Are F1 drivers driving at a higher level than those in the past?

[rjbetty]

This is something I wonder about a lot. I think this must have been asked so many times, but I've never seen much about it.

I would really like to know what people think about the idea that as athletes keep breaking past records, are F1 drivers also improving to a higher level than those in the past?

I remember Matt Bishop in his "Praise Be" column in Autosport in 2002 asserted this kind of theory and stated that "Juan-Manuel Fangio, at his best, was probably about as good as Pedro de la Rosa is now".

Another reason I think about this is that if you take for example the 1994 season, and rank the drivers by average qualifying gaps, this is the approximate outcome (there were rained out sessions causing unrepresentative times, so it's hard to be exact, and I'm making a few adjustments:

1994 Qualifying
--------------
1.Michael Schumacher (Benetton)
2.Damon Hill (Williams) +0.24
3.David Coulthard (Williams) +0.70
4.Jean Alesi (Ferrari) +0.98
5.Gerhard Berger (Ferrari) +1.04
6.Mika Hakkinen (McLaren) +1.20
7.Rubens Barrichello (Jordan) +1.67
8.Heinz-Harald Frentzen (Sauber) +1.70
9.Ukyo Katayama (Tyrrell) +1.80
10.Jos Verstappen (Benetton) +1.90
11.Eddie Irvine (Jordan) +1.91
12.Martin Brundle (McLaren) +1.92
13.Mark Blundell (Tyrrell) +2.12
14.Gianni Morbidelli (Footwork) +2.38
15.Andrea de Cesaris (Sauber) +2.52
16.Olivier Panis (Ligier) +2.58
17.Pierluigi Martini (Minardi) +2.64
18.Christian Fittipaldi (Footwork) +2.66
19.Johnny Herbert (Lotus) +3.00
20.Michele Alboreto (Minardi) +3.10
21.Eric Bernard (Ligier) +3.20
22.Erik Comas (Larrousse) +3.28
23.Alessandro Zanardi (Lotus) +3.45
24.Olivier Beretta (Larrousse) +3.97
25.David Brabham (Simtek) +4.54
26.Jean-Marc Gounon (Simtek) +5.16
27.Bertrand Gachot (Pacific) +7.12
28.Paul Belmondo (Pacific) +8.34

That should be pretty near to how it was I think.
Now to take the cars out of the equation. This is definitely only educated guessing at best. :(

1994 Driver Ranking based on Qualifying - Meaning if they all drove the same car as though it's a one-make championship

1.Schumacher
2.Hakkinen +0.40
3.Alesi +0.80
4.Berger +0.86
5.Hill +0.86
6.Barrichello +0.90
7.Katayama +1.00
8.Frentzen +1.02
9.Brundle +1.12
10.Coulthard +1.20
11.Irvine +1.22
12.Herbert +1.30
13.Blundell +1.30
14.Morbidelli +1.40
15.Martini +1.50
16.Panis +1.60
17.de Cesaris +1.68
18.Fittipaldi +1.68
19.Comas +1.70
20.Zanardi +1.74
21.Verstappen +1.91
22.Alboreto +1.96
23.Gachot +2.00
24.Brabham +2.24
25.Bernard +2.30
26.Beretta +2.40
27.Gounon +2.90
28.Belmondo +3.24


Doing the same for F1 2012 based on qualifying only, it might be something like this:

1.Lewis Hamilton (McLaren)
3.Fernando Alonso (Ferrari) +0.0
2.Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull) +0.1
4.Mark Webber (Red Bull) +0.2
5.Heikki Kovalainen (Caterham) +0.3
6.Nico Rosberg (Mercedes) +0.3
7.Jenson Button (McLaren) +0.3
8.Romain Grosjean (Lotus) +0.4
9.Pastor Maldonado (Williams) +0.4
10.Michael Schumacher (Mercedes) +0.4
11.Nico Hulkenberg (Force India) +0.4
12.Kimi Raikkonen (Lotus) +0.4
13.Paul di Resta (Force India) +0.4
14.Felipe Massa (Ferrari +0.5
15.Vitaly Petrov (Caterham) +0.6
16.Kamui Kobayashi (Sauber) +0.5
17.Sergio Perez (Sauber) +0.6
18.Daniel Ricciardo (Toro Rosso) +0.7
19.Timo Glock (Marussia) +0.7
20.Pedro de la Rosa (HRT) +0.8
21.Charles Pic (Marussia) +0.8
22.Bruno Senna (Williams) +0.9
23.Jean-Eric Vergne (Toro Rosso) +1.0
24.Narain Karthikeyan (HRT) +1.2

I'm sure everyone will agree with that. :rolleyes:

So is Narain Karthikeyan really as fast as Mark Blundell for speed? Is he really quicker than Pierluigi Martini, Andrea de Cesaris and Erik Comas?
Is the maligned Vitaly Petrov really that much faster than Brundle or Herbert? (He was faster than Heidfeld last year)

Notice I am only talking about the AVERAGE of times actually set in qualifying.

I think how it might be is that all these older drivers who have much slower averages have so because F1 was less professional back then, and the issue isn't that drivers like Petrov have 3 times as much talent as Martini, but the case is that the drivers are much more CONSISTENT these days, and all the preparation, the fitness, nutrition, all that stuff is enabling modern drivers to ACCESS much more of their talent much more often, resulting in much better average gaps to the fastest drivers.

I feel like I'm naive on this stuff, so please help me out with your thoughts people.

[The Black Knight]

I think it's an interesting topic but one that you can never draw a proper conclusion from. It's about as concrete as saying Messi was better than Pele or Maradona. We can never really judge because the rules and players change as the game evolves.

[Robinho]

I think you could say the depth of quality is better currently, both in terms of drivers and teams, although its impossible to quantify

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[AndyL]

It's a very interesting analysis. Another possible conclusion is that the hypothetical one-make car of 2012 is easier to drive than the one of 1994, so more drivers can get it closer to its limit of performance. Or perhaps that the engineers understand it better and can set it up more consistently.

Or maybe even that Schumacher and Hakkinen were so good in their prime they made everyone else look bad - the gaps from 3rd downwards in the 1994 ranking are more similar to those in the 2012 table.

Certainly the skills needed as a driver have shifted over the years. It's surely more "technical" and less "seat-of-the-pants" now. Modern drivers have vast amounts of data to process, and the successful ones will be able to adapt their driving according to what the data shows. Would Fangio have been good at that I wonder?

[I am evil Homer]

It's an almost impossible comparison because you cannot objectively measure what would be termed 'natural talent'.

[wedge]

The easiest explanation is that cars are lot closer and very reliable.

In the past you could split the constructors in four distinct groups: top teams in a league of their own then the upper midfield, lower midfield and the perennial back of the grid teams.

The midfield is now ultra competitive.

As for higher level? It's rather subjective. We still those who suffer brain fade, lairy, plonkers and down right reckless behaviour.

[Malbec]

Now to take the cars out of the equation. This is definitely only educated guessing at best. :(


While its impossible to do anything other than guess, I'm afraid this bit means the comparison is entirely invalid.

I can't say if drivers operate on a higher level but ignoring the machinery I believe the level of professionalism and training is definitely more advanced than in the 90s. Fitness has gone up and sports science and medicine has improved significantly over time and most if not all teams devote substantial resources to getting the most out of the drivers they're paying a lot of money for.

From that point of view alone I believe most drivers today are operating at a higher level than their predecessors.

[rjbetty]

The easiest explanation is that cars are lot closer and very reliable.

In the past you could split the constructors in four distinct groups: top teams in a league of their own then the upper midfield, lower midfield and the perennial back of the grid teams.

The midfield is now ultra competitive.

As for higher level? It's rather subjective. We still those who suffer brain fade, lairy, plonkers and down right reckless behaviour.

Yeah I do think it's because the cars are easier to drive these days. I think it's ONE of the reasons Eddie Irvine kept closing the gap to Schumacher at Ferrari to the point where people were wondering if Michael really was the best driver in F1. Each Ferrari was better than it's predecessor.

The gaps between drivers seemed to open out a little again in 2001 as the higher front wings made for cars that were a little trickier to drive. But traction control made a return. Though you'd think that might close the gap between the great, the good, and the mediocre, it might have actually increased the gap as it's another area for the best drivers to be best in, utilising traction control to it's optimum. Michael spoke a few times how the driver aids helped him find more performance and get closer to the limit.

But I do think this generation of drivers undergo so much more preparation and development to the nth degree that they are better than drivers of previous generations. Again I think of how athletics records keep being broken.

It does seem that drivers are generally more consistent these days, and don't chuck the car off the road half as often as previous drivers did. Martini seemed to spin often. But then the cars were harder to drive. They even had to use manual gears like normal people in road cars do.

But then recently I have thought about some of the silly driving and incidents that have gone on this season and it seems drivers maybe aren't that much better after all. It's just that they're a lot more pampered and stuff. :)

Also I'm interested in the fact that when Jean Alesi started he seemed like a champion. I'd say his average qualifying in a "one-make" F1 was about +0.8sec, but it seemed to stay around that mark through his entire career. He ended up being overtaken by people like Barrichello, Coulthard, Irvine, Frentzen, even Panis.

The same goes for Luca Badoer who curiously always seemed to be about +1.6sec on average in 1993, 1995 and 1999.

These figures I come up with (+0.8 +1.6 etc) are basically just estimated from team-mate comparisons with all sorts of team-mates, but most of the time they seem remarkably consistent to the point where I can predict how much of a gap a driver will have to a new team-mate, and it's usually pretty accurate. Except for Barrichello in 1995, Frentzen in 1997 and some others like Hill in 1999. These were all unrepresentative performances. (My sister, an Eddie Irvine fan would still insist Eddie is better than Rubens based on him outqualifying Rubens 12-5 in 1995).

[Big Ben]

yes, the question is right me thinks. Drivers are at higher level because the whole sport is at a higher level. But this doesn't really mean the drivers are more talented now.

[rjbetty]

yes, the question is right me thinks. Drivers are at higher level because the whole sport is at a higher level. But this doesn't really mean the drivers are more talented now.

Yeah I agree. I don't see any reason why natural talent itself (whatever that means anyway) should be any more now than it would be in the past. I believe it would be the same for people if they'd had motorsport 2000 years ago, or at basically any time in history really. I think drivers would be as talented then as they are now. But Since the start of Formula 1 I do believe the understanding has improved, and drivers and teams know how to get more out of their talent. And so I think it IS quite possible that Juan-Maunel Fangio was at a similar level as Pedro de la Rosa is now even though he was much more naturally talented.

I totally believe Karthikeyan's average qualifying time gap over the season (about +1.3s) is higher than say Pierluigi Martini's ever was (more like +1.5s), but still Martini is the better driver because his high points were higher than Karthikeyan's, and Karthikeyan's average is better as a result of the way F1 is these days rather than being more talented.

So basically I think that an average qualifying gap of say +1.6s might be equivalent to a 2012 say, +0.9s or something like that. And a driver who averaged +2.4s might be the 2012 equaivalent of +1.4s. But then I'm guessing/estimating these figures and there is no firm objectivity... :(

Even then, it seems a driver has to develop his talent, because even though a driver like Jean Alesi would start his career at +0.8s in 1990, which is one of the highest, that figure seemed to be constant through his entire career so that by 2000-2001 +0.8s was well in the midfield. Jean never developed his talent.

Same for Luca Badoer who by comparing with team-mates, then comparing those team-mates with other team-mates (yes it's not empirical and perfect, but the accuracy is much more decent thank you might think), his figure consistently seems to be +1.6s in all years. That was actually really quite good for a rookie in 1993 - he was Formula 3000 champ the previous year - and it was about the same level as Olivier Panis (the next F3000 champ) was the following year. I am inferring here that had Luca developed his talent, he would be basically equal to Olivier Panis. But he didn't seem to, and the gap seemed to remain at +1.6s through 1995, 1996 AND 1999.



Edit: I agree with everyone that it is impossible to objectively measure and quantify drivers like this.

[rjbetty]

I wanna see if anyone agrees with these estimations for 2001. It was a hard season to do this for as the new regulations seemed to make the cars trickier to drive and/or the driver aids provided another area for the best drivers to be the best in, so the gaps opened out a bit that season. But here's my best guess:

2001 Qualifying, as it was with all drivers in the cars they drove:

1.Michael Schumacher (Ferrari)
2.Ralf Schumacher (Williams) +0.423
3.Mika Hakkinen (McLaren) +0.510
4.Rubens Barrichello (Ferrari) +0.560
5.David Coulthard (McLaren) +0.590
6.Juan-Pablo Montoya (Williams) +0.770
7.Jarno Trulli (Jordan) +0.901
8.Heinz-Harald Frentzen (Jordan) +1.125
9.Nick Heidfeld (Sauber) +1.370
10.Kimi Raikkonen (Sauber) +1.505
11.Olivier Panis (BAR) +1.591
12.Jacques Villeneuve (BAR) +1.600
13.Eddie Irvine (Jaguar) +1.867
14.Pedro de la Rosa (Jaguar) +2.380
15.Jean Alesi (Prost) +2.401
16.Giancarlo Fisichella (Benetton) +2.525
17.Luciano Burti (Prost) +2.834
18.Jos Verstappen (Arrows) +2.950
19.Jenson Button (Benetton) +3.030
20.Enrique Bernoldi (Arrows) +3.080
21.Fernando Alonso (Minardi) +3.374
22.Gaston Mazzacane (Prost) (I included Mazzacane because I just wanted to) +3.6
23.Tarso Marques (Minardi) +4.561


I reckon taking the cars out of the equation gives something like this, for qualifying only:

1.M.Schumacher
2.Trulli +0.40 (excellent job!)
3.Hakkinen +0.42 (it was a bad year, but I want to dispel what I feel is the myth that Mika was equal to Michael)
4.Fisichella +0.44 (deserves much more credit than he was given)
5.R.Schumacher +0.48 (faded at end of season, dropping him a little)
6.Coulthard +0.50 (struggled in quali at start of season)
7.Barrichello +0.56 (had a bad year in fast but tricky car)
8.Irvine +0.58 (another driver who deserves a bit more credit)
9.Frentzen +0.62 (not as poor as people make out. His races were though...)
10.Heidfeld +0.63 (Underrated because of unrepresentative first season)
11.Panis +0.70
12.Villeneuve +0.71 (struggled with bad back. Wasn't that good anyway)
13.Alonso +0.71 (would have been even higher in better car without problems)
14.Raikkonen +0.76
15.Montoya +0.83 (3rd highest rookie, yet by far the most hype)
16.Alesi +0.84
17.Button +0.95
18.Verstappen +1.00 (slow, deserved to be dropped)
19.de la Rosa +1.09 (should be higher, but had to settle in at Jag with teething problems)
20.Bernoldi +1.15 (not that terrible - see other rookies' times... But he was weaker in races)
21.Burti +1.24
22.Marques +1.80
23.Mazzacane +2.00

And while I'm at it, here are the cars with the drivers taken out, in qualifying trim:

1.Williams (Now THERE'S a surprise. Such was the advantage that engine had on some tracks, it pushes the average ahead of Ferrari)
2.Ferrari +0.06 (yet I still feel Ferrari's car was better all round, most definitely)
3.McLaren +0.15 (despite what many people will tell you, the McLaren was just about as good as the Ferrari. It's just that Michael is so much better than Hakkinen and always was)
4.Jordan +0.56 (not THAT bad surely for a team so derided)
5.Sauber +0.79 (not bad in pretty much any year)
6.BAR +0.95 (4 tenths off Jordan despite the same engine and preferential treatment)
7.Jaguar +1.35 (really bad actually. Fortunately for them, other teams were even worse)
8.Prost +1.63 (more than twice the gap of Sauber, with the same engine)
9.Arrows +2.01 (Asiatech engine didn't help)
10.Benetton +2.14 (Fisi really deserves more credit for what he did in this, even before Spa)
11.Minardi +2.74 (for Alonso to outqualify Benettons, Prosts, Arrows, Jaguars and even BARS was really special)


Do you people think I've got this fairly close to how it was? :)

[wedge]

Lies and goddamn statistics...

I think you have too much time on your hands and reading too much into numbers.

[rjbetty]

Lies and goddamn statistics...

I think you have too much time on your hands and reading too much into numbers.

Yes it's true... :(

[steveaki13]

22.Gaston Mazzacane (Prost) (I included Mazzacane because I just wanted to) +3.6



I always had a soft spot for Gaston Mazzacane. Don't know why.

Anyway Great efforts on your workings I like they way you have done it.

I agree it is hard to compare due to car performance differential, but it would seem logicial that as with most sports the drivers get fitter and cars improve so drivers are on a higher level now.

But I still loved F1 in 90s and early 00s

[rjbetty]

I always had a soft spot for Gaston Mazzacane. Don't know why.

Anyway Great efforts on your workings I like they way you have done it.

I agree it is hard to compare due to car performance differential, but it would seem logicial that as with most sports the drivers get fitter and cars improve so drivers are on a higher level now.

