Can Button develop a car?
Discussion
...or do teams fold in his presence?
All those years leading a team an Honda got him nowhere. The fluke idea of the double diffuser in 2009 won him a WDC, but only after the rest of the field steadily caught up over the year. Then with Hamilton at McLaren, they are regular race winners, even WDC contenders, but it immediately evaporates when Hamilton leaves.
All those years leading a team an Honda got him nowhere. The fluke idea of the double diffuser in 2009 won him a WDC, but only after the rest of the field steadily caught up over the year. Then with Hamilton at McLaren, they are regular race winners, even WDC contenders, but it immediately evaporates when Hamilton leaves.
No he can't look at the Brawn days. In practice Rubens was quicker than Button. Then Button would bolt on Rubens setup for qually and go a bit quicker in qually and race. Thats why Rubens got so upset that season. Jenson has a very small window in that he can perform if the car is out of that performance envelope he struggles to give good feed back on the setup and balance of the car.
willthisnamework said:
No he can't look at the Brawn days. In practice Rubens was quicker than Button. Then Button would bolt on Rubens setup for qually and go a bit quicker in qually and race. Thats why Rubens got so upset that season. Jenson has a very small window in that he can perform if the car is out of that performance envelope he struggles to give good feed back on the setup and balance of the car.
Utter rubbish.The reason Rubens lost it so much was because he couldn't get the hang of getting the car off the line and when he f
ked up he couldn't control his temper. After coming into the factory in January of that year, lobbying all and sundry to push for him and not Senna in the second seat, he lost a lot of support with his histrionics during the season.
RealSquirrels said:
i am sure mclaren have great staff but i'm very uncomfortable with you using a PhD as a reliable indicator of competence, i've known at least 60 PhDs and about 50 of them have been useless.
+1I think it boils down to management: use those Phds to refine a car that was at least sometimes competitive and you know a great deal about how it behaves, or develop from scratch a completely new one that you have to bin anyway after the season...?
Button is like all the drivers. Stick em in a competitive car and they look good. When the car is a dog, they look shyte.
RealSquirrels said:
i am sure mclaren have great staff but i'm very uncomfortable with you using a PhD as a reliable indicator of competence, i've known at least 60 PhDs and about 50 of them have been useless.
Good grief. RealSquirrels posts something MGJohn is in agreement with ... 
... cease never wonders... 
Catatafish said:
.
Button is like all the drivers. Stick em in a competitive car and they look good. When the car is a dog, they look shyte.
.
Nailed it right there!Button is like all the drivers. Stick em in a competitive car and they look good. When the car is a dog, they look shyte.
.
He probably isn't quite as good at feedback as Hamilton.
However, due to the pedastal drivers are put on by fans, it is understandable that some believe drivers can be worth an entire 2 seconds per lap or something because of there mere engineering ability.
Hamilton has never, at any point (I will bet my house) said, 'I need more rear grip, may I suggest altering the trailing edge of the barge board by 0.25 degrees inward and extending in 2 mm.'
The quality of feedback will probably be better (more detailed for example), or they may just be more assertive in what they want (positive turn in yadda yadda). But ultimately the car is improved and refined by engineers.
Also love the way the Brawn's stunted development was all Button, not the lack of money.
It does seem that F1 is all about the car. Apart from occasions like this, when it turns out it is all about the driver!
However, due to the pedastal drivers are put on by fans, it is understandable that some believe drivers can be worth an entire 2 seconds per lap or something because of there mere engineering ability.
Hamilton has never, at any point (I will bet my house) said, 'I need more rear grip, may I suggest altering the trailing edge of the barge board by 0.25 degrees inward and extending in 2 mm.'
The quality of feedback will probably be better (more detailed for example), or they may just be more assertive in what they want (positive turn in yadda yadda). But ultimately the car is improved and refined by engineers.
Also love the way the Brawn's stunted development was all Button, not the lack of money.
It does seem that F1 is all about the car. Apart from occasions like this, when it turns out it is all about the driver!
I wonder "developing" the car is actually quite the same as it used to be. Given the limited testing, the huge data collection and numbers of clever people employed in analysis - developing the cars. This is not Cooper drawing the chassis on the workshop floor in chalk, an engineer like Chapman and Clark or Hill, Head and Jones/Mansell or even Murray and Piquet or Prost/Senna. There is no revolution going on, the fundamental engineering is understood, this is refinement and marginal gain (before the phrase was coined) process. Is it more akin to a confirmation of the modelling, "how does that feel?" As everything else can be modelled and measured as opposed to a driver/engineer saying lets try different springs or toe in or a different set of gear ratios.
Is it more science and less black art, these days?
Is it more science and less black art, these days?
Vocal Minority said:
He probably isn't quite as good at feedback as Hamilton.
However, due to the pedastal drivers are put on by fans, it is understandable that some believe drivers can be worth an entire 2 seconds per lap or something because of there mere engineering ability.
Hamilton has never, at any point (I will bet my house) said, 'I need more rear grip, may I suggest altering the trailing edge of the barge board by 0.25 degrees inward and extending in 2 mm.'
The quality of feedback will probably be better (more detailed for example), or they may just be more assertive in what they want (positive turn in yadda yadda). But ultimately the car is improved and refined by engineers.
Also love the way the Brawn's stunted development was all Button, not the lack of money.
It does seem that F1 is all about the car. Apart from occasions like this, when it turns out it is all about the driver!
Nice one V-M. Them's the way things are.... However, due to the pedastal drivers are put on by fans, it is understandable that some believe drivers can be worth an entire 2 seconds per lap or something because of there mere engineering ability.
Hamilton has never, at any point (I will bet my house) said, 'I need more rear grip, may I suggest altering the trailing edge of the barge board by 0.25 degrees inward and extending in 2 mm.'
The quality of feedback will probably be better (more detailed for example), or they may just be more assertive in what they want (positive turn in yadda yadda). But ultimately the car is improved and refined by engineers.
Also love the way the Brawn's stunted development was all Button, not the lack of money.
It does seem that F1 is all about the car. Apart from occasions like this, when it turns out it is all about the driver!
Northern Munkee said:
I wonder "developing" the car is actually quite the same as it used to be. Given the limited testing, the huge data collection and numbers of clever people employed in analysis - developing the cars. This is not Cooper drawing the chassis on the workshop floor in chalk, an engineer like Chapman and Clark or Hill, Head and Jones/Mansell or even Murray and Piquet or Prost/Senna. There is no revolution going on, the fundamental engineering is understood, this is refinement and marginal gain (before the phrase was coined) process. Is it more akin to a confirmation of the modelling, "how does that feel?" As everything else can be modelled and measured as opposed to a driver/engineer saying lets try different springs or toe in or a different set of gear ratios.
Is it more science and less black art, these days?
Nice one N-M. Them's the way things are.... Is it more science and less black art, these days?
I'm no f1 designer, so I may be talking utter bilge, but I think the way cars are designed nowadays, to the nth degree, with tiny wee flaps and wings pushing small bits of air over that bit, and under that bit, and the level of aero as a vital part of the car as a whole, I don't think the same applies as the 'good old days' any more, where a tweak of wing there, or a suspension set up here can fix things, certainly not if it affects the rest of the car due to the high level of aero. The cars are no so net grail throughout the design, playing with one aspect can, I think, have repercussions throughout the design. A harder spring rate, or a turn of wing just doesn't suffice any more.
O/T wasn't there a rule change a few years back to reduce aero dependancy?
Raised, simple front wings and skinny rear wings?
Its gone back, and in fact much worse than the days where cars had winglets all over.
Anyway, back on topic:
My view is that today drivers have little or no effect on the performance of the car itself (if its quick, it will be a quick car, and if its poor it will be poor).
However, drivers need to able tune into a quick car in certain ways. For example; EBD and Vettle.
Raised, simple front wings and skinny rear wings?
Its gone back, and in fact much worse than the days where cars had winglets all over.
Anyway, back on topic:
My view is that today drivers have little or no effect on the performance of the car itself (if its quick, it will be a quick car, and if its poor it will be poor).
However, drivers need to able tune into a quick car in certain ways. For example; EBD and Vettle.
Drivers don't 'develop' cars anymore. They can't test - how can they 'develop'?
They get a few bits and bobs which are more-or-less sure fire time-finders on a Friday (providing your simulator correlates to the track) and then run them.
Most 'development' is done in the simulator.
I'm afraid the days of drivers hacking around asking for this and that and magically adding a second a lap are loooong gone.
They get a few bits and bobs which are more-or-less sure fire time-finders on a Friday (providing your simulator correlates to the track) and then run them.
Most 'development' is done in the simulator.
I'm afraid the days of drivers hacking around asking for this and that and magically adding a second a lap are loooong gone.
Vocal Minority said:
Hamilton has never, at any point (I will bet my house) said, 'I need more rear grip, may I suggest altering the trailing edge of the barge board by 0.25 degrees inward and extending in 2 mm.'
Agreed, but then I haven't ever heard comments like that from any driver, not from the old days even.That sort of thing isn't really the drivers job, he just needs to have a overview of the tech bits so they can keep up with the engineers. Their bit is all about feedback and suggesting what they want the car to do / not do.
stevesingo said:
Hamilton fanboy in sticking the knife in Button Shocker. Stop the press...Not.
There are over 60 Doctors of engineering disciplines at McLaren. If they cant solve the issues, I doubt any driver can.
I don't know how many PHDs Red Bull have, but they seem to have cracked it.There are over 60 Doctors of engineering disciplines at McLaren. If they cant solve the issues, I doubt any driver can.
Even Force India with a much smaller budget and the same engine/rear end have got the measure of McLaren.
So, I think your statement is rubbish.
Back to Button. We don't know if he can develop a car.
What we do know is we see other drivers saying things like "we need to go back and work through the data to understand". At one race (I think it was Germany) where one driver still wasn't tuned in to the car in FP3 and wasn't getting the lap times. Come qualifying them emerged on pole, when asked he said that they'd had a big meeting after FP3 and worked through lots of things and decided to make lots of radical changes for qualifying that had paid off.
I've never heard Button make those sorts of comments its all "don't know why ...", "Have no idea ..." "Don't understand ..." "Just wasn't under me ..." and so on.
Its not very reassuring.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff