Drivers vs. Car

[Slyboogy]

Sorry about the "big thing" what I meant was the better powered car. I don't really think that McLaren are as far off as people suggest, bad decisions and frustration are costing them.

Well they were on pace on the last race, if not faster in race conditions.

Turkey they where nowhere.

 

[Sarinaide]

I also revert to last season Seb apart from Turkey (the prang) he had mechanical failures. Lewis had mental disintigration in his blown lead in the WDC. Was it really down to car or driver?

 

[Jru]

I also revert to last season Seb apart from Turkey (the prang) he had mechanical failures. Lewis had mental disintigration in his blown lead in the WDC. Was it really down to car or driver?

I would hardly call it mental disintegration, although he did seem a bit off in Monza. You could argue he was unfortunate in those collisions to be out of the race (see Alonso in Spa for the reverse) although in Suzuka it was his fault in practice, again he lost out in the race due to a mech failure. Had he also had a grid penalty for gearbox change? So lots of car influence.

Anyway I don't think it is really right to start saying one driver mentally disintegrated from a couple of races. Each driver managed to cost themselves points at one point or another last season. I could go through a list for the top runners but it is fairly pointless. It is true that drivers can have a lot more influence if they bin it often, quite obviously you need to be consistent. In terms of the whole package though, I think most drivers would have got a fair few wins in the RBR last year whereas no/few drivers would have got a win even as high up as in the Renault or Merc. Only 3 cars were capable of a challenge but I think the majority of drivers could win in the top car. So more the car then, but the driver does have a role.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Sorry about the "big thing" what I meant was the better powered car. I don't really think that McLaren are as far off as people suggest, bad decisions and frustration are costing them.

True, Mclaren probably have the advantage on pure speed, with the Red Bull better round the corners (particularly the fast, high downforce ones). And Mclaren haven't always been the sharpest on strategy or pit stop efficiency so far this season.

As I said, margins are very small - both between drivers and between cars.

 

[MCLS]

Mclaren never have been, remember 2007 at the Nurburgring and China.................

 

[Fenderman]

Mclaren never have been, remember 2007 at the Nurburgring and China.................

Sorry, I think we need a bit of explanation here. Lost a reference point I think.

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

Mclaren never have been, remember 2007 at the Nurburgring and China.................

Only too well

 

[Slyboogy]

Sorry, I think we need a bit of explanation here. Lost a reference point I think.

He means strategy wise.

 

[Fenderman]

Ah, yes. missed Chad's remark on strategy. Trying to catch up on too many things at once.

 

[siffert_fan]

I find all this rubbish about how Hamilton takes his car far higher than Vettel could etc rather amusing. I seem to recall that Vettel won an F1 race in an STR, a bolide much less competitive than any of the McLarens that Lewis has had. Why is it none of the Hamilton faithful seem to remember that?

 

[MCLS]

2007 Nurburgring was where they put Hamilton on the wrong tyres after the restart which put him last

 

[MCLS]

I find all this rubbish about how Hamilton takes his car far higher than Vettel could etc rather amusing. I seem to recall that Vettel won an F1 race in an STR, a bolide much less competitive than any of the McLarens that Lewis has had. Why is it none of the Hamilton faithful seem to remember that?

Because the Torro Rosso in that part of the season was the 4th quickest car, it was faster than the BMW Sauber's by Monza, after all, even Bourdais managed to qualify 4th before the calamity on the start line

 

[RevMaxPower]

I do find it faintly amusing that so many people go on about "It's mostly the car" and yet when we talk about 'all-time greats', what are we discussing? Not the cars, by and large, but the drivers. Whether you think it's Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Fangio or whoever, we accept that some drivers are considerably better than others.

In my view (since I haven't yet answered Nathaniel's original question and it's time I did) Hamilton is the better driver and the Red Bull is the better car. So if they switched, it stands to reason that I think it would be 5-0 to Hamilton.

Chad - the cars are different now. They actually last until the end of the race. The "all time greats" had more reliable cars than the rest of 'em which is why they scored more points and won Championships. They simply finished more races.

 

[siffert_fan]

MCLS

Fourth quickest is still slower than McLaren has been during Hamilton's tenure. They have, at worst, been slower than Red Bull and Ferrari.

 

[Slyboogy]

Because the Torro Rosso in that part of the season was the 4th quickest car, it was faster than the BMW Sauber's by Monza, after all, even Bourdais managed to qualify 4th before the calamity on the start line

Still was the 4th quickest, haven't seen Hamilton win in a car that is 4th quickest. And I think it was 5th quickest, the Toyota was faster along with the Renault, McLaren and Ferrari.

At least give credit where it's due...

 

[MCLS]

haven't seen Hamilton win in a car that is 4th quickest.

Hungary 2009?

 

[Slyboogy]

Hungary 2009?

Hardly 4th fastest was it? It was behind the Brawn and Red Bull, Ferrari halted their development, Toyota and Williams dropped off dramatically.

 

[FB]

Back on topic - hope you all watched DC driving the Red Bull simulator to see just how much the drivers have to do during a race. The question of who would win in which car is one of those eternal, unanswerable questions on which we all have an opinion but which we will never be able to resolve or prove.

Bernie Ecclestone once said Senna would have won had he been driving a Tyrrell back in 1989 - not a statement I would have agreed with but his opinion.

 

[MCLS]

look at Toro Rosso 2008 at Monza, who were they slower than, Mclaren and Ferrari. 3rd fastest actually in the end. 2009 Mclaren 3rd fastest, so it shows how Vettel and Hamilton are both virtually identical when it comes to pure race pace.

 

[Slyboogy]

look at Toro Rosso 2008 at Monza, who were they slower than, Mclaren and Ferrari. 3rd fastest actually in the end. 2009 Mclaren 3rd fastest, so it shows how Vettel and Hamilton are both virtually identical when it comes to pure race pace.

The Renaults and BMW's where one stopping changes everything since the intermediates drop off, especially when lots of fuel onboard.

Back on topic - hope you all watched DC driving the Red Bull simulator to see just how much the drivers have to do during a race. The question of who would win in which car is one of those eternal, unanswerable questions on which we all have an opinion but which we will never be able to resolve or prove.

Bernie Ecclestone once said Senna would have won had he been driving a Tyrrell back in 1989 - not a statement I would have agreed with but his opinion.

It is quite unbelievable, all that information on lap 1 and into corners etc. Especially when racing around Monaco which requires maximum concentration as you need precision at every turn or you are into the barrier.

That is why I believe that car plays half a part while the driver plays the other part.