But I still loved F1 in 90s and early 00s

I liked Mazzacane too for some reason, and yeah I think F1 was better when everyone was cr@pper. :p

[Knock-on]

I don't know why people say its impossible to make the distinction? Seems rather straight forward to me.

In the 'old days' standards were different. Drivers could buy a seat and a lot of fairly average drivers were mixed in with 'the greats' which flattered them. There were also great differences in machinery and although there will always be a difference, it is now much smaller

Drivers themselves are much fitter, have much more experience and training and a mediocre driver like Koby in the same equipment as Alonso or Hamilton would be 2 tents off the pace and not half a second or more.

Lastly the tracks are a known quantity. Drivers learn them on sims before they set foot in the country. They are much easier as well with large run offs so drivers can make mistakes and not be penalised. This devalues the sport because a driver in the best car can run off the track several times and still easily win.

So, in conclusion, if the Moss's, Fangio's, Hawthorn's and Gilles's of yesteryear had the facilities and resources that today's drivers have from an early age they would be as good as the best of today's drivers but equally, their compatriots would also be a lot closer.

[F1boat]

I think that when all is said and done we can conclude that the drivers today are more prepared, but it is unlikely that they are more talented.

[wedge]

In the 'old days' standards were different. Drivers could buy a seat and a lot of fairly average drivers were mixed in with 'the greats' which flattered them.

I think pay drivers isn't as much as a dirty word as it used to be. Perez and Maldonado bring sponsorship/financial backing and talented.

Competing has become a greater financial burden. Running cars and teams has become more and more each year. Apparently you have to be millionaire these days to drive in F3.

When was the last time we saw the quintessential F1 reject ie. the comedy F1 driver who not only was a danger to others but themselves? Yuji Ide?

Speaking of which. I would argue the standard of Japanese drivers has greatly increased from better schooling in Europe - ironically enough pioneered by Sato when he was advised by Aguri Suzuki to move to England.

[jens]

Now visiting this place more rarely than usual. But with a quick look this thread caught my attention. Rjbetty, how exactly did you calculate those "car-corrected" rankings? As we have learnt, drivers' performances fluctuate - from season-to-season, it can happen even during a season significantly (see Button in '12). I see that your qualifying gap between Schumacher and Häkkinen is pretty similar in 1994 and 2001 (0.4 secs). But humans are not robots, even we as spectators can witness the differences in performance - and as you pointed out, some seasons were not 'representative' (Hill '99, etc). And in my observation Häkkinen was definitely performing better in 1994 than in 2001, so the gaps ought to be different.

And how do you estimate Schumacher as being faster than Häkkinen by 0.4s, while it was often regarded that in qualifying trim (which these calculations are based on) Mika was as fast as Michael?

McLaren as good as Ferrari in 2001? Well, in terms of speed it may not have been far, but reliability...

[BDunnell]

A lot of the statistical stuff here I would tend to dismiss, I'm afraid. Furthermore, I simply don't think that 'a higher level' can truly be defined. There's just one point I'd make, though — to do with basic, 'hands-on' skill. I'd relate it to an issue in aviation. It's generally accepted that a contributory factor in the Air France Airbus accident in 2009 was the flight crew misunderstanding certain signals following the multiple system failures experienced in the aircraft. Put very simply, so used were they to automation that, when it didn't function properly, they didn't know what to do. One might say this represents an erosion of old-fashioned basic piloting skills. I would be surprised if, given the aids at their disposal, such a phenomenon wasn't also the case amongst current F1 drivers, and it's this above all else that makes me query the notion of their operating today at a 'higher level' than their predecessors. Their job is different, but their ability is not necessarily superior.

[BDunnell]

Now visiting this place more rarely than usual.

That's a shame.

[steveaki13]

Why are you visiting less Jens? We miss you. :(

[jens]

That's a shame.


Why are you visiting less Jens? We miss you. :(

Thanks.
To put it shortly - this is life with all its flows and changes. :)

[rjbetty]

Thanks.
To put it shortly - this is life with all its flows and changes. :)

I was starting to think this place had split again, and no-one had told me. Business does seem a little slow at the mo.

Also, I'm gonna reply to your last post on this thread. Just takes a bit of explaining and ah'm tiiiired. :)

[fandango]

Perhaps it's just the fans who have improved :)

And the stopwatches...