Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
it actually depends on both but i think what gives the edge to champions is their actual ability. there i dont think car has an extremely important role.
Good thread, but a tough one to answer. I can't add much except to say that if all of the ingredients are in place and the laws of physics pending + a little bit of good fortune on your side (other teams not having all of the ingredients in place...ie: reliability) then you have a good chance of success. IMO a driver can't always win a race but he/she can certainly lose it.
I think that the most important thing is the car, maybe 60%, the driver 30% and 10% luck. Drivers like MS, Prost or Senna didnt forget how to drive in the years they didnt win the WC, that does not mean that drivers like Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell, Mika or Jaques Villeneuve where better than them, they just had a better car. (with all respect to their fans).
I believe the car and team support is 80% of the winning formula. Good drivers find good teams, and vice versa. Michael took a few years to hand Ferrari the titles, it took that long to rebuild the organization into a winner. And yes, Michael was definitely part and instrumental in the rebuild. So they would not have enjoyed the success without Michael, but he couldn't win without a good car and team behind him.
clearly the car must be good, but overall it is the whole package that wins championships and races. (see if you can guess who I support!)
Apart from the car this includes;
Tyres - I know B/S weren't solely responsible for Ferraris drop in form last year, but certainly a factor
Driver - he has to be able to feedback information to the engineers to set the car up correctly (look at the difference between Schumi and Ruby - ostensibly the same car, but overwhelmingly Schu beat Ruby - my guess is that the same will happen with Massa)
Strategy - Dream team of Schumi and Brawn (as Ross said; Michael wins the races he should win, but very often also wins races he shouldn't)
Teambuilding - The dream team of Byrne, Brawn Todt and Schu made Ferrari more or less unbeatable from what was a mid-field team in the mid 90's
Schumi won 2 championships with Ferrari with arguably an inferior car - whether it was down all to the driver I personally doubt (although I do think Schu has talent head and shoulders over all the other drivers in the field). Clearly the driver can make a difference and this is visible within teams (Kimi vs the Donkey, Alsono vs Fisi, Button vs Sato etc), but ultimately the hardware must be 'good enuogh'... oh, and you need a smidgen of luck too - funny how the world champs always seem to be luckier than their team mates innit!
One year, I bleieve the 1974 Canadian Grand Prix at Mosport, I had the great pleasure of watching Colin Chapman in action. Colin has earned the reputaion for being utterly ruthless, and it was on that day I learned why. There appeared to be issues with the Goodyear tires, so half-way through the race he instructed the number two car to pit. Just so they could check the tires on the Lotus. In other words, the number two driver was sacrificied for the number one driver.
My point is that certain drivers get favoured. I don't want to take away from Michael, he earned his wins, titles and honors. But a favored driver gets all the good stuff. The better parts, first access to test times, mechanics, data, and even choice on all matters. It's all cumulative, but they do wind up with an advantage over the number two driver. Yes, Reubens isn't a Michael. But he played second fiddle to Michael, and definitely did contribute ot the Ferrari dominance.
Wouldn't argue with you on that Dave, but in the bigger picture the number one can only make those calls when he consistently delivers - and if number 2 doesn't like it then there are two solutions;
1. get better than number 1
2. suggest to the employer that he doesn't want the pay check next month...
sorry if that sounds a bit blunt, it's not a personal attack. But in the end the team is a commercial enterprise and will invest in the equipment 9incl driver) that delivers the results. if that means 'sacrificing' the number 2 to gain information on what''s going to happen to number 1 I'd make the same call any day.
when he consistently delivers - and if number 2 doesn't like it then there are two solutions;
1. get better than number 1
except of course he cant get better or show he is better 'cos he is not allowed to
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..
The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
I think 2005 was a pretty good mark on how different Michael and Rubens is. A crap car(well tires, car, aero, altogether) and MS still ends up where he did in the championship. A good enough driver can make up the slight deficit in hardware, where as a average driver may not be able to fully utilize a good car to its potential. Years like 2002 and 2004's Ferrari was a case of a good driver in a good car, and it just blow everything out of the water. But look at 1997(yes a controversal end, but the season was decent), where the Williams is arguably a better car than the Ferrari(look at how good Frentzen was doing, how many pole the Williams had), and yet the championship went down to the wire.
