Maybe a stupid question here
Discussion
Ford 2 said:
I'm going to use Red Bull and Lotus just as an example here, But if you put the likes of Vettel into the Lotus and Kubica into the Red Bull, would there be such a difference compared to now. Is it all down to the car not been fast/developed enough ? or is it all about the driver ?
GP motor racing is a team event. It is generally the best team that wins.In the Brawn years at Ferrari we saw what was probably the best team in F1 ever. There were no weak spots. The design team of the car, infrastructure of the team, the way it was run, the way they got the massive tyre advantage, having the FIA eating out of its hand, the extra funding over and above being the richest team in the pitlane. Oh, and the driver of course. What's his name.
Luck plays a part of course but not really over the whole season.
We will never know whether or not one of the other very good drivers would have done the same as MSc. That's for long arguments in pubs or when the pace car is out. No one knows of course although that should not stop you having an opinion.
The design of the RB gives Vettel a considerable advantage. But, of course, it takes someone very skilled to exploit that advantage.
We are very lucky this and last season to have so many ex WDCs on the grid. Alonso has largely been lauded as the most complete driver on the grid and has a car that is probably the third fastest yet look how he struggled in the last race. He's now probably at his prime as well. But he's in a Ferrari that is not class of the field.
Not, by any means, a stupid question.
Not a stupid question at all one one that has been not just asked but acted upon in the past.
Honda arranged for Senna to drive the Honda powered Tyrrell at a Silverstone tyre test in 1991 to establish a comparison between their drivers at the time (Stefano Modena and Saturo Nakajima). Tyrrell were having an awful season with just one lucky 2nd place in Canada (IIRC) and there was some debate over whether it was the car or drivers - both of whom were there as a result of wallet size rather than talent (or so it was thought).
Senna was quicker but not by a margin that suggested huge a difference in skill levels of the drivers. He reported after that the Tyrrell was a fundamentally good car but he would need a season with the team to develop it to its potential.
Honda arranged for Senna to drive the Honda powered Tyrrell at a Silverstone tyre test in 1991 to establish a comparison between their drivers at the time (Stefano Modena and Saturo Nakajima). Tyrrell were having an awful season with just one lucky 2nd place in Canada (IIRC) and there was some debate over whether it was the car or drivers - both of whom were there as a result of wallet size rather than talent (or so it was thought).
Senna was quicker but not by a margin that suggested huge a difference in skill levels of the drivers. He reported after that the Tyrrell was a fundamentally good car but he would need a season with the team to develop it to its potential.
Thanks lads. Maybe even this http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f... ?? Just in relation to world class drivers and the difference in pace and times and all in the same car
When the really good drivers are in mediocre cars they still tend to impress. They don't win, but they still get noticed. Senna's pace was obvious even in a Toleman. Prost made agot himself noticed in his first season, in a McLaren that wasn't in those days the dominant company we now know. Schumacher caused a sensation in his first race, in a Jordan, despite not managing to finish the first lap of the race! Hakkinen's pace was obvious in his early days in the Lotus, etc etc.
As others have said, the car makes the biggest difference. Even Schumacher and Senna couldn't win championships in cars that weren't good enough to allow them to. But, to take drivers that are generally beyond dispute in terms of driving talent, I'd think that if you put Senna in, say, Gugelmin's March, and Gugelmin in Senna's McLaren, you'd notice a great driver in an ordinary car and an ordinary driver in a great car.
Gugelmin would finish higher in the championship, but Senna would still impress more, by getting the car to finish in places that you wouldn't expect it to, and that his team mate can't touch.
Ask yourself if Renault's season would have been any better if Kubica had been available?
As others have said, the car makes the biggest difference. Even Schumacher and Senna couldn't win championships in cars that weren't good enough to allow them to. But, to take drivers that are generally beyond dispute in terms of driving talent, I'd think that if you put Senna in, say, Gugelmin's March, and Gugelmin in Senna's McLaren, you'd notice a great driver in an ordinary car and an ordinary driver in a great car.
Gugelmin would finish higher in the championship, but Senna would still impress more, by getting the car to finish in places that you wouldn't expect it to, and that his team mate can't touch.
Ask yourself if Renault's season would have been any better if Kubica had been available?
Alfanatic said:
When the really good drivers are in mediocre cars they still tend to impress. They don't win, but they still get noticed. Senna's pace was obvious even in a Toleman. Prost made agot himself noticed in his first season, in a McLaren that wasn't in those days the dominant company we now know. Schumacher caused a sensation in his first race, in a Jordan, despite not managing to finish the first lap of the race! Hakkinen's pace was obvious in his early days in the Lotus, etc etc.
True to a point. Button was under rated for years by many, myself included if I'm honest. He had, and still has, a less dramatic style than many drivers, but given the right equipment he has proven himself phenomenal. Niki Lauda struggled to even get a drive, and bought his way into BRM.
I'm sure there are others out there, and others still who never made it but given the right car could have done great things.
The thing is there are no bad drivers in F1, and I do believe that given the right car and the right circumstances then nearly anyone on the grid tomorrow is capable of winning a WDC. However to win 2 means you're really on it, and 3 is the benchmark of a great.
AJS- said:
Alfanatic said:
When the really good drivers are in mediocre cars they still tend to impress. They don't win, but they still get noticed. Senna's pace was obvious even in a Toleman. Prost made agot himself noticed in his first season, in a McLaren that wasn't in those days the dominant company we now know. Schumacher caused a sensation in his first race, in a Jordan, despite not managing to finish the first lap of the race! Hakkinen's pace was obvious in his early days in the Lotus, etc etc.
True to a point. Button was under rated for years by many, myself included if I'm honest. He had, and still has, a less dramatic style than many drivers, but given the right equipment he has proven himself phenomenal. Niki Lauda struggled to even get a drive, and bought his way into BRM.
I'm sure there are others out there, and others still who never made it but given the right car could have done great things.
The thing is there are no bad drivers in F1, and I do believe that given the right car and the right circumstances then nearly anyone on the grid tomorrow is capable of winning a WDC. However to win 2 means you're really on it, and 3 is the benchmark of a great.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff