Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rumblestrip

Car Or Driver

Car or Driver  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Car or Driver

    • Car
      24
    • Driver
      10


Recommended Posts

I disagree (of course!). Fangio later said this:

Fangio was obviously addled in the brain in his later years. I am correct and he is incorrect. The situation he is describing is, as I have already stated above, a rarity. One team rarely has total 95% dominance. Think Williams in '97 and Ferrari in '04. Most seasons are a battle between two teams that are closely matched. In those seasons, it's the driver's skill* that makes the difference. In that article you link, aside from Fangio's statement at the beginning, it goes on to make a good case that the driver does indeed make a difference.

In the top teams with cars and a technical team that are more or less equal [2007 McLaren and Ferrari] I would put it at 50 percent car and 50 percent driver.

That's from Pollock back in '96, and in an era of Williams' total dominance. His 50/50 ratio is generous...too generous.

*Interesting to note that the article you quote, Murray, includes a description of a top driver's 'skill'. That description matches, almost verbatim, my previous statements on this matter, from testing prowess to stamina throughout a whole season. Apparently the 'experts' in your article would rate a skillful driver much the same way I would (and have). I'm glad you dug around for that article, as it contains quite alot you could learn from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car.

It should be driver.

But it is in fact car.

That is why McLaren and Ferrari have won every race this year. Car, car, car. Jenson is a very good driver, in my opinion, yet he's scored a total of 1 point this year because of the car.

:roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

car....by far!

there must be a really shinning driver to perform remarkably in a mediocre car...whereas -as said- a mediocre driver can perform well in a top car..see massa for example :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:roll:

Yes, you're right. Anyone who drives from P14 to P1 in what was voted as drive of the year by F1 fans worldwide is an awful driver. As is scoring more points than anyone in the last 7-ish races. Terrible. Jenson just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fangio was obviously addled in the brain in his later years. I am correct and he is incorrect. The situation he is describing is, as I have already stated above, a rarity. One team rarely has total 95% dominance. Think Williams in '97 and Ferrari in '04. Most seasons are a battle between two teams that are closely matched. In those seasons, it's the driver's skill* that makes the difference. In that article you link, aside from Fangio's statement at the beginning, it goes on to make a good case that the driver does indeed make a difference.

That's from Pollock back in '96, and in an era of Williams' total dominance. His 50/50 ratio is generous...too generous.

*Interesting to note that the article you quote, Murray, includes a description of a top driver's 'skill'. That description matches, almost verbatim, my previous statements on this matter, from testing prowess to stamina throughout a whole season. Apparently the 'experts' in your article would rate a skillful driver much the same way I would (and have). I'm glad you dug around for that article, as it contains quite alot you could learn from.

Fangio is an old school exception. He wasn't really a tester and car developer input guy, he just had a 6th sense on sniffing the best car. And ofcourse his exceptional talent exuses him. But other like the latest champions Schumi and Alonso worker for their title.

Now were have these cars 2007 aero on 1997 engine witch over-flater Massa and to a lesser dergree Hamilton, and we also have a the same rookie getting a free ride.

So yes, 2 of the 4 are having it easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you're right. Anyone who drives from P14 to P1 in what was voted as drive of the year by F1 fans worldwide is an awful driver. As is scoring more points than anyone in the last 7-ish races. Terrible. Jenson just sucks.

Hear hear. I like you! Down with the Button-bashers. Did you know in 2004 he also won autosport driver of the year in a worldwide poll? He cant be that bad.

For me the answer to this topic is pretty obvious - its nearly all about the car. The driver makes a difference, of course, but a driver can only perform with the equipment available.

Alonso in a Minardi scored 0 points in 2001.

Alonso in a Renault won races and championships.

If Schumacher spent his entire career in a Minardi or Jordan, he would never have been a champion.

I suppose the answer is both, really, but as some others have already pointed out, Felipe Massa is being made to look good by being in a fantastic Ferrari machine, so to win championships you have to have 1 of the best cars, if not the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's both really and I think it changes depending on how good a car is... I think a driver can make a 'bigger' difference in a car that's a handful to drive, whereas there will be less to choose between drivers in a brilliant car. At the end of the day you can have the best car in the world, but if you have a crap driver you aren't going to get there. You can have the best driver in the world, but if you have a crap car you aren't going to get there... Look at Fisi, in a bad car he seemed real good, but give him the WDC winning car and he just can't perform so it's not just about the car. There are aspects of the sport which means a driver can't make as much of an affect as maybe they could do such as overtaking. I think if overtaking chances were improved then the sport would be just fine.

I don't know whether it should be about drivers more; it's a team sport first and foremost.

i tend to agree ,

however its the package thats important ,unless a driver is absolutely pathetic(like a certain aussie,who shall be nameless :naughty: ) he is not going to ruin an opportunity to win the WDC :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The car gets you to the front, but the driver gets you to the checkered flag.

Fangio put the ratio at about 70-30 in favor of the car. That's correct, but it needs a bit of explaining. There are years where one team has a supremely dominant car to the point that the championship was really about which teammate would win but those years are not typical. A typical season sees at least two or three teams having dominant cars, and they battle each other for the championship. This is the '70%' Fangio was talking about. You need to have the car to put you at the front, but there will be other teams with very close-performing cars so Fangio's 70% only gets you into the position for a win.

The driver provides the final, and I think most important, 30% to take that car and beat the one (or two) teams that have nearly equal machinery.

I don't think so. For several reasons. You make several assumptions. (1) You seem to be saying that a "typical season sees at least two or three" dominant teams, with all of the genuine WDC contenders in those teams. (2) You make no estimate of the performance difference between the best drivers. (3) You fail to distinguish properly between car and driver contributions to performance. (4) You ignore where team bosses put their money. I wonder if we can examine these assumptions:

(1) Lets look at the last 10 seasons plus this half season and see how often all of the 2 or 3 genuine best drivers were in cars that were perhaps relatively similar in performance. We'll see later why perhaps is the operative word here.

2007: Yes

2006: No

2005: No

2004: No

2003: Yes (very debatable, depending on your view of Alonso at this stage)

2002: No

2001: Yes (very debatable)

2000: Yes

1999: No

1998: Yes (best driver lost imho)

1997: No

So far from being typical, it is actually only true about 45% of the time (even when I'm generous) that all of the best drivers have cars that appear to be relatively evenly matched. So the first assumption doesn't seem very persuasive to me.

(2) By only considering top teams you make the differences in teams smaller, but you forget that the differences between the top drivers are smaller too. Look at cases where 2 genuine contenders for the championship have the same car and you will see the difference is often very small. For example, Senna didn't beat Prost by very much when they were team-mates. If we add up the championship totals for the two seasons Senna has 150 and Prost got 163 points. (Interestingly most people think Senna was the marginally better driver!) Or look at Alonso (68) vs Hamilton (70); or Massa (59) Kimi (52). When you have two genuine world class drivers in the same team with no team orders the performances are often very similar. If we had Kimi and Alonso together the gap would be even less imho!

(3) Sometimes a championship may appear close, but only because a better driver masks his car disadvantage. Imho this happened in 1998. Had Schumi been in the McLaren I think it would have been more convincing.

(4) One other interesting way to think about this might be to look at where F1 team bosses put their money. According to F1 racing magazine figures, the teams spend about 5% of their budgets on drivers, amazingly close to Fangio's estimate of how important drivers are!

In that article you link, aside from Fangio's statement at the beginning, it goes on to make a good case that the driver does indeed make a difference.

I'm not sure it's even trying to make that case, but if it is, then it makes it very badly imho. Fangio and Frank Williams are reported to believe the car is far more important than the driver (ignore what the writer speculates about HHF - DH could have stayed at Williams in 1997, it was mainly a money issue for FW) and Ken Tyrrell says the driver makes some difference, but doesn't say how much. So I agree with him too. I think Craig Pollock might be a little bit biased (he goes on to say the manager is crucial too!) and in any case, he knew (knows?) very little compared to the other figures mentioned.

*Interesting to note that the article you quote, Murray, includes a description of a top driver's 'skill'. That description matches, almost verbatim, my previous statements on this matter, from testing prowess to stamina throughout a whole season. Apparently the 'experts' in your article would rate a skillful driver much the same way I would (and have). I'm glad you dug around for that article, as it contains quite alot you could learn from.

I've already given a very similar definition of driver skill in this very thread. :rolleyes::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so. For several reasons. You make several assumptions. (1) You seem to be saying that a "typical season sees at least two or three" dominant teams, with all of the genuine WDC contenders in those teams. (2) You make no estimate of the performance difference between the best drivers. (3) You fail to distinguish properly between car and driver contributions to performance. (4) You ignore where team bosses put their money. I wonder if we can examine these assumptions:

(1) Lets look at the last 10 seasons plus this half season and see how often all of the 2 or 3 genuine best drivers were in cars that were perhaps relatively similar in performance. We'll see later why perhaps is the operative word here.

2007: Yes

2006: No

2005: No

2004: No

2003: Yes (very debatable, depending on your view of Alonso at this stage)

2002: No

2001: Yes (very debatable)

2000: Yes

1999: No

1998: Yes (best driver lost imho)

1997: No

So far from being typical, it is actually only true about 45% of the time (even when I'm generous) that all of the best drivers have cars that appear to be relatively evenly matched. So the first assumption doesn't seem very persuasive to me.

(2) By only considering top teams you make the differences in teams smaller, but you forget that the differences between the top drivers are smaller too. Look at cases where 2 genuine contenders for the championship have the same car and you will see the difference is often very small. For example, Senna didn't beat Prost by very much when they were team-mates. If we add up the championship totals for the two seasons Senna has 150 and Prost got 163 points. (Interestingly most people think Senna was the marginally better driver!) Or look at Alonso (68) vs Hamilton (70); or Massa (59) Kimi (52). When you have two genuine world class drivers in the same team with no team orders the performances are often very similar. If we had Kimi and Alonso together the gap would be even less imho!

(3) Sometimes a championship may appear close, but only because a better driver masks his car disadvantage. Imho this happened in 1998. Had Schumi been in the McLaren I think it would have been more convincing.

(4) One other interesting way to think about this might be to look at where F1 team bosses put their money. According to F1 racing magazine figures, the teams spend about 5% of their budgets on drivers, amazingly close to Fangio's estimate of how important drivers are!

I'm not sure it's even trying to make that case, but if it is, then it makes it very badly imho. Fangio and Frank Williams are reported to believe the car is far more important than the driver (ignore what the writer speculates about HHF - DH could have stayed at Williams in 1997, it was mainly a money issue for FW) and Ken Tyrrell says the driver makes some difference, but doesn't say how much. So I agree with him too. I think Craig Pollock might be a little bit biased (he goes on to say the manager is crucial too!) and in any case, he knew (knows?) very little compared to the other figures mentioned.

I've already given a very similar definition of driver skill in this very thread. :rolleyes::lol:

What do you mean

2006: No

2005: No

?!

I guess Alonso was trully that much better than Raikkonen and Schumacher and good at masking the car's inferiority and won.

Either way the best package/driver won.

Anyway Frankey is one of those old boys, and old boys inclunding Ferrari always belived it was just the car. And that's one of the reasons Williams sucks so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean

2006: No

2005: No

?!

I guess Alonso was trully that much better than Raikkonen and Schumacher and at masking the car's inferiority and won.

Either way the best package/driver won.

Anyway if Frankey is one of those old boys, and old boys inclunding Ferrari always belived it was just the car. And that's one of the reasons Williams sucks so much.

