It was poor at the beginning but he did gain from a lot of misfortune for others, the car was pretty good in races though.
Are you saying the 08 McLaren was not a good car? Heikki was way out of his depth in 08 hence quickly moved on.
F1 is just the cars, not the drivers
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
It was poor at the beginning but he did gain from a lot of misfortune for others, the car was pretty good in races though.
Are you saying the 08 McLaren was not a good car? Heikki was way out of his depth in 08 hence quickly moved on.
He said it before the 2010 season I am sure.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
And as people point out all-too-infrequently, Bellof was catching both Prost and Senna, and those in the pits claimed that Senna's suspension was at the point of collapse from an earlier brush with the wall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
It wasn't necessarily a poor car, but it shows that you need a decent driver and can't just rely on the car.
kd
He only won the 10th and 14th race in 2009. Yes car was ok for 1 lap(4 poles that year) compaired to his wdc car it was a dog.
Well if you don't know that..well pfff or look at it from another driver.
It took Button 113 starts before he won a race..and now he is in a good car wins a few
People complaining that a driver can only win in F1 with a good car are watching the wrong sport IMO. Go and watch a spec racing series if you want equality.
At least half of my interest in F1 is the engineering side of things. It's a year long race between teams trying new ideas, copying ideas from other teams but perhaps breaking their own car's concept in the process. The cars are living, breathing prototypes built by a whole team, of which the driver is just the visible tip of the iceberg.
That said, to watch the great drivers, like, for example Alonso can drag a car which is demonstrably inferior to their peers around a track faster than it should be able to go is great watching.
In summary - to complain that the driver in the best car is almost guaranteed to win the race/WDC is to miss the point of Formula 1.
At least half of my interest in F1 is the engineering side of things. It's a year long race between teams trying new ideas, copying ideas from other teams but perhaps breaking their own car's concept in the process. The cars are living, breathing prototypes built by a whole team, of which the driver is just the visible tip of the iceberg.
That said, to watch the great drivers, like, for example Alonso can drag a car which is demonstrably inferior to their peers around a track faster than it should be able to go is great watching.
In summary - to complain that the driver in the best car is almost guaranteed to win the race/WDC is to miss the point of Formula 1.
I'm with timbob. The competition between manufacturers is as much a part of the sport as the competition between drivers. People who complain are either missing the point, or just looking for something to complain about. This stuff comes round every time a team dominates for a bit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 3,053
- Location
- ireland
Imho i haven't seen a better driver than Alonso in F1. I am a Ferrari fan so maybe a little bit bias but i hate people who call Vettel the best driver and compare him with Schumacher. Alonso deserves all the credit he gets, i know there is still some hate for him on this forum since that Mclaren year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
He's not the fastest driver ever, but he's certainly the most complete I've seen in my lifetime.
I think there's a bit of Mansell about Alonso—not the most naturally talented driver in the world, but he never ever gives up. He just won't go away in races and championships. Even that dog of a Renault in 2008, people often point to Piquet for winning that race for Alonso, but they often forget that had a genuine shot at pole position and a race win but for a faulty fuel pump. He's stupendously consistent and relentless.
He's also got an incredible talent for taking it easy early in a stint, protecting the tyres, while seldom allowing those around him to attack, even with DRS now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
This doesn't tell the complete story, however
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 chart is completely meaningless because both championships are decided by the same metric - points scored by drivers. For that reason, the team whose driver wins the WDC will always have a head start in winning the WCC. Suggesting that winning both means it's the car not the driver is like saying that if the top goalscorer in the Premier League plays for the league champions, it's the team that are responsible for the goals and not the player. Obviously this is in part true because football is a team game, but just as the goalscorer wouldn't have scored those goals without his team, without the goalscorer the team wouldn't be champions either.
Also doesn't consider team mates. There was a point last year where Alonso was almost single handedly responsible for Ferrari's position in the WCC. Two half decent drivers can take a team to the WCC without winning the WDC, while a single good driver would struggle to win the WCC for his team if he had zero help from his team mate.
That graph is also car bias. Why can't you say that when the WCC and WDC are won by the same team, that it was because they had the best driver in the car that won them the WCC?
That graph is also car bias. Why can't you say that when the WCC and WDC are won by the same team, that it was because they had the best driver in the car that won them the WCC?
That graph is laughable. All those championships down to the car then you have Hakkinens in 1999 down to the driver on the basis they didn't win the constructors.
I'd say it's more than 70% myself but then I'm not complaining about it either, it's just always been that way for me since I was watching in the mid 80's.
I'd say it's more than 70% myself but then I'm not complaining about it either, it's just always been that way for me since I was watching in the mid 80's.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 6,056
This is true, but it makes it more likely that someone will win the WDC without their team winning the WCC, not less. For a team to win the WCC without the WDC requires two drivers who both do really well, but not well enough to be the best.
If you look at the anomalous years, that's mostly what happened. Piquet did all the work for Brabham in 1981 and 1983 while Williams had Jones and Reutemann in 1981 and Ferrari had Arnoux and Tambay in 1983, each pair splitting four wins. In 1986 Prost again did all the work while Mansell and Piquet split the wins. 1999 saw Hakkinen do most of the work while Ferrari had three WDC contenders after Schumacher broke his leg, and latterly Hamilton edged the 2008 title after Massa and Raikkonen both did almost enough to win. It's only 1994 where two drivers doing all the work for their team found themselves head to head and split the titles, and even then Williams would have had both if Schumacher hadn't deliberately rammed Hill off the track.
First off, nice new signature!
Secondly, I personally think Mark Webber is evidence of the need for a car to be appropriate for the driver, Jenson Button is perhaps a better example.
I think the car needs to be right for the driver for the two to work. All drivers have their own style of driving and setup requirements, but if a car is developed towards one driver, there is a chance that no2. driver will suffer because the car will not move in their style of driving.
So, depending on how you view it, there is an argument for both sides in isolation. You could say it is all car as a driver needs a car to work for him, but equally you could say it is a lot to do with the driver, as a car needs a driver to set it up correctly for him to drive it well.
On his day, with the right car, the right conditions and the right track any driver can be unbeatable. Jenson button is a shining example of this as when he hits all the notes, he is fantastic to watch. Give him a car that is not quite in his comfort zone....he seems to fall apart. Give a car that is not quite right to Alonso, Hamilton.....they seem to be able to pull something extra out of it.
So in short - I think it is a lot to do with the car, but there are a few drivers that can take a car that doesn't work for them, take it and drive it to points in a race. These are the are the truly great drivers. These are the guys that can eek out that extra few tenths that others cannot. They are the drivers that make a difference to the car.
courtesy of ImMrChris 
Having recently watch the "Senna" DVD again, agree 100% with this.
Not a huge follower of F1 these days, but assume it is still like most motorsport (e.g. BTCC that I do follow), in that biggest budget still ultimately dictates overall season results, even allowing for restrictions and regulations to try and level the playing field.
Sorry for BTCC examples below,
Good drivers in poor cars will occasionally manage a good performance (Dave Newsham), but poor drivers in good cars, will consistently manage an average performance (Andy Neate).
Good drivers in good cars will obviously always be frontrunners (e.g. Sheddon/Neil/Plato).
Indeed. RBR set up the car to favour Vettel. I think I read somewhere that Vettel seems to like to enter a corner carrying too much speed and the car starts oversteering. At that point he boots the throttle and the exhaust blowing the diffuser creates lots of rear downforce which settles the car.
Early on last season he couldnm't do that as their exhausts weren't optimized. Mark Webber is better at hustling the car round which meant he suddenly seemed relatively much stronger than Vettel. However they soon sorted the exhausts out and Vettel began to pull away from Webber again as the car was setup to his style.