FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Martin]

After recent exchanges with nsaqam on another post, he points out that he feels that F1 began in 1950 when the WDC was introduced.
I, personally, think that the WDC is not really important in F1, because F1 IS so much more of a team sport than any other form of motor racing. The teams design their own cars and performance tweaks. No one person can stand out in a team unless the rest of the team is on top form. Obviously, some drivers are better than others but, I'm sure that you will agree, that there were several drivers that could have won last years WDC if they had been in a Ferrari or McL. (I like L.H. and he is an exceptional driver, but not the only one capable of winning WDC). Other forms of racing have more limited car specs and so the driver is more important, and, of course there is a team element in every format, but, in F! I think the holder of the WDC title is not, necessarily, the best driver, but the holder of the WCC is the best team for that season.
The driver is just one member of a highly interdependent team.
I believe that the WDC was added to encourage more spectator support - which is fine, spectators are important to the sport.
What say you oh wise ones?

[bud]

the drivers the focal point i guess and while he needs the car to be faster than the other constructors he still has to do the work to win out there on the track.

i think McLaren Fan will like this thread

[Jabberwocky]

But it show when a driver could transend a team, as in look at where Vettle ended up compared to how SB made the team look

[nsaqam]

I like the WDC because it is the human behind the wheel to which most people relate.
The teams are important and although I like McLaren the best of all teams I was rooting for Williams in early 1994 because that's what Senna drove.
The 2 championships (WDC, WCC) are a perfect way of running F1 because it appeals to both kinds of fans, those who root for the drivers irrespective of the team and those of us who root for the team irrespective of the drivers. I'm a little of both I guess.
With a few notable exceptions (Senna, Lauda) I tend to root for one of the drivers in a McLaren to take the WDC. Some drivers like the 2 I mentioned make me transcend team loyalties but for the most part I'm a team guy.
Finally Martin, you said it, the WDC is good for the vast majority of spectators who aren't as loony about F1 as those of us who haunt forums like this.

[SarahB62]

Have to say I support the Team as a whole but having a driver who gets the best performance out of the car and works as part of the team is crucial.

[scotty]

Cars are just a load of metal and rubber without a driver behind the wheel... simple!

[big ron]

Cars are just a load of metal and rubber without a driver behind the wheel... simple!

And without the load of metal and rubber, the driver is just a pedestrian


I like to think both are just as relevent to F1. The WCC provides the fiscal underpinnings that keep the teams in the hunt, and the WDC gives the team a focal point to support.

[scotty]

Cars are just a load of metal and rubber without a driver behind the wheel... simple!

And without the load of metal and rubber, the driver is just a pedestrian


I like to think both are just as relevent to F1.

Exactly!

[McLaren Fan]

i think McLaren Fan will like this thread

I have always found it a little odd that Formula One started without a constructors' title given that the sport was always meant to be team-based. When I say that, I don't mean to disparage the drivers' title (well, too many anyway), because having a good driver is key to the whole team's success. The engineers could design the most competitive car on the grid and get no success if the driver is a poor employee by always crashing etc.

On the other side of the coin, though, it does greatly peeve me that many drivers think they are the be-all-and-end-all when they are just employees and that the constructors' title is seen as inferior. Without a competitive car, clever strategists, efficient pit crew etc., a driver would have virtually no chance of winning the drivers' title. So, a drivers' title is the culmination of the whole team's effort; so, as far as I'm concerned, Hamilton's title belongs as much, if not more, to McLaren.

I also feel the drivers' title is an unreliable means of gauging drivers' skills. As I've hinted at already, a drivers' title victory is largely down to his the tools his team offer him: if a good driver is in a rubbish car, then he won't win; and if a bad driver is in a good car, then he stands a good chance of winning. You only need to look at last season's drivers' title to see that. Hamilton is talented, but made too many mistakes and Massa is bested by numerous people on the grid, but they were vying for the title. Then you had people like Alonso and Vettel who did a much better job, but received far less success.

As I've implied already, the constructors' title is the best indication of the team as a whole performs, and as Formula One is meant to be a team sport, it should at least be equal in prestige to the drivers' title. Again, you only need to look at last season's constructors title. McLaren did well to rally after 2007 and had the best all-round car on the grid and generally made fewer gaffes than Ferrari in terms of strategy etc., but Kovalainen was the weak link. This illustrates two points, in other words: first, it shows how everybody in the team needs to perform; second, it shows the importance of employing a good driver.

[emma]

Personally, I support drivers rather than teams, so I pay a lot more attention to WDC than WCC.
While the WCC takes the teams' performances as a whole into account, the WDC allows the drivers to really shine.

[Hanwombat]

Personally, I support drivers rather than teams, so I pay a lot more attention to WDC than WCC.
While the WCC takes the teams' performances as a whole into account, the WDC allows the drivers to really shine.

Whereas I am the other way round

[McLaren Fan]

Personally, I support drivers rather than teams, so I pay a lot more attention to WDC than WCC.
While the WCC takes the teams' performances as a whole into account, the WDC allows the drivers to really shine.

Which is part of my problem really.

[cap-dude]

In my opinion there shouldn't be a WDC or WCC. Because you can't win the WDC without a great team, and you can't win the WCC without great drivers. Instead, it should be a case of, which ever driver finishes in first place, both the team and the driver win the championship.

In 2008, I found McLaren to be the best team, and Massa to be the best driver. Yet neither won the championship. Massa lost the WDC because he was let down by his team, whilst Lewis won because the car provided never faulted. I'm not having a go at Lewis here. I'm just saying that the general case is, the best driver does not always win. The best driver may be found pulling a struggling team up. Thats way, I think both championships are completely dependent on the combination of driver and team. Therefore the best combination of driver and team should be awarded the championship.

[emma]

Personally, I support drivers rather than teams, so I pay a lot more attention to WDC than WCC.
While the WCC takes the teams' performances as a whole into account, the WDC allows the drivers to really shine.

Which is part of my problem really.

But... From my point of view, I don't understand why rewarding good drivers in good cars with winning the WDC is a problem? As far as I can see, it takes nothing away from the WCC.

[texasmr2]

Personally, I support drivers rather than teams, so I pay a lot more attention to WDC than WCC.
While the WCC takes the teams' performances as a whole into account, the WDC allows the drivers to really shine.

Which is part of my problem really.

Having trouble finding where emma said you have a problem? Oh sorry my bad I forgot to read between the lines .