F1 is just the cars, not the drivers

Merlin5

Merlin5

Merlin5

Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Posts
18,392
Location
Finchley, London
This is basically a statement I just heard on the radio. A presenter and guest (not sports people) were saying how they didn't really like F1 because it's all about the car and not the driver. This is obviously an over simplification of F1. But it made me wonder, has anyone in the history of F1 ever won a WDC while NOT being in the fastest car on the track? For instance, when Schumacher was winning year after year, was his car the fastest on the track or was he and his team just skillful and strategic enough to win against faster cars?
 
Alonso once said it was 70% about the car, would be hard to disagree with that, I assume he also includes tyres in that 70%.
 
I can think of more WDC runners up in 'bad' cars - or at least in cars which were most commonly not the quickest on a given weekend. Alonso last year being the most recent example, Kimi in 2003 being another.
 
It's not all about the car at all. Those people commenting on the radio have obviously never driven in an F1 car at 200mph before. First and foremost let's not forget that these men have balls of steel for a start...BRAVE!

They have to be uber fit to compete in an F1 Grand Prix. They've obviously never seen photos of some of the gear they use to train with to get all the required muscles pumped and strong.

Then there's dexterity, co-ordination, skill and strategic thinking. There are so many many other variable as well, such as depth perception and spatial awareness.

I completely agree with Alonso and remember that quote from somewhere but 70 percent isn't winning you World Driver Championships.
 
This doesn't tell the complete story, however

21zweUk.png

Does suggest that the majority of the time, if you want to win the WDC you have to be in the car that's going to win the constructors championship.

That said, it's a relatively simple analysis, and fails to take into account where the teams other driver has come. I've only bothered going back to 1980 as well.

That said, it will be interesting to see how Perez and Hamilton do.
Perez is not really seen as one of the 'best' drivers, (although hasn't necessarily had a chance to prove himself), but is in one of the cars that should be a faster car.
Hamilton on the other hand is in one of the slower cars, but is seen as one of the better drivers. Will be interesting to see who beats who in the Drivers between the two.

kd
 
There is only Lewis and Alonso that can get a dog of a car to the top.
The rest of the field NEED a great car.
 
Why is it seen as a bad thing that its to do with the car too? F1 is the pinnacle of 'motor sport', not just driving. Teams building the fastest car they can is as much a part of F1 as driver skill is.

Its as much a part of the sport as the inevitable 'its all the car's comments are whenever one team dominates for a bit.
 
In 1995 Schumacher won with a car 2nd to the Williams, though there wasn't much in it, car wise. Less controversial than 1994 too.

2000, again Schumacher beating the dominant McLaren. (I'm not a Schumacher fan, but they are the most recent examples I can think of).

In 2007 the Ferrari certainly wasn't the fastest car, but Kimi won—more about McLaren politics and them imploding than a stunning Kimi season though.

Plenty of cases of slower cars profiting from unreliable cars throughout the decades too. The 80s Renault's constantly falling over spring to mind. And the debut of the Lotus 49 in 1967, with Denny Hulme beating Clark in his more conservative Brabham.
 
I hear this a lot from people when i say i enjoy F1. I'm hoping lewis can do something decent in the Mercedes this year to sort of prove to some people the driver can make a difference.
 
You can have a great car but without a good driver to go with it you'll still struggle. A Good Driver can extract more than the sum of the cars parts from it though. Paul Stoddart (I think!) from Minardi used to say that Alonso would make the car go faster than they thought it could according to their simulations.
 
For performance over a whole season, the RBR should have won in 2009 and the McLaren last year.

But then it depends what you class as the best car. Is a more reliable car better than a faster but fragile one?
 
Mr Men said:
Lewis has never dragged a dog to the top? see the start of 2009, neither has Alonso.
Click to expand...


2009 Lewis only won 2 races and finished 5th..button won 6 in the top car.
That was a bad year for Mclaren and it was a dog of a car compared to the 2008 car.

As for Alonso I bet he drove a bad car to the top a few times as well.

weta said:
Senna's rookie F1 season with Toleman is a great example of a driver outperforming the car.
Click to expand...

That race at Monaco should never have been stopped...A Senna was the last of the great drivers.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
2009 Liews only won 2 races and finished 5th..button won 6 in the top car.
That was a bad year for Mclaren and it was a dog of a car.

As for Alonso I bet he drove a bad car to the top a few times as well.
Click to expand...

He only won once the car was massively improved, when it was a dog he was at the back.
 
deuse said:
There is only Lewis and Alonso that can get a dog of a car to the top.
The rest of the field NEED a great car.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then why did Lewis only scrape one WDC with Mclaren in an epic stint with them?
 
Mr Men said:
Alonso once said it was 70% about the car, would be hard to disagree with that, I assume he also includes tyres in that 70%.
Click to expand...

how long ago did he say that? its probably changed to 90% the car+tyres+setup more recently.

the driver is definitely not making the difference they used to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom