This was the year of the rookies, Lewis Hamilton being the most obvious and successful of them, but a crowd of hopefuls also making their mark in a sport that is slow to be impressed by new arrivals. Most of this season's bumper crop had their moments at center stage, leading many to suppose that they might have done as well as Hamilton, had they had his breaks.
Lewis Hamilton
Yet I wonder if this is true. Are these new stars really all they are cracked up to be? Let's have a long, cold look at them and see how they have done in reality.
Of them all, I think Nico Rosberg shows the most promise, although strictly speaking he should not be in this group, having had two years of F1 experience now. Perhaps that is why his performances have been both quick and reliable, only the weaknesses in the car preventing him finishing much higher up the order. He has certainly done enough to convince us that he will be in F1 for a long time to come and, if his father is anything to go by, he should shine now that traction control is being done away with.
But Nico made his mistakes last year; in Hamilton's first season there were only two, although they resulted in him losing out in the chase for the title. Round one to Lewis, I think.
Next up are the two Ks, Robert Kubica and Heikki Kovalainen, both maturing over the course of the year and accepted now as stars of the future. But Kubica has yet to gain ascendancy over his team mate Heidfeld, leading me to think that either he is not as good as we had thought or Quick Nick is a whole lot quicker than his reputation. Solid, honest and reliable, but not really in the top flight, that was the standard opinion on Heidfeld going into this year; it may be that we were wrong and Nick is one of the best but never had a decent chance before.
Whatever the truth, we can say that Kubica is no better than Heidfeld, so I do not understand why he is so highly thought of. Yes, it made sense last year when he was regularly fastest of the test drivers and had an explosive entry to F1 racing when Villeneuve departed. But he was erratic at best in the first half of this season and took quite a few races (and the most spectacular crash of the year) to settle down and get to work. The verdict has to be that he is good enough for F1 but unlikely to be a champion in the future.
Much the same can be said of Kovalainen, although he was quicker than his experienced team mate in the second half of the season. The fact that Fisichella's reputation as a quick driver is in ruins does not make this overly impressive, however. Once again, the best that can be said of Heikki is that he learned through his mistakes and can now be relied on to give a good performance. But future champion? I doubt it.
Latest of the wonder boys is, of course, Sebastian Vettel. I have pointed out before that he has been distinctly underwhelming in the Toro Rosso team, failing to beat Vitantonio Liuzzi until two wet races and the right pit stop strategy gave him the points that made him a sensation. The reality is (and this was confirmed by Liuzzi's performances in Japan and China - with Vettel's luck, he would have garnered the points, not the rookie) that the Toro Rosso is inexplicably good in the wet and Vettel did no more (and probably less) than Scott Speed would have done.
So I am unconvinced by Vettel. What of Adrian Sutil then? He made short work of bettering his team mate, Christijan Albers, right from the start and then went on to outclass everyone else the Spyker team put in the second car. Although he had his share of mistakes, generally he looked quick and, towards the end of the season, was getting the 'B' spec car ahead of other teams - no small accomplishment in a Spyker.
It leaves Sutil as potentially the best rookie of the year, with the exception of Hamilton, of course. But it is very early yet to get excited; let us see him with a team mate that we know is good and we will be better able to judge. Until then, the jury has to remain out.
Then there is Anthony Davidson, the "veteran rookie" of the Super Aguri team. I had hopes that he would show Sato the way around but it has not turned out so. There were times when Davidson was quicker but just as many when Sato had the upper hand. And the Japanese driver was a little more reliable, although you could blame many of Davidson's problems on bad luck. Yet luck has a part to play in the making of a driver; add that to a lack of flair on Davidson's part and he does not look more than a journeyman driver for the future.
Which leaves us with the one-race men, Markus Winkelhock and Kazuki Nakajima. Everyone remembers Spyker's moment of glory at the Nurburgring when Markus led the race in the pouring rain - yet we all know he was terribly slow in practice and the rest of the race and it is rare for any driver to be the only one on the right tire at the right moment. I doubt we will see Winkelhock in a GP again.
Nakajima certainly made his mark in his one race for Williams, running over a couple of mechanics and then setting the fifth fastest race lap. It seems he is quick but a little inexperienced, therefore, and that is more than could be said for many drivers on their debut. But it would be foolish to see him as anything more than an interesting newcomer - he needs more races and perhaps another year of GP2 before we can form an opinion on him.
So who would have done as well with all of Hamilton's advantages? I think the answer has to be none of them. To watch the precision of Hamilton's driving, the confidence, sureness of touch, the chances taken that come off with regularity, is to know that he is an unusual talent and would have been a sensation in F1 even without the years of grooming supplied by McLaren. It has to be faced: not even Rosberg could have given the double world champion as hard a time as Hamilton gave Alonso.
They call him a rookie - yet already he is a fixture in the sport, a phenomenon that will not go away for many years. Might as well get used to him...
Lewis Hamilton
Yet I wonder if this is true. Are these new stars really all they are cracked up to be? Let's have a long, cold look at them and see how they have done in reality.
Of them all, I think Nico Rosberg shows the most promise, although strictly speaking he should not be in this group, having had two years of F1 experience now. Perhaps that is why his performances have been both quick and reliable, only the weaknesses in the car preventing him finishing much higher up the order. He has certainly done enough to convince us that he will be in F1 for a long time to come and, if his father is anything to go by, he should shine now that traction control is being done away with.
But Nico made his mistakes last year; in Hamilton's first season there were only two, although they resulted in him losing out in the chase for the title. Round one to Lewis, I think.
Next up are the two Ks, Robert Kubica and Heikki Kovalainen, both maturing over the course of the year and accepted now as stars of the future. But Kubica has yet to gain ascendancy over his team mate Heidfeld, leading me to think that either he is not as good as we had thought or Quick Nick is a whole lot quicker than his reputation. Solid, honest and reliable, but not really in the top flight, that was the standard opinion on Heidfeld going into this year; it may be that we were wrong and Nick is one of the best but never had a decent chance before.
Whatever the truth, we can say that Kubica is no better than Heidfeld, so I do not understand why he is so highly thought of. Yes, it made sense last year when he was regularly fastest of the test drivers and had an explosive entry to F1 racing when Villeneuve departed. But he was erratic at best in the first half of this season and took quite a few races (and the most spectacular crash of the year) to settle down and get to work. The verdict has to be that he is good enough for F1 but unlikely to be a champion in the future.
Much the same can be said of Kovalainen, although he was quicker than his experienced team mate in the second half of the season. The fact that Fisichella's reputation as a quick driver is in ruins does not make this overly impressive, however. Once again, the best that can be said of Heikki is that he learned through his mistakes and can now be relied on to give a good performance. But future champion? I doubt it.
Latest of the wonder boys is, of course, Sebastian Vettel. I have pointed out before that he has been distinctly underwhelming in the Toro Rosso team, failing to beat Vitantonio Liuzzi until two wet races and the right pit stop strategy gave him the points that made him a sensation. The reality is (and this was confirmed by Liuzzi's performances in Japan and China - with Vettel's luck, he would have garnered the points, not the rookie) that the Toro Rosso is inexplicably good in the wet and Vettel did no more (and probably less) than Scott Speed would have done.
So I am unconvinced by Vettel. What of Adrian Sutil then? He made short work of bettering his team mate, Christijan Albers, right from the start and then went on to outclass everyone else the Spyker team put in the second car. Although he had his share of mistakes, generally he looked quick and, towards the end of the season, was getting the 'B' spec car ahead of other teams - no small accomplishment in a Spyker.
It leaves Sutil as potentially the best rookie of the year, with the exception of Hamilton, of course. But it is very early yet to get excited; let us see him with a team mate that we know is good and we will be better able to judge. Until then, the jury has to remain out.
Then there is Anthony Davidson, the "veteran rookie" of the Super Aguri team. I had hopes that he would show Sato the way around but it has not turned out so. There were times when Davidson was quicker but just as many when Sato had the upper hand. And the Japanese driver was a little more reliable, although you could blame many of Davidson's problems on bad luck. Yet luck has a part to play in the making of a driver; add that to a lack of flair on Davidson's part and he does not look more than a journeyman driver for the future.
Which leaves us with the one-race men, Markus Winkelhock and Kazuki Nakajima. Everyone remembers Spyker's moment of glory at the Nurburgring when Markus led the race in the pouring rain - yet we all know he was terribly slow in practice and the rest of the race and it is rare for any driver to be the only one on the right tire at the right moment. I doubt we will see Winkelhock in a GP again.
Nakajima certainly made his mark in his one race for Williams, running over a couple of mechanics and then setting the fifth fastest race lap. It seems he is quick but a little inexperienced, therefore, and that is more than could be said for many drivers on their debut. But it would be foolish to see him as anything more than an interesting newcomer - he needs more races and perhaps another year of GP2 before we can form an opinion on him.
So who would have done as well with all of Hamilton's advantages? I think the answer has to be none of them. To watch the precision of Hamilton's driving, the confidence, sureness of touch, the chances taken that come off with regularity, is to know that he is an unusual talent and would have been a sensation in F1 even without the years of grooming supplied by McLaren. It has to be faced: not even Rosberg could have given the double world champion as hard a time as Hamilton gave Alonso.
They call him a rookie - yet already he is a fixture in the sport, a phenomenon that will not go away for many years. Might as well get used to him...