[Driver] Ricciardo

[kart_racer]

Originally Posted by bella

agree wholeheartedly. vergne's just got a bit more... fight about him. the monza fr3.5 race this year (well worth a look if you can find it) when he won against ricciardo, but was penalised for avoiding an avoidable accident was just classic vergne. especially the way he handled himself afterwards, pure class. totally converted me from being a slight sceptic to a full scale believer.

sorry this is a ricciardo thread, isn't it

regarding liuzzi... has he ever managed to reproduce the amount of promise he showed in karting and pre-f1?

I don't think he has no...
Shame because he made mince meat of Hamilton is FSA in 2001. He has the talent, commitment and skill required but it seems that its not being channelled correctly.

[bella]

Originally Posted by kart_racer

I don't think he has no...
Shame because he made mince meat of Hamilton is FSA in 2001. He has the talent, commitment and skill required but it seems that its not being channelled correctly.

do you think that a quick kart driver always makes a quick car racer though?

[spider]

Jaime and Buemi - can't ever see these boys landing an RBR seat alongside Vettel, so a little confused as to the point in keeping them in the 'feeder' team?

Placing Dan and JEV in STR would surely be more exciting? You do get the impression that there's more of a spark surrounding the Frenchman, though Dan looks clearly highly competent too.

[kart_racer]

Originally Posted by bella

do you think that a quick kart driver always makes a quick car racer though?

Yes definitely, its been proven 1000+ times...

More overtaking in karting... its much more competative. 1 second can cover 60 drivers at European level for example.

I just think he has not got the motivation anymore?! Coupled with a poor car he is just not performing. I'm sure he could do more with that car than he currently is.

Terry Fullerton once said ''give me a determined driver over a naturally talented one''

Case in point, Hamilton was very determined to get where he is today (as well as being talented) he has had the funding and has done very well.

Luizzi was stunning in karting, and very good in the junior ranks of single seaters wasn't he.

Just not delivering in F1. Maybe bad management coupled with bad luck leaves him in the car he is in now.... Doubt his F1 career can be saved now!!

[dsg]

I hope they put DR in the Torro Rosso and JEV in the HRT vs Liuzzi as it would provide a much clearer picture of each driver’s relative skills. If there was still doubt they could go head to head in the following year. As it has been said many times in this thread alone what a driver in the "lower" classes does not necessarily translate into F1.

[OZ_HCR32]

Originally Posted by kart_racer

Yes definitely, its been proven 1000+ times...

More overtaking in karting... its much more competative. 1 second can cover 60 drivers at European level for example.

I just think he has not got the motivation anymore?! Coupled with a poor car he is just not performing. I'm sure he could do more with that car than he currently is.

Terry Fullerton once said ''give me a determined driver over a naturally talented one''

Case in point, Hamilton was very determined to get where he is today (as well as being talented) he has had the funding and has done very well.

Luizzi was stunning in karting, and very good in the junior ranks of single seaters wasn't he.

Just not delivering in F1. Maybe bad management coupled with bad luck leaves him in the car he is in now.... Doubt his F1 career can be saved now!!

But Luizzi was nowhere near DC when they were in the same team and struggled to assert any dominance over Klien when they were fighting for the same seat.

Fast forward a few years and he was nothing special alongside Speed. How many chances did Red Bull need to give him. Against Sutil he didnt look any better, actually came off worse for wear.

Now at HRT, a rookie seems to have more race pace then him and has his general measure in quali.

So he has had his chance at RBR, STR, Force India and now is being used as a measuring stick for new talent in the team at the bottom of the grid.

He just has never got the job done in F1.

[kart_racer]

I agree entirely. I do think It is a shame.

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by kart_racer

Yes definitely, its been proven 1000+ times...

I feel you're missing the crux of Bella's question because although there may have been many instances of Formula 1 drivers having been successful kart drivers (it's almost exclusively the case these days), that doesn't mean it's always been the case. Some drivers, for whatever reason, are better in some machinery than others. It applies to other types of cars (conversely and somewhat oddly, some drivers who didn't show that much promise suddenly excel, given a Formula 1 opportunity). The "if you can drive, you can drive" idea is not always true. Some are more versatile drivers than others.

As you say, Liuzzi was amazing in karting. I see him and Trulli as dead wood in F1 terms now, unfortunately (maybe the term 'dead wood' is a bit harsh and over the top, but it's the one that came to mind). Of those two, Trulli's the most bizarre one to consider like that, because he has done good things in F1. Very rarely has Liuzzi.

Originally Posted by strider

For some reason I've never warmed to Buemi, so I'd keep Alguersuari. Besides, he has all the other attributes that an F1 driver needs these days in spades.

Alguersuari offers good feedback, I understand. He's coming good now in terms of results and he's still young in F1 terms. It demonstrates that F1 teams should have the courage of their convictions when taking on inexperienced youngsters, because with little testing, they need time for their potential to come to the fore.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Some drivers, for whatever reason, are better in some machinery than others. It applies to other types of cars (conversely and somewhat oddly, some drivers who didn't show that much promise suddenly excel, given a Formula 1 opportunity). The "if you can drive, you can drive" idea is not always true. Some are more versatile drivers than others.

Alguersuari offers good feedback, I understand. He's coming good now in terms of results and he's still young in F1 terms. It demonstrates that F1 teams should have the courage of their convictions when taking on inexperienced youngsters, because with little testing, they need time for their potential to come to the fore.

Yes great points, many a time I have been flummoxed by drivers who've been pretty mega in F3 or F3000 and then flunked in F1 and not always because they haven't had a good car. Modena for me is the prime example (why are lots of them Italian?) Sometimes it seems that drivers can't get the right 'seat of the pants' type feel or, they can't concentrate long enough, or they aren't mechanically sympathetic or myriad other reasons.

Moving OT slightly, then there's those who never even get that far! There was one guy about 20 years ago who was the karting sensation of the time and for a few years never even got to race single seaters regularly and when he did it was waay too late to make a career of it? An Italian, Rossi I think his name was?

There was also a brilliant Swede kartist about a decade ago who got as far as German F3 then disappeared from view - I thought he was going to be a mega star but can't remember his name?!!

I agree with you about Jaime re the Red Bull situation, I think he's had a great year in terms of development and learning about the tyres and set up. He admits it's been very hard wok but in some races he's really made substantial progress. I don't think we've seen the best of him yet but there have been serious glimpses.

[kart_racer]

Danilo Rossi, a Superstar of the karting world. A World class racing driver.

I think its combination of lack of budget, relying on talent alone (which will never be enough on its own) and poor management which lets these drivers down so much,

Remember Pantano, another great driver lost.

Originally Posted by chunterer

Yes great points, many a time I have been flummoxed by drivers who've been pretty mega in F3 or F3000 and then flunked in F1 and not always because they haven't had a good car. Modena for me is the prime example (why are lots of them Italian?) Sometimes it seems that drivers can't get the right 'seat of the pants' type feel or, they can't concentrate long enough, or they aren't mechanically sympathetic or myriad other reasons.

Moving OT slightly, then there's those who never even get that far! There was one guy about 20 years ago who was the karting sensation of the time and for a few years never even got to race single seaters regularly and when he did it was waay too late to make a career of it? An Italian, Rossi I think his name was?

There was also a brilliant Swede kartist about a decade ago who got as far as German F3 then disappeared from view - I thought he was going to be a mega star but can't remember his name?!!

I agree with you about Jaime re the Red Bull situation, I think he's had a great year in terms of development and learning about the tyres and set up. He admits it's been very hard wok but in some races he's really made substantial progress. I don't think we've seen the best of him yet but there have been serious glimpses.

[bella]

you keep saying the poor management thing, exactly what do you mean? poor series and team choices?

[Peter Mallett]

Who is this Riciardo? Seems a total ****** in terms of capability, to me.

