Ponderbox

[yannicksamlad]

I've always wanted the penalty to be equal to what was caused. Chop someone's wing off and they have to pit, that should be a stop/go, taking someone out should be disqualification... this of course when you don't damage yourself at the same time. It might "discourage racing", but there's no way to know without trying it, and other sports have disqualifications for crashing someone and remain exciting. The main problem is that it's too consequentialist, so the same mistake could be anything from 5 seconds to disqualification depending on whether the victim makes an epic save, and if they don't, how much (largely unpredictable) damage they get. ......

For me , the penalty should be for the infraction, not the consequences.
The logic then is that its not considered to be 'causing an avoidable accident ' if it's lap one and cold tyres/chaos etc ( because strictly , all accidents are avoidable if you stay at home, so there has to be some level of 'not being reasonable' in order to be guilty) and it was just a small miscalculation , even if it ends another person's race.
If you werent being reasonable, then yes- its an avoidable accident.

Having decided whether there was a 'crime' , we need to find the penalty. Bottas lost Baku victory on debris from another accident - perhaps an avoidable one. That's at the extreme end, but as UgncreativeUsergname says- it does quickly get a bit random if you look at consequences, rather than the crime. Perez' penalty ( for the Sirotkin sideswipe) should reflect whether the stewards thought the offence was carelessness, or alternatively an offence of deliberate contact/intimidation ( more severe penalties ) , and that should make the difference. The outcome was the same whether Perez 'meant it', or misjudged it .

As for a lack of consistency - if there is a lack of consistency in deciding whether the person caused an avoidable accident, and then also an inconsistency in deciding the penalty for it , yes its an issue. But overall I havent been too upset , with the exception of the Perez/Sirotkin one , which I thought was quite a serious crime ( surely points on the licence if the stewards thought it might be 'intimidation' ) , but maybe the stewards saw only a misjudgment.
Perhaps I am too forgiving of the stewards, so I don't get too worried. And I suppose I do generally think that misjudgments shouldnt be punished ( even if a competitor is damaged and by luck the miscreant can continue) . But I do wonder about giving penalty points on a licence for 'procedural' errors and small errors, since these can add up, and there doesnt seem much consistency in handing these out .

[dr-baker]

And then you have to consider what constitutes a consequence. Assuming this always happened like a fixed point in time:

If Damon Hill had finished the 1994 Adelaide Grand Prix in 5th, that would have given him the title. But but he had finished, and it had been 7th, that contact from Schumacher would have cost Hill the title. But what if he had continued, then a few cars passed him, then brushed the wall, a few more cars passed him, and he finished 7th, costing him the title? Would he have finished 7th because of Schumacher's contact, the subsequent contact with the wall, or a combination? How would you deal with that penalty-wise, where the title was on the line, and your decision would influence not just the individual race result but the whole year's title?

Nah, just easier and less potentially controversial to base punishment on the infraction...

[madmark1974]

According to the BBC, F1 management have signed a sponsorship rights deal for in-play betting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45558975

So, they've got rid of all the tobacco sponsorship, but now have alcohol and betting in its place ....

I guess such things are acceptable in moderation, but opportunities for addiction, debts, etc exist so maybe it's not the best message to be sending out to the public?

[Pacific Edge]

Yeah, it all comes down to personal responsibility. I've been watching F1 since 1994, and have seen numerous tobacco companies plastered all over the cars, and did it make me want to smoke? Nope. I think people have got the message wrong behind this kind of thing, personally I don't think it's a case of "you must smoke/drink/whatever" more like "If you DO do these things, use our product."

[Rob Dylan]

It's a good thing no high-profile figures in the paddock have a history of alcoholism. Nor are any of the institutions in the sport suffering from any forms of debt and long-standing monetary worries.

[Ataxia]

According to the BBC, F1 management have signed a sponsorship rights deal for in-play betting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45558975

So, they've got rid of all the tobacco sponsorship, but now have alcohol and betting in its place ....

I guess such things are acceptable in moderation, but opportunities for addiction, debts, etc exist so maybe it's not the best message to be sending out to the public?

I'll just be waiting for the reintroduction of ad breaks, with Ray Winstone exclaiming "bet in play naaaaaaaahhh" on a regular basis...

[dinizintheoven]

First they came for the tobacco sponsorship, and I did not speak out, because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the alcohol sponsorship, and I did not speak out, because I was not a drinker. (Although I am, it's just unlikely to be any of the sponsors' products.)
Then they came for the gambling sponsorship, and I did not speak out, because I was not a gambler.
Then they came for the vaping sponsorship, and I did not speak out, because I was not a hipster.
Then they came for motor racing itself...

I have to dig out the article that outright states this has been the World Health Organisation's grand plan all along.

[AdrianBelmonte_]

Damn, i wish Andrea Moda was still around to see them proudly carrying some sponsorship from a brothel or a sex shop, or even an online porn site

[Nessafox]

Damn, i wish Andrea Moda was still around to see them proudly carrying some sponsorship from a brothel or a sex shop, or even an online porn site

Where's Robert Doornbos when you need him...

[dr-baker]

This conversation takes me back to the 1970s!

[CarloSpace]

Regarding the discussion; Markus Pommer is leading the ADAC GT Masters this year but unfortunately it isn't enough for Super license points

This is him a couple of years back:

[good_Ralf]

Happy 50th, Mika! Surely one of the best personalities (not to mention drivers) in F1's history? I certainly think so.

[AdrianBelmonte_]

I just can't wait to his comeback!

[Faustus]

How much more of the Toro Rosso nonsense is Red Bull prepared to put up with? This is a result of there no being no consequences to the actions and / or inactions of Toro Rosso. There is zero pressure on the team to succeed or fail.
I continue to be surprised at how long Red Bull has held on to Toro Rosso and not tried to sell off the team.

[Spectoremg]

Is anyone else doubting Vettel's credentials? He's been diddling around at Ferrari now for four years without much success and not exactly blowing his team mate away.

[Rob Dylan]

Yeah, it is quite difficult to really rate these successful drivers in the last decade. I don't know if it has always been like this (I'm a young pup), but their quality really depends on how you rate their teammates. For example, lots of people very much underrated Rosberg during his Mercedes stint, though if he was bad, he was good enough to beat a then-three time world champion.

Vettel is the same, I think. Do you rate him highly for consistently beating a world champion teammate, or do you see Kimi as being past it, and that beating him is hardly a token of great success? I rate Kimi quite lowly, and Rosberg quite highly, so I guess by that token I rate Hamilton as a better driver than Vettel. But at the same time I don't feel like either driver is magically brilliant the way I often think of other drivers (from this decade, especially Alonso and Ricciardo) at their best.

But yeah, Vettel certainly handed Lewis the title this year. The Ferrari hasn't been the best, though in comparison with other years it's absolutely brilliant he hasn't produced the magic Ferrari season the way Schumacher did in the late 90s, or the way Alonso did in the early 10s. If / when he does that, then we'll see if Vettel is worth his credentials.

[Aislabie]

Yeah, it is quite difficult to really rate these successful drivers in the last decade. I don't know if it has always been like this (I'm a young pup), but their quality really depends on how you rate their teammates. For example, lots of people very much underrated Rosberg during his Mercedes stint, though if he was bad, he was good enough to beat a then-three time world champion.

I guess the clearest argument of it not always being like this is Nigel Mansell. He was paired with a whole bunch of different drivers, most of them very good. He was also beaten by most of them, but in Britain at least he's overrated as some sort of moustachioed racing god, far greater than his one World Championship. I'll admit I don't know where I'm going with this point anymore.

But I guess that's always been kinda the case with Formula One. Because it's always been a constructors' series before it's a drivers' series (for instance, Fangio would never have won a title driving a Talbot-Lago), it is remarkably difficult to rate drivers independently to the cars they're driving. Mathematical models that try to do so are also fraught with difficulty and will tend to throw some slightly unexpected drivers to the top like Elio de Angelis, Christian Fittipaldi and James Hunt. People baulk because it feels wrong.

Which I guess brings us back to how we rate present drivers. It's almost impossible, especially with the F1.5 gulf that's opened up like the difference between LMP1 and LMP2.

Of the LMP1 drivers, I'd be inclined to rate them in roughly the following order:

1. Lewis Hamilton
2. Max Verstappen
3. Sebastian Vettel
4. Daniel Ricciardo
5. Kimi Raikkonen
6. Valtteri Bottas

Of the LMP2 drivers, I'd highlight Alonso, Leclerc, Gasly and Hulkenberg as the stand-outs. But it's impossible to be completely objective and not just trust what I've been told a little bit - maybe they're benefitting from teammates who are a little bit off the pace

[UncreativeUsername37]

he hasn't produced the magic Ferrari season the way Schumacher did in the late 90s, or the way Alonso did in the early 10s. If / when he does that, then we'll see if Vettel is worth his credentials.

He did in 2015....

The evidence we have, and by evidence I mean complicated mathematical teammate comparison webs, says Vettel is a top-tier driver. If something about a model's results "feels wrong" but you can't find any flaw in the methodology, it's just revealing your biases. It's of course true that he hasn't beaten any teammates who had a champion's reputation at the time, so everything is a bit too indirect for some people, but once you step into that, you'll just be working with feelings since there's nothing to actually look at. Yes, I know that's the problem. No one is saying he's definitely horrible (unless they got into the 2011-14 Vettel hatred and still haven't recovered), it's just doubt.

As for deserving championships, you can't deny him 2011, 2013 is probably still better than most champions' campaigns, and in 2015 he actually was the best driver. It is true that in 2010 and '12 it shouldn't've been so close, and those years have a feeling of the wrong guy winning. But he certainly doesn't deserve zero championships.

[Rob Dylan]

Please don't think I was implying that Vettel doesn't deserve his championships. I mean, he won them fair and square, you can't take that away from him. I guess from myself I've never rated Vettel's '15 season as a classic. It was a decent stint, though for me it was helped a huge amount from the fact that Ferrari had little competition on the same level as they were. It was very easy, even on a bad race, for the Ferraris to finish 3rd and 4th behind the Mercedes, and while I accept that Sebastian did well to keep up with the front-runners, and even be ahead of Rosberg much of the time, the running order since 2014 has been very difficult to rate for me, as the front-runners have so few real rivals in their positions.

I guess that's why I rate Alonso's 2012 so highly - there was a huge amount of competition that season, and the Ferrari was not guaranteed a podium on a bad day, the way the second team has in the last few seasons. While beating Massa was not a great feat, almost winning that season certainly was.

[mario]

Yeah, it is quite difficult to really rate these successful drivers in the last decade. I don't know if it has always been like this (I'm a young pup), but their quality really depends on how you rate their teammates. For example, lots of people very much underrated Rosberg during his Mercedes stint, though if he was bad, he was good enough to beat a then-three time world champion.

I guess the clearest argument of it not always being like this is Nigel Mansell. He was paired with a whole bunch of different drivers, most of them very good. He was also beaten by most of them, but in Britain at least he's overrated as some sort of moustachioed racing god, far greater than his one World Championship. I'll admit I don't know where I'm going with this point anymore.

Is Nigel Mansell still held up as such a great driver these days in the UK? There was the "Mansell mania" of the 1990s, but it feels like that has not really endured - it's now more than 25 years since he won that title in 1992, so there will be an entire generation that has grown up that will never have seen Mansell race and probably only recognise him from occasional remarks that somebody like Clarkson might make on his shows.

he hasn't produced the magic Ferrari season the way Schumacher did in the late 90s, or the way Alonso did in the early 10s. If / when he does that, then we'll see if Vettel is worth his credentials.

He did in 2015....

The evidence we have, and by evidence I mean complicated mathematical teammate comparison webs, says Vettel is a top-tier driver. If something about a model's results "feels wrong" but you can't find any flaw in the methodology, it's just revealing your biases. It's of course true that he hasn't beaten any teammates who had a champion's reputation at the time, so everything is a bit too indirect for some people, but once you step into that, you'll just be working with feelings since there's nothing to actually look at. Yes, I know that's the problem. No one is saying he's definitely horrible (unless they got into the 2011-14 Vettel hatred and still haven't recovered), it's just doubt.

As for deserving championships, you can't deny him 2011, 2013 is probably still better than most champions' campaigns, and in 2015 he actually was the best driver. It is true that in 2010 and '12 it shouldn't've been so close, and those years have a feeling of the wrong guy winning. But he certainly doesn't deserve zero championships.

I suppose that the issue with that sort of mathematical modelling is that the algorithm that is used to rank drivers is still written by a person, or group of people, and will end up reflecting the biases and approximations that they have brought to the modelling exercise.

The methodology may follow a logical process, but there are many elements within that process where there are arguments over what should be accounted for or how you attempt to assign a value to them. How exactly do you evaluate, for example, the effects of team bias towards a driver? It doesn't necessarily have to be an explicit "No.1" and "No.2" driver system either - there have been teams that have not run such a system, but at the same time you question whether the other driver is on truly equal terms with his team mate.

Equally, there is a question of how much of a detailed technical evaluation you can apply to the model to account for the relative strengths and weaknesses of the cars and teams of the time. It seems, quite often, that it is bound up in a rough weighting of where that team finished in the WCC, but it is sometimes difficult to tell whether that is the correct approach to take.

In 1983, for example, Nelson Piquet won the WDC and Prost came second, but their respective manufacturers came third and second in the WCC, with Ferrari coming first. However, within that, there is the fact that the team mates to Piquet and Prost - Patrese and Cheever respectively - scored significantly fewer points than their team mates, whilst Ferrari's two drivers (Arnoux and Tambay) were much more even in terms of performance.

At the same time, Patrese suffered from horrendous unreliability that season - he broke down in two thirds of the races that season - whilst Cheever retired from eight races (he was classified as finishing at Long Beach in 1983, but he broke down five laps from the end). Both of them had significantly worse reliability than their team mates, as well as worse reliability than the two Ferrari drivers.

How exactly do you weight the impact of the relative competitiveness of the cars and of the drivers in that scenario? Was the success of Arnoux and Tambay - and let us not forget that, with two races to go, Arnoux was a major threat in the WDC battle and Tambay was still just about in the fight as well - a reflection of how competitive Ferrari were? Was it a reflection of how competitive Arnoux and Tambay were? Was it a reflection of how many problems had beset their rivals, particularly the second drivers at Renault and Brabham, and therefore the teams were unrepresentatively low in the WCC at the end of the season?

[UncreativeUsername37]

Oh yes, all the models have problems. No one has found the perfect way to account for unequal mechanical luck (if there is one), and how you rate the results that did happen—what points system do you use or whatever—instantly makes your opinion of how much winning versus consistency should be valued, how much winning something like 1996 Monaco really means, and much more, inevitably the model reflects your personal preferences on that because there's no objective way to make that kind of choice. So then whether it's your model or not, you have to interpret the results, and we're all back where we started (sort of). Mainly what those kinds of models are good for is 1) bringing up drivers you just never thought about because they never got a chance to be in a frontrunning car for a long time or at all and 2) exposing any ultra-strong "biases of passion" (most prominently Senna, but also Gilles Villeneuve, Mansell, Vettel, whatever). But at least with complex mathematical comparison webs, you can find specific biases and slowly improve the model, unlike humans, where everything is hidden....

But I'll say that disclaimer again: you're right that they're made by humans and so will be biased in some way. And there are questions with no right answer anyway. So everything has to be interpreted, and it's subjective again. Whether you're trying to compare drivers of the same or different eras, there are assumptions and judgment calls to be made with far-reaching implications....

[Bobby Doorknobs]

On the issue of mathematical models, I've never seen one (and it would be an impossible task anyway) that takes into account the fact that machinery is not always equal even for two drivers in the same team, and it was often exacerbated further in the days of teams entering three or four cars in each race. When your resources are being spread so thin, favouring one or two cars would often leave the drivers of the other cars with no hope of catching up.

Colin Chapman was probably the worst for this as well. While you can often expect a sizeable gap in performance between the likes of, say, Fernando Alonso and Nelsinho Piquet, the difference between Lotus teammates - especially when one of them was looking like a title contender - was often so large that one driver not being as good as the other just doesn't provide a satisfactory explanation, but in reality it was simply down to one driver being the primary focus for the season.

Because of this, drivers like Dave Walker and Mike Spence probably look a lot worse than they really were: I don't think it's a stretch to say that Walker could have been finishing just inside the top six (podiums and wins are of course a different matter) on the regular if Lotus hadn't diverted its full attention to Fittipaldi's car mid-season.

It's impossible to judge a driver based solely on qualifying and race result tables. I remember someone a while back discussing Jacques Laffite's time at Williams, and how weak he appeared to be on track in comparison to Rosberg. To illustrate how 'poor' he was his two consecutive failures to qualify the FW08C at Monza and Brands Hatch were brought up. Now, if you look at the qualifying results from these races you'll see that Laffite did manage to set times in both sessions each weekend, so surely it was all down to him? Not necessarily: at Monza he had been running ill-suited experimental Goodyears all weekend, while at Brands his engine gave up with no spare available, hence no opportunity to improve his lap time.

While this does little to change the fact that Laffite was rarely ahead of Rosberg, these two races make things look worse than they actually were. And, as with the Lotus examples, the question of driver preference, and the extent of said preference, must be asked.

[ibsey]

And then you have to consider what constitutes a consequence. Assuming this always happened like a fixed point in time:

If Damon Hill had finished the 1994 Adelaide Grand Prix in 5th, that would have given him the title. But but he had finished, and it had been 7th, that contact from Schumacher would have cost Hill the title. But what if he had continued, then a few cars passed him, then brushed the wall, a few more cars passed him, and he finished 7th, costing him the title? Would he have finished 7th because of Schumacher's contact, the subsequent contact with the wall, or a combination? How would you deal with that penalty-wise, where the title was on the line, and your decision would influence not just the individual race result but the whole year's title?

Nah, just easier and less potentially controversial to base punishment on the infraction...

Loved Schumacher's exuse afterwards..."it was a racing incident." Sure it was, and it just so happens you were looking in your mirrors for where Damon was

[dr-baker]

And then you have to consider what constitutes a consequence. Assuming this always happened like a fixed point in time:

If Damon Hill had finished the 1994 Adelaide Grand Prix in 5th, that would have given him the title. But but he had finished, and it had been 7th, that contact from Schumacher would have cost Hill the title. But what if he had continued, then a few cars passed him, then brushed the wall, a few more cars passed him, and he finished 7th, costing him the title? Would he have finished 7th because of Schumacher's contact, the subsequent contact with the wall, or a combination? How would you deal with that penalty-wise, where the title was on the line, and your decision would influence not just the individual race result but the whole year's title?

Nah, just easier and less potentially controversial to base punishment on the infraction...

Loved Schumacher's exuse afterwards..."it was a racing incident." Sure it was, and it just so happens you were looking in your mirrors for where Damon was

To be fair, if you look a lot to the right, you will find that the car will seem to start drifting that way too, particularly if you are a learner driver...

[Spectoremg]

Here's a massive 20/20 hindsight vision ponder - just the way you like it:
I watched the Senna movie again at the weekend; how would he have fared in subsequent years if he'd stayed at McLaren for the rest of his presumably long career?

[Gertrand Bachot]

Not that related to F1, but the 2003 International F3000 season has to have the worst driver lineup in any second-tier feeder series' existence. It really says something about the quality of the field when Gary Paffett - who only did one race, finished 14th and placed second-bottom in the championship - was the most accomplished driver that year.

[yannicksamlad]

Here's a massive 20/20 hindsight vision ponder - just the way you like it:
I watched the Senna movie again at the weekend; how would he have fared in subsequent years if he'd stayed at McLaren for the rest of his presumably long career?

Wow that's a big 'if'! Surely he'd have left McLaren by the end of 96... But if not, then I'd assume he'd have picked up those Hakkinen titles in 98 and 99 ( I'd give Senna the edge over Mika- although would Mika have gone to Williams by then ?) , and maybe also a title in 2000. But really I'm not too sure Senna would have stayed too long. Something would have drawn him away. So maybe he quits McLaren after 99. 5 titles.

[dr-baker]

. So maybe he quits McLaren after 99. 5 titles.

Quitting after ninety nine and a half titles would be an impressive and somewhat improbable record...

[Salamander]

Here's a massive 20/20 hindsight vision ponder - just the way you like it:
I watched the Senna movie again at the weekend; how would he have fared in subsequent years if he'd stayed at McLaren for the rest of his presumably long career?

It's worth pointing out that if Senna doesn't go to Williams, Prost would stay for at least 1994, and maybe a couple seasons beyond that. I think it's fair to say that Prost likely would've won 1994, as well as 1996 and 1997 if he hangs around that long. There were rumours of him returning to McLaren for 1996, so it's not out of the question at all for him to be a 7-time World Champion in this reality.

[CarloSpace]

Here's a massive 20/20 hindsight vision ponder - just the way you like it:
I watched the Senna movie again at the weekend; how would he have fared in subsequent years if he'd stayed at McLaren for the rest of his presumably long career?

It's worth pointing out that if Senna doesn't go to Williams, Prost would stay for at least 1994, and maybe a couple seasons beyond that. I think it's fair to say that Prost likely would've won 1994, as well as 1996 and 1997 if he hangs around that long. There were rumours of him returning to McLaren for 1996, so it's not out of the question at all for him to be a 7-time World Champion in this reality.

Wasn't Prost interested in running a team already in the early 90's? Assuming he raced for Williams in 1994 and perhaps staying for 1995 and 1996, would he drive ofr his own team once he finally managed to buy Ligier in 1997 or would that be good moment to retire? I personally doubt Prost would have continued far in to his 40's no matter how competitive he was, especially if he bought a team while still being an active driver.

[yannicksamlad]

Quitting after ninety nine and a half titles would be an impressive and somewhat improbable record...

You got me there ! ( can I explain away by referring to time apparently passing at different rates depending on your relative position in space-time, or shall I own up to lazy typing?)

[dr-baker]

( can I explain away by referring to time apparently passing at different rates depending on your relative position in space-time, or shall I own up to lazy typing?)

Sounds quite Doctor Who-esque, so it works for me!

[Faustus]

Not that related to F1, but the 2003 International F3000 season has to have the worst driver lineup in any second-tier feeder series' existence. It really says something about the quality of the field when Gary Paffett - who only did one race, finished 14th and placed second-bottom in the championship - was the most accomplished driver that year.

That was a terrible year for F3000. Boring cars, bad racing and so many shite drivers.

[Nessafox]

Not that related to F1, but the 2003 International F3000 season has to have the worst driver lineup in any second-tier feeder series' existence. It really says something about the quality of the field when Gary Paffett - who only did one race, finished 14th and placed second-bottom in the championship - was the most accomplished driver that year.

That was a terrible year for F3000. Boring cars, bad racing and so many shite drivers.

I'd say 2004 was equally bad with both Coloni and Durango having to run 2 teams to get enough cars on the grid.

[FortiWinks]

On the Senna thing I remember reading somewhere (might have even been on this forum) that Schumacher’s first contract he signed was intended for Ayrton before he died so maybe he would’ve gone there?

Schumacher would then see out the end of his contract at Benetton before joining McLaren in ‘97 in a straight swap with Hakkinen (Mika had signed a pre-contract with Benetton in case Mercedes decided to place Greg Moore at McLaren) which obviously leads to the ultimate conclusion of you’ll never be able to erase MSC’s dominance in F1 during that time

[mario]

On the Senna thing I remember reading somewhere (might have even been on this forum) that Schumacher’s first contract he signed was intended for Ayrton before he died so maybe he would’ve gone there?

Schumacher would then see out the end of his contract at Benetton before joining McLaren in ‘97 in a straight swap with Hakkinen (Mika had signed a pre-contract with Benetton in case Mercedes decided to place Greg Moore at McLaren) which obviously leads to the ultimate conclusion of you’ll never be able to erase MSC’s dominance in F1 during that time

The state of negotiations between Ferrari and Senna do seem to have ebbed and flowed, so it is difficult to say what exactly might have happened.

It seems that Ferrari did make an offer in 1992 whilst Senna was hesitating over whether or not to renew his contract with McLaren, although it seems that, after chatting it over with Lauda, he eventually turned it down.

Todt has then indicated that there were further discussions between Ferrari and Senna in 1993, with Senna seemingly being the one forcing the pace by asking Todt to sack either Berger or Alesi - and, when Todt said that Ferrari intended to honour their contracts with both drivers and refused his demands, promptly told Todt that "in Formula 1, contracts have no value".

However, it seems that, when Todt tried going back to Senna in late 1993 with an offer to move to Ferrari in 1995, Senna turned that offer down as he was finally getting his chance to drive at Williams. Now, it is possible that the terms of what Ferrari offered to him in 1993 were similar to what Ferrari offered Schumacher in later years, but it's not entirely clear if that is the case.

By 1994, the situation seems to have changed according to Luca di Montezemolo, as it seems that, being dissatisfied with the FW16 and seeing how Ferrari's seemed to have regained some of their competitiveness with the 412T1, Senna did re-enter negotiations with Ferrari over possibly signing with them in the future.

However, from what Luca has said, it seems that the talks might not have been advanced enough for a final offer to have been made - it seems that the last meeting, which was a few days before the fateful San Marino GP, was about his break clause with Williams, but it seems that they might not have got as far as a contract offer.

Now, whilst it does seem that his discussions with Ferrari were rather earnest and sincere, and whilst it is true that there do seem to be those who suggested that Senna had intended to spend his final years at Ferrari, the way that he negotiated with Ferrari in 1993 does show a more opportunistic streak to him.

It is possible that it would have depended on when exactly the contract might have been put to Senna - if it was early in the season, at a time when Williams were still struggling to get on top of the FW16 and he seemed ill at ease with the car, then it is quite possible that he might well have decided to go to Ferrari. However, if the offer was made later in the season, it is possible that Senna might have rejected it and stuck with Williams if the B spec version of the FW16 was much more to his liking.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

How does a driver "outperform" the car he's driving? How does he take the car to "places it has no right to be"? Is it just hyperbole, or do people genuinely believe there's a certain performance level for a car that only a world champion-calibre driver can rise above? Are we doing a disservice to the designers and engineers by making these sorts of claims? Should this cliché be laid to rest?

Was the Ferrari F2012 really such a bad car, or was it a really good car that needed a great driver to win? Can the same be said of, say, the Benetton B194 or even the Williams FW11?

[Rob Dylan]

Interesting question.

Outperforming is usually an exaggeration, because the driver is in fact getting as much as could be got out of the car. When people talk about Schumacher and Hill in '95 for example, people say Hill had a better car and that Schumacher outdrove his machinery. Same goes for the first few Ferrari chassis he had. But yeah, they really should be saying that, whilst Hill wasn't putting in his A-game, throwing away opportunities, and not living up to the potential of the car, Schumacher on the other hand was extracting anything he could to get the best result.

But yeah I agree, the wording is a bit dodgy. When it comes to Alonso in the 2012 Ferrari, I would say the car wasn't great. But due to the inconsistencies of the other chassis, teams and drivers, it was Alonso's consistency and sheer force of will that kept him getting podiums whilst Button was going from a winning weekend to a pointless weekend. So to say he "outperformed" the car, hmm, well, yeah, I guess it's not too outrageous a claim to make. He kept a mediocre car consistently near the front when others could. He was getting the maximum amount out of it, rather than getting more than was possible.

I think it's just a similar phrase to "giving 110%". It doesn't make any sense, but you get what someone means when they say it.


EDIT: p.s. and an addition to the 2012 comments, whilst Vettel was only extracting the maximum from his car when the car was set up perfectly, on his down days he was stuck outside of the podium and having off-weekends like in Barcelona. Jenoch said in their post-season review that it seemed Sebastian was walking a little too easily into those victories whilst Alonso had really had to drive the wheels off the car most weekends to stay in contention.

[Nessafox]

When we think of outdriving a car, we think of Moreno qualifying the Andrea Moda. Performances that seem to be going against all odds. It doesnt mean that that car was inherently incapable of performing, it was that the odds were really small that that potential would ever come to fruition. Now if a car is truly rubbish (like the Life), not even Senna could have done something useful with that thing. Some cars just aren't outdriveable.

[dinizintheoven]

Life is an extreme example, but - if we assume that the most talented drivers of the last decade (no arguments here) have been Lewis Hamilton, Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel and Max Verstappen, could any of those four at the peak of their powers (so Alonso/Vettel circa 2010-13 and the other two closer to the present) have come close to scoring a point for Caterham, Virgin/Marussia/Manor or HRT in the three seasons they all competed, without the kind of outrageous good fortune that saw Jules Bianchi score at Monaco in 2014? Never mind that they'd most likely all have thrown the toys far from the pram if they'd had to drive any of those cars, could their level of talent have overcome those cars' miserable performance?

I'm sure someone will mention Daniel Ricciardo doing very little with the 2011 HRT, but he was a raw rookie at the time.