FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Zekenwolf]

This is not a straightforward question to answer because in the present bunch there are some cars with which no driver is capable of winning.

But if you consider only those cars/teams which are capable of winning, then I would say it would mostly be the driver.

[sagi58]

Ooh bringing the team into it. I just assumed the question was about raw speed over a single lap. However for a race distance the team comes into it a lot more...

But, isn't the car the team's responsibility?
How do you separate the two fairly?

[Zekenwolf]

[:
How do you separate the two fairly?

You cannot. The fastest or the most apparently skilful driver with one car/team may not necessarily be able to replicate similar results with another even if that second car/team in itself had produced good results with another driver. There are too many variables.

For the same reason, one cannot apply the adage "natural talent" when it comes to a sport like F1 because of the external factors involved, most obviously the huge electro-mechanical device needed to produce results. Being able to drive a racing car and winning - even over a sustained period - is not a 'natural' talent like painting or singing for example. More often than not, the F1 team chief technician, engineers etc design and build the cars around what they perceive as the strong points of their driver(s). But at the end of the day, it is the driver who has to use that car over F1 racing distances to produce results.

[sagi58]

How do you separate the two fairly?

You cannot. The fastest or the most apparently skilful driver with one car/team may not necessarily be able to replicate similar results with another even if that second car/team in itself had produced good results with another driver. There are too many variables...

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

[Zekenwolf]

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

Probably right, looking at the proverbial 'big picture'.

[sagi58]

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

Probably right, looking at the proverbial 'big picture'.

Thanks!! Now I can vote!!

[What's Burning?]

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

Probably right, looking at the proverbial 'big picture'.

Thanks!! Now I can vote!!

I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize your conclusion to account for Jenson Button in 2009 for example.

[sagi58]

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

Probably right, looking at the proverbial 'big picture'.

Thanks!! Now I can vote!!

I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize your conclusion to account for Jenson Button in 2009 for example.

Some things are beyond rational explanations!

[NHcheese]

Whats interesting is that, there are more car 90% than driver 90%.

[sagi58]

Whats interesting is that, there are more car 90% than driver 90%.

Possibly because of the Vettel/Red Bull pairing.
It would seem it's easier to believe it's the car than to give Vettel due credit!!

[Zekenwolf]

So... if we're to choose only between the car and the driver, the ratio should change to 50/50... right?

p.s. am reserving the right to vote at a later date!!

Probably right, looking at the proverbial 'big picture'.

Thanks!! Now I can vote!!

I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize your conclusion to account for Jenson Button in 2009 for example.

OK. I said earlier -

But if you consider only those cars/teams which are capable of winning, then I would say it would mostly be the driver.

In 2009, Button certainly had a car capable of winning but being a new brand, the Brawn caught everyone by surprise including the drivers. Button, having just won the odd race before 2009, drove his heart out at the start and won several races. So, the driver factor in a winnable car.

Later in the season, the car continued to be very winnable but Button suddenly realised that he was heading for the WDC and began to choke and nearly lost it. Once again, the driver factor in a winnable car, but this time working the other way.

[racechick]

Well, 'he drove his heart out' until the other teams got double diffusers and their cars went as fast as his, then he stopped winning. Luckily for him he'd done enough to secure the title in the 'driving his heart out' phase of the year.

[bud]

Well, 'he drove his heart out' until the other teams got double diffusers and their cars went as fast as his, then he stopped winning. Luckily for him he'd done enough to secure the title in the 'driving his heart out' phase of the year.

Brawn were not the only team with double diffusers, that alone was not the only reason they had the best package.
Also one must remember Brawn through out the season lacked the upgrade capabilities due to lack of money as the other teams.

F1s always been about car advantage I don't understand how it's any different for Brawn GP

[Zekenwolf]

Until the other teams got double diffusers and their cars went as fast as his.

Red Bull did not have DDs for the Chinese GP in 2009. In that race, Vettel regained the lead by overtaking Button after making his second stop to Jensen's one.

[racechick]

Until the other teams got double diffusers and their cars went as fast as his.

Red Bull did not have DDs for the Chinese GP in 2009. In that race, Vettel regained the lead by overtaking Button after making his second stop to Jensen's one.

The point I was making is that Button was fast when his car was superior. In that wet race the advantage was maybe negated somewhat. He won most of the early races.