Actually the problem is that only those who go through the "academy" of whatever the FIA deems is the route to F1 get there. I have not heard of most of the rookies and possibles, simply because I don't have time to watch or read about them. Yet if there was testing and a more diverse selection pool, we'd find ourselves looking at more new drivers with talent rather than dumbing the whole thing down to those with money.

[Marbot]

The ones who don't need the money will go for the talent, and the ones who need the money will have to weigh perceived talent against what the money will bring in terms of lap time to the car.

Generally speaking, if you are short of cash, both drivers will go quicker in a car that's had a few extra million spent on it. It's much easier to make a car that's 4 or 5 seconds off the pace go faster with more cash rather than offering the next Ayrton Senna a drive.

The fundamental problem with the whole thing is that F1 is still too expensive to compete in, so we shouldn't be too surprised if some of the drivers in it are not top notch.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

I think he's doing a really good job from what I've observed (and I have been trying to observe). Consistently running much better than Liuzzi when it matters (in the race).

Ive been thinking about this and i'm not saying he's not doing a good job, but what does this say about Liuzzi that a rookie can come in and do this to him? Could it also go against DR though? A sort of, if Liuzzi's that bad how do we guage how good Ricciardo is?

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Mr V

...if Liuzzi's that bad how do we guage how good Ricciardo is?

As long as Liuzzi is consistent (good or bad) there is a baseline for comparrison.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The ones who don't need the money will go for the talent, and the ones who need the money will have to weigh perceived talent against what the money will bring in terms of lap time to the car....

......The fundamental problem with the whole thing is that F1 is still too expensive to compete in, so we shouldn't be too surprised if some of the drivers in it are not top notch.

Cost is one of the problems and quite frankly restricting testing to the beginning and end of a season means that if your car is wrong at the start of the season you can't actually do much in terms of effective testing to solve and remedy the problems.
Most of the development work is done in simulators etc and the question then is is this cheaper or does real time on a race track make a difference?

(If real testing doesn't make a positive difference then should we reduce F1 to a virtual competition played out over a virtual season on virtual tracks and solve everyone a whole lot of time and money,,,Sorry Bernie and CVC...)

There should be a regular ongoing opportunity to test during the season even if it is done in Moto GP terms and run on the Monday and Tuesday after the GP's or in a series of selected (non F1?) venues across the season.
You would only have to schedule 4 tests a year,probably in Europe because thats where the resources are (examples: Mugello, Jerez, Ricard, Magny Cours, Portimao) and the problem is solved, particularly if it was restricted to non active GP drivers.

Cost is a problem but basically the successful teams are spending a hideous amount of money on minute advances. How you actually close the budget gaps though is almost impossible. Success in F1 has attained a status and value that is probably not healthy for the sport.
The cost of developing a car is also astronomical but a significant part of that is the cost of aerodynamic advancement.
Everything has to be made and tested in real form to actually quantify and evaluate the real advantage of the development. If the value of aerodynamic advantage was reduced by creating opportunity for greater development in other areas then it may reduce the cost for a smaller team to make a significant engineering advance ( rather than against the cost of minute serodynamic advantage). the top teams will still spend but I hypothesizing that the emphasis on aero is actually working against bringing the lesser budgeted teams forward.

[bella]

ok, but how do you manage staff? f1 staff barely have a moments breather as it is, and it would be a considerable expense to hire an extra set of mechanics, engineers etc to look after one car.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bella

ok, but how do you manage staff? f1 staff barely have a moments breather as it is, and it would be a considerable expense to hire an extra set of mechanics, engineers etc to look after one car.

In the 70's and 80's F1 teams had an entire staff of 40-80 people, all up.
Now its 200-400 plus.
Most of those staff are employed on research, production and development.
They are limited to how many they can take to races to something less than 50.

So I cannot see how they cannot provide 20-30 competition, research, and development people to look after a couple of cars for three days, 4 times a year (12 days) and doing the work you are salaried to do on the other 248 working days a year (less your holidays).

Its just not that hard.
What made it so expensive in the 90's and through the last decade was the fact that the big teams ran almost entire two car research and test teams for 30 weeks of the year. (100-180 days of testing).

