planetf1.com

Ill be totally honest, ever since I was a kid up until a few years ago (Im in my 40s) I always believed that the very best driver in the world was the current F1 champion. It wasn't until I started to use some critical thinking skills before I started to realize that in F1 the "formula" is to make the absolute best car, from scratch, and that the series is MUCH more about the Constructors championship than it is about showcasing and proving who is the best driver. Over the past several years, as I have been into karting is when I really started to become much more cynical about the facade that is the drivers results in Formula 1 and basing your own opinion/conclusion on the order and the amount of points the F1 drivers end with.

In other words, there were times last year where Fernando was lapping almost 3 seconds slower than Vettel. Do we really believe that Fernando is 3 seconds slower than Vettel? If not, then the whole thing is almost a sham. This isn't to say that someone like Hamilton isn't a good or one of the best open wheel drivers in the world right now, but this also indicates that he might be or he might not, and if he is, just how much better is he?

My personal opinion, outside of a few "pay to play" drivers, pretty much everyone on the F1 grid is within .5 seconds of the leader. (again, taking out the slowest few outliers that are in due to huge sponsor money). Its just too bad that we don't get to see it on track. I am a huge F1 fan, but now I watch it more to see if anyone can crack the top 2 than really believing that the F1 champion is really the absolute best driver. Again, he might be or might not be, we just dont know for sure. Anyone with any science background of the 5th grade and understanding variables, etc.... would have to admit that.

I guess the argument could be made that the reason certain drivers are in certain seats is because they are "the best" so the best team hires them to maximize the "best" car. I am not sure that it is that simple.

That being said, in some ways it has made me appreciate Indycar that much more. Not the tech of the cars, as they are clearly inferior to F1. Thats not the point of indycar. The point is to see who the best driver in the series is. Yes, there are differences between the big indycar teams and the small ones (as Fernando is about to find out). BUT the differences are much less. The fact that many races the difference between 23 cars in indycar is within 1.0 seconds, displays that.

The problem is that many formula 1 elitist (especially in europe) look down on indycar, simply because it is a spec series (relatively speaking). I am actually OK with it being a spec series since it gives us much better racing and better idea who is really fast and who isn't (look at Wickens last year, look at Herta and O'ward this year). The problem is that they look at a guy like Rossi and say, "see, he was in F1 and was a failure, yet he won the indy500", then they also use Sato as another example, etc, etc... My reply to that would be, "did Rossi really get a fair shot at F1? and are you really convinced that he isn't as good as 70% of the F1 drivers? in reply to Sato, yes he has like 3 wins in how many years in indycar? He isn't exactly dominating indycar. And neither is Ericsson, neither did Gutierrez, and the list goes on. The other example that is always used is taking an indycar champion and throwing them in an F1 car and expecting them to do well in a crap F1 car. Zanardi, Andretti, Bourdias, etc. But remember, these guys rarely got to spend significant time at a top team, doing extensive testing and then let out to race. This is another reason I was really hoping Fernando was going to go to Andretti racing and compete in several races this year. Its really ashamed that it isn't going to happen.

So for those that are big indycar and F1 fans, what drivers in indycar would you think could at least be mid pack or better in F1 in the right situation and if size didn't matter (size will probably make it so Newgarden, Rahal and others could never dream of racing in F1).

Heres my list of a few:
Rossi
Herta
Dixon
Newgarden
Power
RHR
O'ward
and maybe Rosenqvist

I had a WTF moment when I saw you list Andretti before I realized that I forgot about Michael's stint with McLaren.

As a whole I agree with you as far as the self importance of many F1 fans goes. The FIA have a better ladder system for F1 and I think on balance the average driver is better in that series than in Indy (although they’ve been working on their lower series)

I think the top guys in F1 really are the best open wheel racers. The likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Verstappen, and now also probably Leclerc have been successful in every racing series they participated in, and of course they are top material in F1 as well. The best drivers end up in the best cars more often than not, which makes it really lopsided for anyone to compete with them. Racing is not about fairness though, it's about winning.

I do think that Indycar has a respectable driver line-up and the series has really grown over the past decade. They gradually shifted from running mostly ovals to now running mostly street circuits and road courses, which was a good move in my opinion.

SmoothRide wrote:I think the top guys in F1 really are the best open wheel racers. The likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Verstappen, and now also probably Leclerc have been successful in every racing series they participated in, and of course they are top material in F1 as well. The best drivers end up in the best cars more often than not, which makes it really lopsided for anyone to compete with them. Racing is not about fairness though, it's about winning.

I do think that Indycar has a respectable driver line-up and the series has really grown over the past decade. They gradually shifted from running mostly ovals to now running mostly street circuits and road courses, which was a good move in my opinion.

Can we be sure that drivers are indeed a tier above the top Indy Car drivers. I am not convinced. Just because they have been successful in F1 and it's feeder series does not mean that they are better, only that they have focused on a different path. Many Indy Car drivers have been successful in that different racing series they have competed in as well.I

While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars. Both series have their strengths, and some of them might even translate well to the other series...and some would not.

Sometimes we get caught up in th F1 experience and hype and can't see the forest beyond the trees.

Blake wrote: Can we be sure that drivers are indeed a tier above the top Indy Car drivers. I am not convinced. Just because they have been successful in F1 and it's feeder series does not mean that they are better, only that they have focused on a different path. Many Indy Car drivers have been successful in that different racing series they have competed in as well.I

While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars. Both series have their strengths, and some of them might even translate well to the other series...and some would not.

Sometimes we get caught up in th F1 experience and hype and can't see the forest beyond the trees.

It's obviously debatable, but I am not sure whether any of the Indycar drivers had as much success in the feeder series as the top F1 guys. The fact that the F1 guys were successful everywhere they turned up is the biggest argument for me that they are indeed the best. We have seen Alonso do a fantastic job racing in the Indy 500. He looked like a seasoned veteran on an oval, which is not an easy thing to do if your entire experience is on road courses.

SmoothRide wrote:

Blake wrote: Can we be sure that drivers are indeed a tier above the top Indy Car drivers. I am not convinced. Just because they have been successful in F1 and it's feeder series does not mean that they are better, only that they have focused on a different path. Many Indy Car drivers have been successful in that different racing series they have competed in as well.I

While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars. Both series have their strengths, and some of them might even translate well to the other series...and some would not.

Sometimes we get caught up in th F1 experience and hype and can't see the forest beyond the trees.

It's obviously debatable, but I am not sure whether any of the Indycar drivers had as much success in the feeder series as the top F1 guys. The fact that the F1 guys were successful everywhere they turned up is the biggest argument for me that they are indeed the best. We have seen Alonso do a fantastic job racing in the Indy 500. He looked like a seasoned veteran on an oval, which is not an easy thing to do if your entire experience is on road courses.

We have also seen Alonso do a fantastic job racing in F1 as well, so can it not be that Alonso is an exceptional driver, something I had already stated. If your biggest argument is that some of the F1 guys were "successful everywhere they turned uo", do you not think that the Indy drivers got their rides because they were successful before Indy too? Just because they didn'\t race F2 and the like, doesn't mean they did not work their way up or have driving success. Indy lights, Outlaws, Nascar, off-road, dirt tracks, karts as well as some developmental open wheel series have all been jumping stones to the next levels. Just as the F1 drivers. Please don't think that only the F1 feeder series can make good drivers.

I suspect I am going to be wishing I had made copies of previous discussions on the superiority of the F1 driver over the rest of the world of motorsports...as I have no doubt I could save myself a lot of time with my old posts if I had.

Blake wrote: We have also seen Alonso do a fantastic job racing in F1 as well, so can it not be that Alonso is an exceptional driver, something I had already stated.

Sorry, I am confused. Did I in any way imply that Alonso is not a great driver, period? I simply pointed out that he was able to transition not just to Indycar, but to racing on an oval, which requires a very specific skill set. When Juan Pablo Montoya left F1 and joined Nascar, it was a litmus test of sorts as to how well could a driver adapt to a very different racing environment. Right from the start, Montoya was a menace on the few road courses that Nascar races on, and all of his wins in stock cars came on those tracks. It's not like he was hopeless on ovals, he did a respectable job and with a little luck could have won more races, but it was clear that racing against oval specialists is a difficult proposition. Many other open wheel converts also experienced a very steep learning curve and most of them failed to adapt. Alonso has already shown that he would be in contention for the championship in his very first season should he run a full schedule.

Blake wrote: If your biggest argument is that some of the F1 guys were "successful everywhere they turned uo", do you not think that the Indy drivers got their rides because they were successful before Indy too? Just because they didn'\t race F2 and the like, doesn't mean they did not work their way up or have driving success. Indy lights, Outlaws, Nascar, off-road, dirt tracks, karts as well as some developmental open wheel series have all been jumping stones to the next levels. Just as the F1 drivers. Please don't think that only the F1 feeder series can make good drivers.

They were successful, but generally they don't have the stellar record of somebody like Hamilton. If you look at feeder series results of guys like Dixon or Power, arguably the most talented in the Indycar roster, they fall a bit short. Dixon had a test with a Formula 1 team at some point, and while he did a respectable job, he did not light the world on fire and was not offered a ride.

Blake wrote: I suspect I am going to be wishing I had made copies of previous discussions on the superiority of the F1 driver over the rest of the world of motorsports...as I have no doubt I could save myself a lot of time with my old posts if I had.

The one driver that I think could compete with the best of Formula 1 at the present time is Kyle Busch. In the past there were a few others like Jeff Gordon and Tony Stewart.

I am struggling to grasp something from the OP really; F1 was always the car+driver combo. Always was, similar to WRC. It is not a spec series that we can find who the fastest driver is.

So where is the confusion?

Blake wrote:
While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars.

I think a chap named Mansell might have a word or 2 to say about that.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Blake wrote:
While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars.

I think a chap named Mansell might have a word or 2 to say about that.

Nigel barely makes it inside Blake’s 30 year statement.

RaggedMan wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Blake wrote:
While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars.

I think a chap named Mansell might have a word or 2 to say about that.

Nigel barely makes it inside Blake’s 30 year statement.

His major success in F1 and IndyCar were both in the last 30 year's.

I'll expand on that a bit, because the question deserves more than a one line response.

Im pretty certain that the top guys in Indycar could absolutely 'do a job' in F1. Out of the current field, I look at probably Dixon as the standout candidate who could probably have been involved at the very sharp end of the grid. After that, perhaps Power speed wise (I was tempted to call him inconsistent, but the way the Indycar races are policed, you really are in the lap of the gods in some races) and maybe JoNew after that, although he was another one who didnt exactly make a big splash in the junior formulae.

Some of the more recent direct comparisons don't make for the best reading if you are trying to advocate parity between the skill levels of the drivers though. Bourdais, while these days definitely on the way down rather than up, was bested by a rookie Vettel on the back of 4 straight titles in CART. Rossi, who has looked a world beater in Indycar didn't exactly pull up any trees (in an admittedly terrible Manor, though a terrible car didnt exactly hold Alonso back) in his time in F1. Going back a bit further, you could make a decent argument about Montoya, although he ultimately fell short (talent probably not in question, perhaps attitude?). JV looked the part in the Williams, though was ultimately beaten by Hill the first time round and then taken pretty much all the way by Schumacher in an inferior car in 97. Other fairly big hitters like Zonta and Zanardi only did OK in F1...

...I don't think it's a huge stretch to suggest that the best of the best in F1 are probably a level above the best of the best in Indycar, but honestly, who really gives a **** anyway? Indycar has been fun to watch this year, and i'll always enjoy F1 even though they are vastly different.

Would pay some fairly decent money to watch Hamilton have a go in this years (Indy)car mind, I reckon its the kind of twitchy oversteery car he would absolutely excel in.

Back when I watched Champcar, I was convinced Sebastian Bourdais could easily take on any F1 driver. But when he finally made it over to F1, he was easily outclassed by his team mates.

I also saw average F1 drivers such as Sato and Doornbos become regular race-winners.

At the time, in my mind, any F1 driver was much better than any Champcar driver. It may be different nowadays though.

StanB123 wrote:I also saw average F1 drivers such as Sato and Doornbos become regular race-winners.

Sato has won 3 races over the course of 9 years in IndyCar. While I like him, he's far from a regular race winner. Doornbos was decent in his Champcar season, but no so much in IndyCar.

I'm inclined to say - given the very low rate of success for drivers who transit in either direction - that the gap in skill between the grids is not enormous, and success in either series has more to do with familiarity and preparation than inherent skill. I do feel that the very best of F1 - the likes of Alonso, Hamilton or Verstappen - are probably better than any of the current IndyCar drivers. But I also feel they have a sizable advantage over most F1 drivers, so that doesn't say too much about the strength of the grid in general.

This is an unfair comparison because each series have very different types of "racing". Generally, a Formula One driver would not excel in Indycar, and vice versa.

The main question, what skills and attributes are required for either series?

Basically, in Formula One a driver needs to be adept at going quick and managing the menus on the steering wheel. While an Indycar driver needs to be very proficient at close battling, having a superb sense of spatial awareness, making tactical decisions on the fly (when to use the push to pass, for example), and knowing when to push hard and when to back off.