:lol: Well I think I understood about as much of your post as you did of mine! "No" means that "not all of the dominant 2 or 3 drivers were in the top teams, which appeared to be relatively evenly matched". You can see why I shortened it! "Yes" means that Mike's condition was satisfied, though I was very generous I think in some cases.

Maybe you wonder why the answer was "no" in those years? The reason is that in 2006, Kimi didn't have a competitive car overall, and in 2005 Michael didn't.

The rest of your post is a mystery to me I'm afraid. I don't believe FA was that much better than MS or KR, if that's what you thought I was meaning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you're right. Anyone who drives from P14 to P1 in what was voted as drive of the year by F1 fans worldwide is an awful driver. As is scoring more points than anyone in the last 7-ish races. Terrible. Jenson just sucks.

Ahh...similar logic to the people that thought Montiero was spectacular, due to his F1 record of consecutive non-DNF's to start a career. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh...similar logic to the people that thought Montiero was spectacular, due to his F1 record of consecutive non-DNF's to start a career. :rolleyes:

Err...no. Me and jem's logic makes sense. That logic is just crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hear hear. I like you! Down with the Button-bashers. Did you know in 2004 he also won autosport driver of the year in a worldwide poll? He cant be that bad.
What for?? Winning his 1st race in 6 years of driving?? Pathetic. He's so overrated but then again, he's in a rubbish car! 1 point out of 56 last season is pretty low but then again, ITV have moved on from the Button hype & no1 really gives a donkey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What for?? Winning his 1st race in 6 years of driving?? Pathetic. He's so overrated but then again, he's in a rubbish car! 1 point out of 56 last season is pretty low but then again, ITV have moved on from the Button hype & no1 really gives a donkey!

Yes, because it's totally fair to say that...in 2000 he did a great job, 2001 his car was Sh#t, 2002 the Renault wasn't a winning car and the Ferrari was too dominant, 2003 his car wasn't a winning car, 2004 he finally got a good car but Ferrari was too dominant, 2005 his car was crap...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray, I appreciate the amount of research you've done on this. I'll do my best to reply to it....later. Just thinking about the amount of time it will take to rely to you is....tiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb posts by Mike and Murray.

I am convinced that with drivers like Kimi, Alonso, And Micheal (the most important), It has to be the drivers who made the actual difference.

I am looking forward for the next episode of the Cheif priest vs Old Pervert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I think all the top drivers are of similar pace. The main difference is the cars they drive. Why does every driver want to drive for Ferrari and McLaren ? Because they're the fastest and are the top teams. A good example for cars over drivers is to compare results between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg. Both were reining GP2 champs before their rookie seasons in F1.

Nico went to Williams with a mid-field car, Lewis to McLaren with the fastest car. The results of Lewis totally dominate Nico in comparison. Drivers need to get into a top team to get consistent wins and podiums. Once in a top team, then drivers ability comes into play to win the championship. To me, the car is still the most influential factor in F1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best driver in an average car will not win

An average driver in the best car will win.

I believe the quality of the car contributes between 75-90% of a race victory. The spread is determined by the quality of the driver.

i.e Massa in a Ferrari, probably 80% car

Alonso in a Renault probably 75% car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An average driver in the best car will win.

I'm glad you've finally come to the realisation that JV was an average driver in the best car in 1997

:naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray, rather than tediously address all your points, I'll try to get them in one lump. The scientist in you wont like that, but there it is anyway.

You've listed 10 years' worth of racing. In those 10 years, you had McLaren and Ferrari, Ferrari and Williams, McLaren and Renault and now McLaren and Ferrari all being genuine title contenders for their respective years. This isn't debatable, my friend, it's fact. All of those years, except '97 and '04 saw two teams with cars so close in performance that the determining factor in a race win was the driver or team strategy (which ultimately put the onus on the driver to do his part in that strategy or it would have been a failure). I noticed you've qualified your list by saying 'genuine best driver'. Doesn't that sort of prove what I've been saying? The driver makes the final difference in a race win.

Your other points I see no reason to debate with you as they don't help us establish which is more important, the driver or the car (like the bit about the driver's salary compared to the cost of the car...it's interesting, but I frankly don't know where to go with that one! I think it has zero relevance to this as you're comparing the salary of an employee to the cost of a car...a better determination would be to compare the salary of the driver to the other team employees.)

For the sake of staying focused, I'll lump everything not under the driver's control as being the 'car'. I'll even go with Fangio's estimation that 95% of a race win is due to the car, not the driver. More often than not, there are at least two teams that can fight for a race win (I won't debate this with anyone as it would involve too much research on my part to prove what I already know to be true). My contention is that the 95% 'car' gets a driver into position to win, but rarely guarantees it. If this logic were true, please explain how Mikey's Ferrari could split Mika and DC in '98? Surely Mika was in the superior car to have won the championship and surely DC, in the same car, should have been right behind him (like '97 when Frentzen came second to JV in a dominant car). The next year Mika won the whole thing again (must be a dominant car because he won the championship..and only a dominant car would do that, right?) but look who was behind him...Irvine. Next was Frentzen in a Jordan and fourth was DC...in the same car Mika was driving. Do I need to go on here? It's clear, just from this, that the car gets you into position for a win, but doesn't guarantee it. 95% puts you on the front row, so to speak, but the driver delivers that 05% needed to win.

I could go on, but I'll leave this with a more recent example. Last season, the Renault was widely regarded as being a dominant car. Many posters here even sought to diminish Alonso's feat of 2 WDCs by claiming that anyone in the Renault could have done it. Not so. Fisico has ever been regarded by the other drivers as being the 'best' driver out there (I believe he was even awarded something like that by the other drivers not so long ago in the post-season awards ceremony). The Renault provided it's drivers with 95% of the elements needed to win, and from that we saw that Alonso's skill was the deciding factor.

So, who's more important? The driver. Fisico and DC prove that even a dominant car cannot guarantee a win..hell, it can't even guarantee 2nd in the WDC.

[it must be said that this only applies to teams that are in the position to win in the first place. Mikey the Schu in a Spyker would certainly be a place or two ahead of where they are now, but he's hardly be in a position to win.....I would think that goes without saying, but some posters have brought this up, no doubt thinking themselves brilliant for it. Unfortunately, that isn't the case..sorry.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you've finally come to the realisation that JV was an average driver in the best car in 1997

:naughty:

JV is an F1 WDC, Indy 500 champion, and a CART champion. Not many can make that claim. If he was an average driver he was a damn lucky one.

I seldom discuss him anymore as he is a retired F1 driver, and is irrelevent to the current F1 show. He seems to have made an impression on some, as they don't lose an opportunity to bring him up.

Maybe winning in F1 has more to do with luck the skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JV is an F1 WDC, Indy 500 champion, and a CART champion. Not many can make that claim. If he was an average driver he was a damn lucky one.

I seldom discuss him anymore as he is a retired F1 driver, and is irrelevent to the current F1 show. He seems to have made an impression on some, as they don't lose an opportunity to bring him up.

Maybe winning in F1 has more to do with luck the skill.

I don't think so. I've always said that JV did have had a dominant car, but he was battling nonetheless against his teammate and, indeed, his team to take his WDC. That was skill, not luck. Luck is simply a set of variables that a team/driver hasn't addressed, for one reason or another. Ideally, the best teams/drivers seek to eliminate 'luck' in trying to cover all possible scenarios that could happen. A driver eliminates luck through preparation, concentration, and racecraft....all of which take skill.

In the case of JV, had he been less focused and had less skill, he would not have won....even in a dominant car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But JV's problem is that he fell.

Ever since the return of electronics and increase of bad aero, and thus the apparition of today's winglet semi-active car JV lost the magic.

He was good in the old cars but at Renault and BMW he was sacked for lacking the pace.

He didn't adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...