[bella]

i think it's not that simple. lots of the r&d types you talk about haven't actually touched a racing car. the others may have had a go with a formula student car and not much else. to qualify to be interviewed for a f1 engineer's job you have to have endless amounts of experience in similar roles in the junior formulae. you also lose those employees, so they'd have to be from departments that don't need to be fully staffed to maintain the rate of r&d modern f1 demands.

there's one or two teams that do have almost full time exhibition and demo teams set up like renault and red bull, but on the whole they don't.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Who is this Riciardo? Seems a total ****** in terms of capability, to me.

Actually the problem is that only those who go through the "academy" of whatever the FIA deems is the route to F1 get there. I have not heard of most of the rookies and possibles, simply because I don't have time to watch or read about them. Yet if there was testing and a more diverse selection pool, we'd find ourselves looking at more new drivers with talent rather than dumbing the whole thing down to those with money.

Happy to help you Peter:
http://www.google.com.au/#sclient=ps...w=1366&bih=587

Those google types can help those who cant even spell to overcome their deficencies ...

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by bella

i think it's not that simple. lots of the r&d types you talk about haven't actually touched a racing car. the others may have had a go with a formula student car and not much else. to qualify to be interviewed for a f1 engineer's job you have to have endless amounts of experience in similar roles in the junior formulae. you also lose those employees, so they'd have to be from departments that don't need to be fully staffed to maintain the rate of r&d modern f1 demands.

there's one or two teams that do have almost full time exhibition and demo teams set up like renault and red bull, but on the whole they don't.

Well obviously you wouldn't put pure academics on the staff and ask them to go and bleed the brakes, change the ratios, or replace the leaking fuel bladder....

On the other hand there will be multi-dsciplined people who can handle practical tasks in addition to their academic prowess. Adrian Newey probably does some of his own work on his personal cars and certainly knows whats going on so I don't necessarily buy the idea that all the staff are locked into their professional disciplines.
The teams may need to employ a handful of people as the core group for some of the trackside tasks but thats not a huge additional expense and there would be capable people in various departments at the factories who would bust themselves to get a chance to work trackside for a couple of weeks a year

[OZ_HCR32]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Ive been thinking about this and i'm not saying he's not doing a good job, but what does this say about Liuzzi that a rookie can come in and do this to him? Could it also go against DR though? A sort of, if Liuzzi's that bad how do we guage how good Ricciardo is?

Luizzi has been under the RBR for long enough that the team know exactly what his strengths and weaknesses are and what sort of yardstick he is. He is perfect really as he has some experience in different teams, engineers and cars. And RBR management know him very well.

On the face of things Vettel came in late 2007, did a handful of races and beat Luizzi in the championship with the 4th in China...but remember he crashed into Webber whilst in 3rd the previous GP in Japan. So its not unheard of for a talented rookie to jump in the sister car of Luizzi and put him in the shade

[SilverSpeed]

Liuzzi v Vettel was alot more even than most think actually. Both produced similar results, but Vettel did have the upper hand

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by OZ_HCR32

Luizzi has been under the RBR for long enough that the team know exactly what his strengths and weaknesses are and what sort of yardstick he is. He is perfect really as he has some experience in different teams, engineers and cars. And RBR management know him very well.

Indeed, yet decided to drop him. I'm wasn't being negative about DR before you lot jump down my throat the point i was making was what type of yardstick actually is Liuzzi? There is a reason why his career has gone towards the back of the grid, not the front.

Originally Posted by SilverSpeed

Liuzzi v Vettel was alot more even than most think actually. Both produced similar results, but Vettel did have the upper hand

Liuzzi had a whole season at STR, Vettel only 7 games, yet scored twice the points.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Liuzzi had a whole season at STR, Vettel only 7 games, yet scored twice the points.

Once, actually, with Liuzzi two places behind (4th and 6th). The car improved considerably during the second half of the season but I also feel Liuzzi upped his game quite some when Vettel arrived. About the only time I think we've seen what he can actually do in F1, nowadays I can't imagine he's got much motivation left.