Has Kevin Harvick (at age 43) Lost A Step?

LewTheShoe said:
I like data-driven analytics in all sports, including racing, as a supplement to what I see and think as a fan. Sometimes there's a difference between what I thought I saw and what actually happened. When data is analyzed properly, there is often some small nugget of insight to be gained. Occasionally this helps to reveal sloppy and/or lazy reporting from the media... for example last weekend at Chicagoland Speedway.

It was amusing to observe Rick Allen and his chattering gerbil sidekicks set up Kevin Harvick's winless season as a major storyline to follow at Chicago. They dutifully regurgitated Harvick's interview sound bytes... the engineers at SHR had taken the wrong direction early in the year, resulting in the 4 car being slow on the track. But now, they said, that has been corrected. The 4 car was fast in practice times both single lap and 5-lap, 10-lap, 15-lap consecutive runs. Harvick was the favorite of the NBC announcers to win the race.

It was, of course, a steaming pile of horse hooey. Over the prior 16 races, the 4 car had great speed, ranking second fastest overall and absolute fastest at four individual races (plus the All Star race). We know this by studying the official lap times, as summarized in this thread. The NBC reporting was sloppy, lazy, and misleading.

When Harvick doesn't win, somebody winds up under the bus... and now it is SHR engineers under there and the NBC analysts are piling on. (It would make more sense for Kevin to speak about his unique driving style and the WFO running prevalent this year... as discussed in post #1 above. Someone from SHR presumably discussed this with David Smith and provided supporting data traces, but Kevin still chooses to victimize SHR engineering.)

As for the Chicagoland race, Alex Bowman was fastest on the day and won the race. Second fastest was Jimmie Johnson, then Kevin Harvick, Kyle Larson, and Ryan Blaney. Harvick over-drove the entry to turn 1 with 94 laps to go, got into the wall, and finished 14th.

Jimmie Johnson's winless streak is much longer. He has been asked about it countless times, and he always keeps it classy. He says he remains highly motivated, and is working hard, as is everyone at HMS. He never throws anyone under the bus in his public comments. It is a stark contrast, IMO.
Click to expand...

Great post. Kevin's my guy but he's never been one to have any patience, which is great on the track but not conductive to getting along with his team.
 
OldTimer said:
Maybe because the two most prolific NASCAR winners won at the same percentage in their forties as they did in their thirties? That would be David Pearson and Bobby Allison...oh and almost forgot, if I remember correctly, a couple of guys named RIchard Petty and Dale Earnhardt Sr. were pretty formidable too when in their forties.
Click to expand...
You might want to check the historical data before making such claims. All of those drivers suffered declining win ratios in their forties... even Bobby Allison, who maintained championship form through his 45th year. Allison was by far the leading example of an 'ageless wonder' in Nascar, the prototypical graybeard champion. But the problem I have is when people say, "Allison did it, so that proves (fill in the blank) can do it too." I'm leery of using Allison's performance versus age to predict the future. I think Bobby was a wonderful outlier... but not too useful for predictions.

David Pearson
Age 25-42: 99 wins / 487 starts = 20.3%
Age 43-49: 6 / 73 = 8.2%
Age 50-54: 0 / 14 = 0.0%

Bobby Allison
Age 23-42: 60 wins / 498 starts = 12.0%
Age 43-50: 24 / 220 = 10.9%

Richard Petty
Age 20-42: 192 wins / 835 starts = 23.0%
Age 43-49: 8 / 208 = 3.8%
Age 50-54: 0 / 141 = 0.0%

Dale Earnhardt
Age 24-42: 59 wins / 449 starts = 13.1%
Age 43-49: 17 / 227 = 7.5%
 
Joker said:
Great post. Kevin's my guy but he's never been one to have any patience, which is great on the track but not conductive to getting along with his team.
Click to expand...

Harvick has been formed by growing up and maturing thru decades of competition -- where it finally took getting rid of his pit crew (thank you Tony) to get him the Cup Championship. I can only imagine how anyone in here would hold up to that pressure year in and year out. Perhaps his personality has limited him in some way that others know about. I'm just disappointed that he hasn't got his Ford into VL this season, thus far.
 
To me, a great closer is a driver that wins races like Chastain has in the past few weeks (Trucks on old tires, Xfinity at Daytona.) Now I'm not saying Chastain is a great closer, since there's not enough time and data yet, but a driver that can do win like that for a few years would be a good/great closer (at least to me.) Pit mistakes not attributed to the driver shouldn't count.
 
LewTheShoe said:
You might want to check the historical data before making such claims. All of those drivers suffered declining win ratios in their forties... even Bobby Allison, who maintained championship form through his 45th year. Allison was by far the leading example of an 'ageless wonder' in Nascar, the prototypical graybeard champion. But the problem I have is when people say, "Allison did it, so that proves (fill in the blank) can do it too." I'm leery of using Allison's performance versus age to predict the future. I think Bobby was a wonderful outlier... but not too useful for predictions.

David Pearson
Age 25-42: 99 wins / 487 starts = 20.3%
Age 43-49: 6 / 73 = 8.2%
Age 50-54: 0 / 14 = 0.0%

Bobby Allison
Age 23-42: 60 wins / 498 starts = 12.0%
Age 43-50: 24 / 220 = 10.9%

Richard Petty
Age 20-42: 192 wins / 835 starts = 23.0%
Age 43-49: 8 / 208 = 3.8%
Age 50-54: 0 / 141 = 0.0%

Dale Earnhardt
Age 24-42: 59 wins / 449 starts = 13.1%
Age 43-49: 17 / 227 = 7.5%
Click to expand...

Try just running them up to 45...and do not forget Harry Gant, changes the perspective. And even with the stats, the predominate wins are 35-44...not 25-34. You are cherry picking...break down to a max of ten years
 
OldTimer said:
Try just running them up to 45...and do not forget Harry Gant, changes the perspective. And even with the stats, the predominate wins are 35-44...not 25-34. You are cherry picking...break down to a max of ten years
Click to expand...
be our guest
 
OldTimer said:
Try just running them up to 45...and do not forget Harry Gant, changes the perspective... You are cherry picking...
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha. I'm cherry picking? No. I posted a chart that summarizes a statistical analysis done by Motorsports Analytics and published by The Athletic. It covers all drivers in all cup races for the period 2002 through 2018. And I noted that it shouldn't be read too literally to predict the future performance of any individual.

You have dismissed that analysis, based mainly on Bobby Allison in 1983 and Harry Gant in 1991. And *that* is cherry picking. Why didn't you toss in Mark Martin in 2009?

Is it your contention that Jimmie Johnson and Kevin Harvick, at age 43 the two oldest drivers in cup, are currently at the peak of their powers? Equal to or better than they were 5 or 10 years ago?

PEER Vs Age 2019 Chart.png
 
Kevin is getting screwed by the package....and I don't think it is going anywhere.
 
Harvick has hit the wall twice in as many weeks, once was pilot error. His pit crew has lost him two potential wins fumbling around. Don't think it is the package doing the screwing. BTW third in the points.
 
StandOnIt said:
Harvick has hit the wall twice in as many weeks, once was pilot error. His pit crew has lost him two potential wins fumbling around. Don't think it is the package doing the screwing. BTW third in the points.
Click to expand...

Point well taken, but I don't think he is the same threat that he has been, and I don't think it has anything to do with age. I do feel that this package is not to his liking....which leads me to the conversation....Are there limits to a driver's adaptability? In other words, are there some characteristics of the various packages that a given driver simply cannot adapt to?
 
OldTimer said:
Try just running them up to 45...and do not forget Harry Gant, changes the perspective. And even with the stats, the predominate wins are 35-44...not 25-34. You are cherry picking...break down to a max of ten years
Click to expand...
You will find that as with any other sport, not everyone hits their peak at the same time. Some guys here fade before 35, some tend to win seemingly forever, and still there are others who are late bloomers and showcase the peak of their powers in their waning years. Not everyone is the same.
 
Revman said:
Point well taken, but I don't think he is the same threat that he has been, and I don't think it has anything to do with age. I do feel that this package is not to his liking....which leads me to the conversation....Are there limits to a driver's adaptability? In other words, are there some characteristics of the various packages that a given driver simply cannot adapt to?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is the package is what I said. Keselowski is saying the Fords are slower than the Yotas and the Chevy's. It is a game of mistakes and Harvick and his bunch have blown some good opportunities, so has KDB lately. BTW in 17 Kyle won at Indy and didn't win again until Pocono 2 in 18. It happens.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't think it is the package is what I said. Keselowski is saying the Fords are slower than the Yotas and the Chevy's. It is a game of mistakes and Harvick and his bunch have blown some good opportunities, so has KDB lately. BTW in 17 Kyle won at Indy and didn't win again until Pocono 2 in 18. It happens.
Click to expand...

I heard what you said, and I respect that. I guess my question is....Can a specific package handcuff a great driver? Is there a limit in terms of adaptability? Do the best drivers change what they are looking for, or take a car--regardless of the package--and make it into what they want it to be?

Kez is full of crap BTW....
 
no I don't think it makes a tinkers damn. If a car is slow it is slow no matter what the package is. Did for instance Kevin all of a sudden become a great driver after he left Childress. He was already good, but he got better cars
 
StandOnIt said:
no I don't think it makes a tinkers damn. If a car is slow it is slow no matter what the package is. Did for instance Kevin all of a sudden become a great driver after he left Childress. He was already good, but he got better cars
Click to expand...

So do you think that a great driver can overcome a car's inherit tendencies---or do you even believe that a car has tendencies--like trending loose or tight?
 
I don't think a car has inherent tendencies. But like Truex said they other day when he wasn't fast. They didn't have enough time to work on it only one practice. They are designed to be pretty neutral that is why with the tall spoiler they reworked the splitter also to even it out.
 
Revman said:
So do you think that a great driver can overcome a car's inherit tendencies---or do you even believe that a car has tendencies--like trending loose or tight?
Click to expand...
along the same lines as that, I don't think Harvick's crew chief is keeping the car up with the changing track this year. a couple of times they ran good until the latter parts of the race so I don't think Rodney was keeping up with the car's tendencies weather it was going to go loose or tight as the track changed.
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't think a car has inherent tendencies. But like Truex said they other day when he wasn't fast. They didn't have enough time to work on it only one practice. They are designed to be pretty neutral that is why with the tall spoiler they reworked the splitter also to even it out.
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic discussion you guys have going here..

I disagree, to a point. I do think a car has inherent tendencies. But that is dependent on how the car is either unloaded, or setup prior to the race. So while that may not be "inherent", I do believe a car can have tendencies that are inherent to the setup, that, if the CC can't keep up with changing track conditions, the car will trend towards.

I'm younger than you guys, but would still consider myself a seasoned NASCAR fan of over 15 years. This is something I have never thought of..very interested in seeing where this conversation goes!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
StandOnIt said:
I don't think a car has inherent tendencies. But like Truex said they other day when he wasn't fast. They didn't have enough time to work on it only one practice. They are designed to be pretty neutral that is why with the tall spoiler they reworked the splitter also to even it out.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the response. The Truex deal has been fascinating. They haven't always been the fastest off the truck, but when Cole has a chance to work his magic (which sometimes gets Martin sent to the rear), they get good.
 
jaqua19 said:
This is a fantastic discussion you guys have going here..

I disagree, to a point. I do think a car has inherent tendencies. But that is dependent on how the car is either unloaded, or setup prior to the race. So while that may not be "inherent", I do believe a car can have tendencies that are inherent to the setup, that, if the CC can't keep up with changing track conditions, the car will trend towards.