I am also going to reference Jimmy Johnson, a NASCAR driver. The man thrives and delivers under pressure. He is superb at giving feedback to this crew chief during a race, and is astute in all things tactical. In NASCAR, the cars are capable of being tuned during the race, telemetry is banned during that period, so he must give his engineers valid data. In Formula One 99% of a car's tuning is done by engineers and telemetry. And of course, Formula One drivers are consistently coached during a race on what button to push.

mikeyg123 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

Blake wrote:
While I would argue that Schumi was the best driver on the planet for 20 years, and I think Alonso could be a successful Indy driver if he chose to dedicate himself to it, I don't see any other F1 driver over the last three decades who without doubt would be demonstrably ahead of the better Indy Car drivers in Indy cars.

I think a chap named Mansell might have a word or 2 to say about that.

Nigel barely makes it inside Blake’s 30 year statement.

His major success in F1 and IndyCar were both in the last 30 year's.

Right, 27 & 26 years ago. So barely making it into the 3 decades mentioned by Blake.

It's an interesting one isn't it. I watched Champ/IRL/Indy for a good few years and also wondered how the better drivers from Champ would fare in F1 and vice versa.

I'd like to think they're on a par but I'm not convinced and recent history doesn't suggest it either. The drivers that have gone F1 to Indy have generally done OK, but they have generally been mid-grid F1 drivers when making the move. Equally some of the sharper end of the Champ car grid that have come across to F1 haven't done so well. That's a generalisation so I know there are exceptions but I think it's a fair one.

Post Montoya (who I think was better than his F1 legacy suggests) champions da Matta and Bourdais both went to F1. They did...OK. Granted neither went to front-running teams but they barely managed to assert themselves over their teammates.

Bourdais: came in as a 4x series champ and got battered by a 19 (?) year old Vettel. Buemi had the edge over him too despite being not having a hugely impressive pre-F1 CV.

da Matta came in as Champ and despite the chronic reliability for Toyota "when both finished" results suggest he was maybe as good as Panis but no better.

So that doesn't reflect well on Champ in my opinion.

Don't have time to dig into the other switches (would be good if someone did) but

Sato - More success in Indy than F1? Some wins would suggest so, how has he stacked up against teammates?

Wilson - More success in Indy than F1 for sure

Rossi - didn't really get a fair crack at F1 but looked better than Will Stevens but from Steven's pre-F1 CV I have no idea how he got to F1, have to assume there's a deep wallet there somewhere, like Chilton.

And then you have Alonso and you'd have to be an idiot to think Alonso would be anything other than a front runner in Indy if he was there full time assuming he had a decent car.

So from what I've seen in the recent era, and it's a limited data set, but successful Indy drivers haven't looked as good when they came to F1, F1 drivers that have gone "stateside" have done OK. Make of that what you will.

F1 is very obviously a cut above Indy IMO. F1 drivers who wash out often go on to become race winners in Indy. Meanwhile, IndyCar champions rarely get a shot in F1 and the ones who do, often fail. It's been a long time since the days of Villeneuve and Montoya. There hasn't been a successful IndyCar driver to enter F1 in ages. We also don't have many examples of top F1 drivers going to Indy. It just doesn't happen much these days because it doesn't make sense for most of them financially. That said, the few that do make that move usually do quite well. Most importantly, they do well relative to how they were doing in F1. Takuma Sato was always considered to be one of the slower guys out there in F1 but in Indy, he has consistently been among the fastest; even winning multiple races and setting multiple pole positions over the years. Alonso just came over for one race and he was right at the front from the off. Small samples size but I think that shows the difference between top F1 drivers and Indy drivers. No one in Indy is coming right into F1 and immediately leading a race like that.

F1 championship contending drivers are on a different level than anyone on the IndyCar circuit. That said, I don't think that there are miles between them. It's more like the top few Indy drivers could most likely blend in on some of the lower tier F1 teams. I think Rossi could have had a career in F1 had he just found a decent opportunity. I also think that drivers like Wilson and perhaps Dixon would be able to hack it. I don't think that either of them would be competitive with top F1 talent or even able to secure a long-term career in F1 but they wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. They would all be at least as good as a Brendan Hartly.

The drivers coming from Indy Cars to F1 seldom have gotten a top ride (as Alonso did), the same can't be said about it the other way. The comment about the top Indy drivers being able "blend in" with lower tier F1 teams is condescending at best, F1 elitism at worst. Not everybody gets to come into the sport with one of the best cars in the grid...only a very, very few select ones.

Your Alonso narration also fails to take into account that Alonso in a competitive car is usually "at the top" in F1 as wel!...many believing him to be the best in F1 at the time. As Nando is an exceptional talent it is no surprise that in one of the Top car he showcased his talent...just as he did in F1.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I for one, happen...once again...disagree with you. If some of the best Indy Car drivers wanted to come to F1 and were able to score a competitive ride, I think they could well be competitive in a reasonable amount of time.

Blake wrote:The drivers coming from Indy Cars to F1 seldom have gotten a top ride (as Alonso did), the same can't be said about it the other way. The comment about the top Indy drivers being able "blend in" with lower tier F1 teams is condescending at best, F1 elitism at worst. Not everybody gets to come into the sport with one of the best cars in the grid...only a very, very few select ones.

Your Alonso narration also fails to take into account that Alonso in a competitive car is usually "at the top" in F1 as wel!...many believing him to be the best in F1 at the time. As Nando is an exceptional talent it is no surprise that in one of the Top car he showcased his talent...just as he did in F1.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I for one, happen...once again...disagree with you. If some of the best Indy Car drivers wanted to come to F1 and were able to score a competitive ride, I think they could well be competitive in a reasonable amount of time.

Well then we disagree; although I don't know what you mean by suggesting that my comment was in some way "Elitist". I'm just calling it like I see it. What do you want me to do; lie and say that I think Indy has the same caliber of driver as F1? I'm just being honest. I don't agree that Alonso being quick in IndyCar is something that only he could do. In fact, I find that a bit silly and pretentious. Any of the elite F1 drivers would instantly be the best driver in that series IMO.

sandman1347 wrote:

Blake wrote:The drivers coming from Indy Cars to F1 seldom have gotten a top ride (as Alonso did), the same can't be said about it the other way. The comment about the top Indy drivers being able "blend in" with lower tier F1 teams is condescending at best, F1 elitism at worst. Not everybody gets to come into the sport with one of the best cars in the grid...only a very, very few select ones.

Your Alonso narration also fails to take into account that Alonso in a competitive car is usually "at the top" in F1 as wel!...many believing him to be the best in F1 at the time. As Nando is an exceptional talent it is no surprise that in one of the Top car he showcased his talent...just as he did in F1.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I for one, happen...once again...disagree with you. If some of the best Indy Car drivers wanted to come to F1 and were able to score a competitive ride, I think they could well be competitive in a reasonable amount of time.

Well then we disagree; although I don't know what you mean by suggesting that my comment was in some way "Elitist". I'm just calling it like I see it. What do you want me to do; lie and say that I think Indy has the same caliber of driver as F1? I'm just being honest. I don't agree that Alonso being quick in IndyCar is something that only he could do. In fact, I find that a bit silly and pretentious. Any of the elite F1 drivers would instantly be the best driver in that series IMO.

I don't believe that I said Alonso being quick in an Indy car was something "ONLY he could do". What I DID say was that Alonso when in a competitive ride showcases his talent...be it F1 or Indy Car. The suggestion being that using Alonso's success to teardown Indy drivers, while talking of the failures of Indy drivers in lower tier F1 cars is disengenuous, or, to borrow your phrase..." a bit silly"

BTW, putting "any of the elite F1 drivers" in a lower tier car as you suggested being the level of the Indy Car drivers in F1, would NOT automatically result in the F1 driver being seen as the best driver in the field for Indy Car. In Alonso's case he was most certainly given a top tier ride.

The best young talent on this side of the pond before Rossi was something to watch… AJ Allmendinger.
He came onto the scene as a relatively unknown and found himself paired with one of the best in ChampCar in Paul Tracy and he was able to outpace his elder statesman
consistently. And when Tracy couldn't figure out how he was able to be quicker consistently, he asked Allmendinger what he was doing, and to his credit, he filled Tracy in on every little thing he did inside the car and then proceeded to coach Tracy on how best to do things and wouldn't you know it… Tracy was on Allmendinger's pace.

just a very good driver who got lost in the shuffle with all the changes in the top series in the U.S..

The guys in the Indy series these days feature very few guys I feel could be good enough for F1.

Blake wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Blake wrote:The drivers coming from Indy Cars to F1 seldom have gotten a top ride (as Alonso did), the same can't be said about it the other way. The comment about the top Indy drivers being able "blend in" with lower tier F1 teams is condescending at best, F1 elitism at worst. Not everybody gets to come into the sport with one of the best cars in the grid...only a very, very few select ones.

Your Alonso narration also fails to take into account that Alonso in a competitive car is usually "at the top" in F1 as wel!...many believing him to be the best in F1 at the time. As Nando is an exceptional talent it is no surprise that in one of the Top car he showcased his talent...just as he did in F1.

You can believe whatever you wish, but I for one, happen...once again...disagree with you. If some of the best Indy Car drivers wanted to come to F1 and were able to score a competitive ride, I think they could well be competitive in a reasonable amount of time.

Well then we disagree; although I don't know what you mean by suggesting that my comment was in some way "Elitist". I'm just calling it like I see it. What do you want me to do; lie and say that I think Indy has the same caliber of driver as F1? I'm just being honest. I don't agree that Alonso being quick in IndyCar is something that only he could do. In fact, I find that a bit silly and pretentious. Any of the elite F1 drivers would instantly be the best driver in that series IMO.

I don't believe that I said Alonso being quick in an Indy car was something "ONLY he could do". What I DID say was that Alonso when in a competitive ride showcases his talent...be it F1 or Indy Car. The suggestion being that using Alonso's success to teardown Indy drivers, while talking of the failures of Indy drivers in lower tier F1 cars is disengenuous, or, to borrow your phrase..." a bit silly"

BTW, putting "any of the elite F1 drivers" in a lower tier car as you suggested being the level of the Indy Car drivers in F1, would NOT automatically result in the F1 driver being seen as the best driver in the field for Indy Car. In Alonso's case he was most certainly given a top tier ride.

So there have been IndyCar and Champ Car guys to come into F1 over the years but it simply hasn't happened in a very long time and that's not because F1 just doesn't want to give them a shot. F1 would LOVE to have a successful American driver (especially now with Liberty Media in control) to give them greater access to that market. The bottom line is that the level of competition in Indy has seen better days. Don't get me wrong; it has seen worse as well but today's IndyCar drivers are a long way from the heights of the 1990s.

The last successful jump from Indy to F1 was Bourdais and he washed out of F1 after just a year and change. He was a 4 time Champ Car series champion if I recall correctly but in F1 he was teamed with a top talent in Vettel and was exposed. That's the difference in talent at the top. The best drivers in Indy are still a level below the best in F1. In Indy, once you get past the best 3-5 drivers; you have a massive drop off in talent as well. The average Indy driver would not have a prayer in F1 and would not be competitive in F2 either.

I see this is probably a waste of time, sandman. Of course the Indy Car drivers don't match up with your view of F1 drivers, nothing could... after all, their driver skills only goes 3-5 deep. I would have thought that you might have noticed that this year there have been three different winners in three races...in 2018 there were 8 different winners and in 2017 there were 10 different winners. I guess they didn't get your 3-5 top drivers and the massive talent drop off memo???


Oh that note, have at it, sandman. I don't need it

Blake wrote:I see this is probably a waste of time, sandman. Of course the Indy Car drivers don't match up with your view of F1 drivers, nothing could... after all, their driver skills only goes 3-5 deep. I would have thought that you might have noticed that this year there have been three different winners in three races...in 2018 there were 8 different winners and in 2017 there were 10 different winners. I guess they didn't get your 3-5 top drivers and the massive talent drop off memo???


Oh that note, have at it, sandman. I don't need it

I don't see that number of winners is an indication of depth of talent if that's what you're suggesting.

Anyway - the one fact we do have is that Bourdais and da Matta didn't stack up well against their teammates, Montoya did imo, and Villeneuve despite a WDC I never found that convincing over the following years with teammates of varying pedigree.

I don't know enough about Indy to really judge moves the other way but had a go in my earlier post.

DOLOMITE wrote: and Villeneuve despite a WDC I never found that convincing over the following years with teammates of varying pedigree.

The same Villeneuve who came within a slight oil leak on winning the very first Formula One race he was in? The same Jacques Villeneuve who was in contention with Hill at the very last race of the season until he retired? The very same Jacques Villeneuve who fought Michael Schumacher the next year to win the WDC? The very same Jacques Villeneuve who morphed into a walking penis the second he won the WDC and demanded a salary that sapped the finances out of Williams, leading to a decline that still haunts Williams?

Blake wrote:I see this is probably a waste of time, sandman. Of course the Indy Car drivers don't match up with your view of F1 drivers, nothing could... after all, their driver skills only goes 3-5 deep. I would have thought that you might have noticed that this year there have been three different winners in three races...in 2018 there were 8 different winners and in 2017 there were 10 different winners. I guess they didn't get your 3-5 top drivers and the massive talent drop off memo???


Oh that note, have at it, sandman. I don't need it

So you present an argument that is full of holes and then declare the conversation done so as to stave off a response? Ok....

I watched both races yesterday, back to back. Arguing which series has the best drivers is foolish. I will say from watching the inboard shots, it's pretty apparent that the Indy drivers are working harder.

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote: and Villeneuve despite a WDC I never found that convincing over the following years with teammates of varying pedigree.

The same Villeneuve who came within a slight oil leak on winning the very first Formula One race he was in? The same Jacques Villeneuve who was in contention with Hill at the very last race of the season until he retired? The very same Jacques Villeneuve who fought Michael Schumacher the next year to win the WDC? The very same Jacques Villeneuve who morphed into a walking penis the second he won the WDC and demanded a salary that sapped the finances out of Williams, leading to a decline that still haunts Williams?

Yes, that one.

StanB123 wrote:Back when I watched Champcar, I was convinced Sebastian Bourdais could easily take on any F1 driver. But when he finally made it over to F1, he was easily outclassed by his team mates.

I also saw average F1 drivers such as Sato and Doornbos become regular race-winners.

At the time, in my mind, any F1 driver was much better than any Champcar driver. It may be different nowadays though.

LOL, you do realize that Sato has raced like 150+ indycar races and only won 4 times, right? (3 up until a couple weeks ago). So if "regular" means 1 win every 2+ years, I think we have a different definition.

ptr250 wrote:I watched both races yesterday, back to back. Arguing which series has the best drivers is foolish. I will say from watching the inboard shots, it's pretty apparent that the Indy drivers are working harder.

you noticed that too? The F1 drivers looked like they just got done playing a video game and the indycar drivers looked like they just got done wrestling an alligator. The contrast was obvious and when you watch the onboards, its very apparent. The f1 car almost looks boring to drive now days while the indycar looks like a ton of work and you can really work the car.

rodH wrote:

ptr250 wrote:I watched both races yesterday, back to back. Arguing which series has the best drivers is foolish. I will say from watching the inboard shots, it's pretty apparent that the Indy drivers are working harder.

you noticed that too? The F1 drivers looked like they just got done playing a video game and the indycar drivers looked like they just got done wrestling an alligator. The contrast was obvious and when you watch the onboards, its very apparent. The f1 car almost looks boring to drive now days while the indycar looks like a ton of work and you can really work the car.

It's somewhat misleading. A car that takes a lot of constant adjustment to drive has a larger window, and isn't necessarily harder to drive. An F1 car takes much more precision to operate at the limit: one twitch, and they're often unrecoverable. Yes, an IndyCar takes more work to drive around a lap, but it doesn't require more skill.

The reason an Indy car has a wider operating range is because by comparison, they are turds designed to go fast on ovals primarily, and have kits to adapt them better for course tracks, but are still quite clumsy off of ovals. The Tires in Indy also allow for a greater operational window because they’re built to perform to a better standard that those of F1, and they have to be, given the speeds at which they’re traveling at on ovals with concrete walls and ZERE runoff area.

Both require an equal amount of skill, but unique to each.

As for Bourdias not doing well in F1, he was drafted into a team that was mediocre at best and he didn’t feel comfortable there and it showed. The gap all those years ago was greater than it is today and today, people harp on drivers claiming they’re just not good enough for thousands of s second, which is the problem. Bourdias needed more time and a better team closer to the front to showcase his talents better.

Damata was overhyped a bit IMPO. He was a very solid driver, but he was only dominant for a very brief time, and then he got called up to drive a Toyota F1 car. A team in constant disarray where almost every driver they hired struggled. And Damata was a better driver than Glock but managed to retain a seat in F1 for several years.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:The reason an Indy car has a wider operating range is because by comparison, they are turds designed to go fast on ovals primarily, and have kits to adapt them better for course tracks, but are still quite clumsy off of ovals. The Tires in Indy also allow for a greater operational window because they’re built to perform to a better standard that those of F1, and they have to be, given the speeds at which they’re traveling at on ovals with concrete walls and ZERE runoff area.

Both require an equal amount of skill, but unique to each.

As for Bourdias not doing well in F1, he was drafted into a team that was mediocre at best and he didn’t feel comfortable there and it showed. The gap all those years ago was greater than it is today and today, people harp on drivers claiming they’re just not good enough for thousands of s second, which is the problem. Bourdias needed more time and a better team closer to the front to showcase his talents better.

Damata was overhyped a bit IMPO. He was a very solid driver, but he was only dominant for a very brief time, and then he got called up to drive a Toyota F1 car. A team in constant disarray where almost every driver they hired struggled. And Damata was a better driver than Glock but managed to retain a seat in F1 for several years.

It doesn't matter what car you drive in F1 if you are getting beat by your teammate, the problem for Bourdais was not getting beat by Vettel in his rookie season, the problem for him was that in his second season he was getting beat by a rookie called Sebastian Buemi, why did Bourdias in particular need all this special care and attention?

Exediron wrote:

rodH wrote:

ptr250 wrote:I watched both races yesterday, back to back. Arguing which series has the best drivers is foolish. I will say from watching the inboard shots, it's pretty apparent that the Indy drivers are working harder.

you noticed that too? The F1 drivers looked like they just got done playing a video game and the indycar drivers looked like they just got done wrestling an alligator. The contrast was obvious and when you watch the onboards, its very apparent. The f1 car almost looks boring to drive now days while the indycar looks like a ton of work and you can really work the car.

It's somewhat misleading. A car that takes a lot of constant adjustment to drive has a larger window, and isn't necessarily harder to drive. An F1 car takes much more precision to operate at the limit: one twitch, and they're often unrecoverable. Yes, an IndyCar takes more work to drive around a lap, but it doesn't require more skill.

totally agree. I wasn't implying that it doesn't take any "skill" but the physical effort was a different level. A lot has do to with power steering as well as lack of downforce on the indycar (intentionally).

F1 MERCENARY wrote: As for Bourdias not doing well in F1, he was drafted into a team that was mediocre at best and he didn’t feel comfortable there and it showed. The gap all those years ago was greater than it is today and today, people harp on drivers claiming they’re just not good enough for thousands of s second, which is the problem. Bourdias needed more time and a better team closer to the front to showcase his talents better..

Ya, similar thing could probably be said of Zanardi. I also think that in Zanardis case, the CART car just suit his driving style much better than an F1 car. He was very very aggressive and likes to hussle and work the chassis and this doesn't suit F1 very well. I am willing to bet that in an indycar, given equal prep and practice time, Zanardi could smoke some of the best F1 drivers in history, just because that was his skill set and he was so good in that style of car.

In the case of DeMatta, he competed for about 6 years and won 1 championship. He won at a time where a lot of the talent was either leaving, at the end of their career, or young talent not yet up to speed (dixon) as well as a diluted field as Penske left for IRL (or ran part time in both series) as well as several other drivers/teams. It was a time where there was no Zanardi, Montoya, Bourdais, also also Helio, or any other Penske driver/effort.

The one I am a little more surprised about is Franchitti. He did well in indycar (4 championships) and was more of a smooth driver that would seem to be something that might be successful in F1. Not sure if he ever had a shot, or just prefered to live in the US?

Put a top tier Indy driver in the best car in F1 and you'll have a winner. Both series have some great talent.

jimmyj wrote:Put a top tier Indy driver in the best car in F1 and you'll have a winner. Both series have some great talent.

Depends what you mean by a winner, how many races did Kimi win in the Ferrari?

All you would be doing is give him a car advantage over most of the field but if he's getting well beat by his teammate he won't last long in that privileged position, look at Gasly presently in the Red Bull, there's no measure that a top Indycar driver would do better?

I still think that elite group of Hamilton-Vettel-Verstappen-Ricciardo-Alonso are the very best drivers in the world. The jury might be out on one or two of them at the moment but I'll wait til 2019 is over before jumping to any conclusions

However I don't think any list of top drivers in motorsport is complete without Scott Dixon. He's a living legend. And most of the F1 field will never achieve the things he has

mcdo wrote:I still think that elite group of Hamilton-Vettel-Verstappen-Ricciardo-Alonso are the very best drivers in the world. The jury might be out on one or two of them at the moment but I'll wait til 2019 is over before jumping to any conclusions

However I don't think any list of top drivers in motorsport is complete without Scott Dixon. He's a living legend. And most of the F1 field will never achieve the things he has

definitely one of the drivers I am surprised never made the jump. He had a test way back but I guess just the right deal never came up.