Arguing about Car Vs Driver in F1...
Discussion
After every GP, there always seems to be massive debate on the forum about which driver is 'better' or how 'so and so is only winning because of the car' etc. etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong about this but it's my understanding that F1 always has and always will be a team effort. I imagine that most of the drivers at the sharp end of the grid can win on their day, given the right car and conditions, no? Of course, you get 'stars' like Senna, Mansell, Schumacher etc. who rise above the norm and are rightly recognised for being an enormous driving talent but still, the car and team are hugely important, no?
So it comes down to a case of which team you like and identify with and which driver you like and identify with. Personally, I like Button and have a bit of an admiration for Alonso's driving. I like Ferrari as a car but am impressed by what RBR have achieved in such a short space of time.
I'm not going to argue that Button would be 'better' than Vettel if he was in Red Bull and likewise, I think Vettel would struggle to get results out of Alonso's Ferrari.
To me, all these guys are at the top of their game and it takes a combination of ability, car, strategy and luck to put you on the top step. Anyone can have that on any given day and the ones who have it more than anyone else...well, History will define them rightly as the ones who stood out.
Am I right? Is it really worth arguing over who is 'better' and who is getting an 'unfair' advantage by driving a better car?
Correct me if I'm wrong about this but it's my understanding that F1 always has and always will be a team effort. I imagine that most of the drivers at the sharp end of the grid can win on their day, given the right car and conditions, no? Of course, you get 'stars' like Senna, Mansell, Schumacher etc. who rise above the norm and are rightly recognised for being an enormous driving talent but still, the car and team are hugely important, no?
So it comes down to a case of which team you like and identify with and which driver you like and identify with. Personally, I like Button and have a bit of an admiration for Alonso's driving. I like Ferrari as a car but am impressed by what RBR have achieved in such a short space of time.
I'm not going to argue that Button would be 'better' than Vettel if he was in Red Bull and likewise, I think Vettel would struggle to get results out of Alonso's Ferrari.
To me, all these guys are at the top of their game and it takes a combination of ability, car, strategy and luck to put you on the top step. Anyone can have that on any given day and the ones who have it more than anyone else...well, History will define them rightly as the ones who stood out.
Am I right? Is it really worth arguing over who is 'better' and who is getting an 'unfair' advantage by driving a better car?
I've never had a problem with the driver in the best car dominating or having a better season. It's called "car" racing not "driver" racing so, by rights, the best car should even win the driver's title. The only conditions I have, as a fan, is that the driver who wins the title has had a credible career previous to that season and during the year has put in enough great performances so that his win doesn't diminish the integrity of F1 being the leading motorsport competition. What I mean by that is...
- Alonso was the best performed driver last year (yes he was!) and was most deserving of the title (yes he was!). Vettel however, produced enough great performances throughout the year (relative to Alonso even) that I don't think it diminished the value of last year's driver's title, so I'm fine with him being defending champ. Unlike if Hamilton won it, except for Canada he didn't do anything exceptional for the year, and Webber, who except for his first full year of Australian Formula Ford has underperformed in every single car, category and team he's driven in or for, there is no way he should be anywhere near an F1 driver's title!
- Nigel Mansell won the driver's title in not just the best car ("even a monkey could win in that car"...those people are idiots) but the best racing car ever built, but his career previous to that was enough to put him in the top 10 all time drivers. And that year he would've won every race except for one if it weren't for non-driving errors (missing out at Canada) which, I'd imagine would be hard to do even in the best car, So I'm fine with Mansell winning it that year.
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Not interested in arguing whether Hamilton would've been a worthy champ last year.
- Alonso was the best performed driver last year (yes he was!) and was most deserving of the title (yes he was!). Vettel however, produced enough great performances throughout the year (relative to Alonso even) that I don't think it diminished the value of last year's driver's title, so I'm fine with him being defending champ. Unlike if Hamilton won it, except for Canada he didn't do anything exceptional for the year, and Webber, who except for his first full year of Australian Formula Ford has underperformed in every single car, category and team he's driven in or for, there is no way he should be anywhere near an F1 driver's title!
- Nigel Mansell won the driver's title in not just the best car ("even a monkey could win in that car"...those people are idiots) but the best racing car ever built, but his career previous to that was enough to put him in the top 10 all time drivers. And that year he would've won every race except for one if it weren't for non-driving errors (missing out at Canada) which, I'd imagine would be hard to do even in the best car, So I'm fine with Mansell winning it that year.
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Not interested in arguing whether Hamilton would've been a worthy champ last year.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff