is a great driver as well?

His car was supposed to win the race, that's the difference. Force India had probably the quickest car on the day.

[gloomyDAY]

His car was supposed to win the race, that's the difference. Force India had probably the quickest car on the day.Yep! If Force India didn't screw up that final pit stop, then Force India would have won the race.

[ioan]

His car was supposed to win the race, that's the difference. Force India had probably the quickest car on the day.

And they failed because they didn't overtake a bunch of cars outside the circuit limits.

[DexDexter]

And they failed because they didn't overtake a bunch of cars outside the circuit limits.

The results stand so they are valid. It's ancient history anyway...

[wedge]

As we all know, the car is the dominant factor in F1 these days. But on some circuits the driver can drive around the issues with his car and make a difference. Think back to Kubica last year and his great qualifying drives at Monaco, Spa and Suzuka.

So how do we rank these circuits?

1) Monaco
2) Spa
3) Montreal
4) Suzuka
5) Singapore
6) Nurburgring
7) Albert Park
8) Silverstone
9) Monza

It would seem the rest are aero circuits where the car is king.

Monaco and Hungary.

Pretty much every other track is about generating DF; aero efficiency by trying to manipulating the drag and vorticies - eg. fancy rear wing endplates; bringing the right package to a GP - straightline speed for straights but still need DF for the corners, not to mention managing kerbs/bumps, braking, etc.

As for Kubica's performance I would say he was showing his talent by 'out-driving' the car - that is a lesser driver would not have extracted more from the car.

I think there's a distinction between 'out-driving' a car and the driver clearly making a difference on a circuit.

Brundle said he enjoyed street circuits because the lower speed corners could mask some of the car's outright performance.


Looking back, the Toyota's were useless at Monaco in 2009, yet got pole at Bahrain.

It was they it was using its tyres. They could never get enough heat into them at Monaco.


Yep! If Force India didn't screw up that final pit stop, then Force India would have won the race.

An example a team bringing the right package to a GP.

[ioan]

The results stand so they are valid. It's ancient history anyway...

There are a lot of things that are history but will never be accepted as right. I guess you don't need examples.

[DexDexter]

There are a lot of things that are history but will never be accepted as right. I guess you don't need examples.

Whatever, I think we've discussed Spa 2009 enough in here :) .

[ioan]

Whatever, I think we've discussed Spa 2009 enough in here :) .

Ferrari and Raikkonen stole Force India a win there. You can run away from it but that won't change what they did.

[DexDexter]

Ferrari and Raikkonen stole Force India a win there. You can run away from it but that won't change what they did.

That's the opinion of one poster, others may have different opinions.