I'm younger than you guys, but would still consider myself a seasoned NASCAR fan of over 15 years. This is something I have never thought of..very interested in seeing where this conversation goes!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good point(s). I have always wondered what a great driver thinks when he gets behind the wheel for the first time after a rule change. He probably can't even put it to words, really, but what does he feel, how does he communicate it, and what does the Crew Chief do about it? Fascinating parts of this sport IMO.
 
Another piece of this is that notebook.....What does a Crew Chief put in it? Does it start with the sim stuff these days? CC notes track conditions, and driver feedback? Then, all of that goes in the ****ter with a massive rule change? I wonder if it has proactive stuff from the engineer like....if the car does this, adjust this? If the temp is this, run these tire pressures? Etc.? It's massively mind blowing, but in a great way.
 
well they have wind tunnels, shaker rigs, software of tracks, even the bumps, but then they had to make hunches because they didn't have hard evidence until they raced, just a test here and there. So one of the big question marks was and is changing track conditions as the race wears on. The two Toyota's 18 and 19 for the most part get faster many times in the last stage, wear as the 4 hasn't. Part of that are bad pits, and a couple have been damage. But at the first of the year they were going the wrong way almost every race. The Hendricks were pretty lost. The had speed for about the first 10 laps I thought their setups were way off when the tires gave up they couldn't hang and they would never be able to adjust back into good speed for the most part. That has been changing
 
Ask Spotter 22 -- he might've actually seen one of these "notebooks".
 
I think Chevrolet is responsible for some of the changes, all of the Chevy's are getting faster recently. Looks that way to me anyway. Larson and Bowman were running away from the field at Chicagoland
 
Revman said:
Good point(s). I have always wondered what a great driver thinks when he gets behind the wheel for the first time after a rule change. He probably can't even put it to words, really, but what does he feel, how does he communicate it, and what does the Crew Chief do about it? Fascinating parts of this sport IMO.
Click to expand...
What may be "loose" to one driver, may be a good handling car to someone else.

And to answer your question, I think the driver would be thinking "how do we get this thing to handle in a way that lets me drive it how I want it"

Driving style, and getting a car to handle the way the driver wants is important.

Someone may like a car that is loose on entry, so they can arc it in late, which is how the 48 ran 1.5s and 2.0s. Running an earlier entry may make the car harder to drive, and reveal it tendencies, losing speed in the corner. Chad would get the car handling the right way on entry for Jimmie so he can do his thing and enter earlier, that way, the car lands later and faster, the apex is shorter, and exit starts quickly after landing because the car can be driven strait off - sliding the car into a strait exit right after landing, vs driving in, driving and wheeling the apex then getting a good exit.

You cant do that with a car that is set up to drive deep,or run a different line in open track

I feel these cars don't allow this as much any more, it's more "good handling vs bad handling" because they're so wide open

But my point is that with these cars being setup to driver tendencies, they are going to behave certain ways if the car is lost to the track.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
My point is that the same drivers and cars continue to be at the front. I don't see any driver suddenly coming from the middle or bottom of the ladder and running with the front runners where you could say it's this package is the main reason they are doing so well. I pointed out that with the old package Kyle Busch went from Indy in 17 all the way to Pocono 2 in 2018 without a win. Truex had a similar long period without a win. 26 races after Kentucky last year. IMO the new package had little to do with it. It disproves one of the many myths that were going around that with the new package the cars will be so slow and easy to drive that anybody can win.
 
StandOnIt said:
I think Chevrolet is responsible for some of the changes, all of the Chevy's are getting faster recently. Looks that way to me anyway. Larson and Bowman were running away from the field at Chicagoland
Click to expand...

Kurt Bush alluded to that in that interview before the Chicago race. Nascar made the Chevy's more equal...what ever that actually means. But if you look at the performance in the beginning of the year, the Chevy's were not as strong. Whether it was overcoming aero deficiencies or something else, do not know. But...what Kurt seemed to allude to was the Chevy strength on the straightaways...550HP is supposed to the same, just "NASCAR allowed the us to be more equal". The conversation started based on Kurt being the only Chevy in the top 5 in the first 1/3 of the season. Visually, watching the Chicagoland race...the Chevy's out pulled the Fords on the straights...is it possible that the Chevy's are 555HP instead of 550?
 
LewTheShoe said:
Ha ha ha. I'm cherry picking? No. I posted a chart that summarizes a statistical analysis done by Motorsports Analytics and published by The Athletic. It covers all drivers in all cup races for the period 2002 through 2018. And I noted that it shouldn't be read too literally to predict the future performance of any individual.

You have dismissed that analysis, based mainly on Bobby Allison in 1983 and Harry Gant in 1991. And *that* is cherry picking. Why didn't you toss in Mark Martin in 2009?

Is it your contention that Jimmie Johnson and Kevin Harvick, at age 43 the two oldest drivers in cup, are currently at the peak of their powers? Equal to or better than they were 5 or 10 years ago?

View attachment 40857
Click to expand...

My point was that, even with your "modern" statistics, the 35 to 44 is still the higher average than the youth movement. To me...again, to me, the seasoned drivers seem to rise to the top...just check out Martin Truex's climb, he got much better after thirty.

Just personally do not want to take away from those that earned the right and give it to those whose only talent is the luck of youth, especially based on media hype.
 
The Chevy is the oldest car in the series, and was built to exploit the old package, and right when it came out they changed the package to low downforce and they have been the slowest since then. So I would guess it is much the same as they did the Fords before that. Nascar allowed some smoothing would be my guess.
 
OldTimer said:
Kurt Bush alluded to that in that interview before the Chicago race. Nascar made the Chevy's more equal...what ever that actually means. But if you look at the performance in the beginning of the year, the Chevy's were not as strong. Whether it was overcoming aero deficiencies or something else, do not know. But...what Kurt seemed to allude to was the Chevy strength on the straightaways...550HP is supposed to the same, just "NASCAR allowed the us to be more equal". The conversation started based on Kurt being the only Chevy in the top 5 in the first 1/3 of the season. Visually, watching the Chicagoland race...the Chevy's out pulled the Fords on the straights...is it possible that the Chevy's are 555HP instead of 550?
Click to expand...

I would love to hear that interview....interesting.....
 
jaqua19 said:
Someone may like a car that is loose on entry, so they can arc it in late, which is how the 48 ran 1.5s and 2.0s. Running an earlier entry may make the car harder to drive, and reveal it tendencies, losing speed in the corner. Chad would get the car handling the right way on entry for Jimmie so he can do his thing and enter earlier, that way, the car lands later and faster, the apex is shorter, and exit starts quickly after landing because the car can be driven strait off - sliding the car into a strait exit right after landing, vs driving in, driving and wheeling the apex then getting a good exit.
Click to expand...

I wish TV would cover more of this instead of lifestyle stories, but maybe that is just me. What does each driver look for, and what does the Crew Chief do to attempt to get it? Good stuff. Any idea how Harvick breaks down a corner....He is amazing on launch which suggests that he gets the car to turn, but what is so special about his entry--he seems to be so patient early in the corner? I wonder if he starts to fall apart when he has to hustle the car....
 
Revman said:
I wish TV would cover more of this instead of lifestyle stories, but maybe that is just me. What does each driver look for, and what does the Crew Chief do to attempt to get it? Good stuff. Any idea how Harvick breaks down a corner....He is amazing on launch which suggests that he gets the car to turn, but what is so special about his entry--he seems to be so patient early in the corner? I wonder if he starts to fall apart when he has to hustle the car....
Click to expand...
Rev, I'm so glad you are engaging me on this, because I put a lot of thought into it.

This is all just my opinion and observation, and by no means objective fact, but this is my take on it.

Bare with me on this wall of text here, but I think it's great that you bring up Harvick's entry as I talk about Johnson's because these two drivers dominated mile and a half tracks in 2015-early 2016. They had a lot of races for the win, so there's plenty of footage to really see the different approaches to attacking a corner.

So before I go on, let me just specify what I meant by corner entry, and how JJ has a late entry. I'm talking about where on the track the driver starts to turn, where he starts to turn the wheel. How deep a driver drives in, which is when the driver lifts off the gas is a bit different, but both important to setting up a turn.

We know Harvick is a bottom feeder, and we know he really can hold the wheel steady. What I've noticed with Harvick is that he starts his turns early, but lifts really late. He drives relatively deep, and early. So, hes driving the car/holding the wheel steady through the apex vs Johnson who is "sliding" it through the late landing. This is noticeable when Harvick has been trailing Jimmie, and we are on the 4s roof cam. I've noticed that Harvick closes up on entry...and despite them both running the bottom, when Harvick is landing on the bottom, the 48 is still a half lane off the bottom and hasn't landed yet.

In my opinion, what a driver complains about is very telling. When Jimmie has a fast car, and they are "struggling", or unable to get the handle, it's loose. When Harvick is fast and dominates...the complains after the race, what does he always say? "It just got real tight". I don't think Harvick likes a loose car because he will not be able to steady the wheel with his early, and deep entry. So as I see it, Harvick needs/prefers a car with even weight distribution that is VERY stable and neutral on landing because in the apex of the corner, he's doing less "wheeling" than say Kyle Busch (who imo' has a more wheeling style version of Harvick's driving)..and more so just holding the wheel steady as his car cuts through the corner.

As a result, I think this shows Harvick's limitations, and strengths as a driver. He inherently may not get as good of a drive off as Jimmie would, or a driver who has a more gentle approach to the corner..Harvick has been able to dominate lately because his cars have speed. He KILLS you in the first 3/5s of the turn. The speed of the cars is compensation for the lack of drive off...WHICH is why he performed worse at RCR.. rarely did the cars have the speed to maximize Harvick's talents.

Harvick doesn't wheel it through the corner, he wheels it before the car lands, and just holds it off the corner. And he knows what lines will put up fast times. Imo, I don't think he is the raw talent that Kyle, Jimmie, Brad, Tony etc were. I think as a raw talent, he's a tick below. However, he knows what he needs out of his car about as good as anyone, and he knows how to drive the track, relative to how his car is handling. I think that's what makes him a really really good race car driver and while he may not have the raw talent as Kyle, it was enough to make him the best driver in NASCAR from 2014-2018. No disrespect to Kyle, who had Harvick beat by one or two wins during that time span...but Harvick had more top 5s, 10s, average finish and laps lead than anyone else in NASCAR during those 4 years.

So yeah, that's how he gets it done, imo.

Agreed about TV too..people play games, and may notice in real life, some tracks have two or 3 grooves of racing..which means there are 2 or 3 ways to drive a track. As we've discussed, that's not true! There are many ways a driver can drive one of those 3 grooves, and are probably 15+ different ways a driver can drive a track. It sucks that we don't hear about this.

I made a thread a little while ago..maybe a few months back, about the driving style of drivers , trying to stimulate this discussion, but it didn't get many hits

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
OldTimer said:
Kurt Bush alluded to that in that interview before the Chicago race. Nascar made the Chevy's more equal...what ever that actually means. But if you look at the performance in the beginning of the year, the Chevy's were not as strong. Whether it was overcoming aero deficiencies or something else, do not know. But...what Kurt seemed to allude to was the Chevy strength on the straightaways...550HP is supposed to the same, just "NASCAR allowed the us to be more equal". The conversation started based on Kurt being the only Chevy in the top 5 in the first 1/3 of the season. Visually, watching the Chicagoland race...the Chevy's out pulled the Fords on the straights...is it possible that the Chevy's are 555HP instead of 550?
Click to expand...
How you handle down the straights is directly effected by how good you get through the corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom