F1: Does talent matter?

[Miguel]

Hello everybody,

Contrary to some threads opened recently, my intention here is *not* bashing everybody, but discussing with you a point of view that has reccently crossed my mind. In case you wonder, no, it wasn't on sunday afternoon .

As you all know, every driver in the current grid has won titles in the lower formulae. I admit I don't know much about Sutil, but he most likely has. So, through the course of a year, these guys have been the best among their peers, in the "same" car. We have GP2 champions and F3000 winners. We even have multiple world cart champions, or CART champions. We also have former F1 WDCs. And here we all know there is a best lap time you can get in certain conditions, in a certain car. What I wanted to say is that most of these guys have a very similar level of skill. Furthermore, having been training since so young, this skill is hardly improveable (the mind and approach can improve, though) and is supposedly close to perfection.

So, my ponts of discussion are:

1. These guys being very good makes deviation from the average performance small (without rain)
2. The differences between cars, although small (0.2s in 80s is 0.25%) is bigger than the difference between "talent" or "average performances"
3. Thus, if the difference between cars is larger than the difference between drivers, one can only ask: Does talent matter in F1?

OK, we got the classical counter examples of Donnington 93 or Barcelona 96 or Hungary 2006 or Silverstone 2008 in which talent did make a huge difference, but I'm more interested in normal conditions. What do you think?

[bazanaius]

Define 'Normal' conditions - I think pretty much every condition might occur on a grand prix at least once a season. It is the talent that enables drivers to win in every condition. I guess it depends how you define talent as well...

[timbo]

Thus, if the difference between cars is larger than the difference between drivers, one can only ask: Does talent matter in F1?

If you were constructor, whom would you put in the winning car?
Your question reflects one side of modern formula1 which I quite like - there's no plain bad drivers today. Ten years ago we had guys like Tuero, Rosett and 15 years ago were days when sertain woman could have F1 drive by flirting with sertain teamboss (not ment to be any offence for woman).
Now even FI has combination of proven talent driver and driver with bright perspectives. So the difference between slowest and fastest guys is lesser and therefore we may feel that having a fastest car outweights driver's skills. But you need a winning car and fast driver, nothing have changed in that respect.

[the stig]

In modern days the car makes more difference than the driver. But as a top team, you need the best driver to win the WDC. If you put Fisichella in a McLaren, he'll win races but he won't win a title. You need the best of the best to make the difference between you and the rest.

[nae]

the talent of which you talk is entirely subjective

firstly you need a father or other sponsor to get you into racing
at a young age or a father with his own karting track

then you need the luck to get a decent team behind you

then you need to pursue racing at the cost of your youth

then you need a bit of luck on your F1 test(s) or a country / team sponsor

then you need to fit in with the corporate ideal of your sponsor / team

then all you need to do is be better than those others that have achieved the above

i can only think of Hill that put himself through the system as a bike racer first
there may be others

at the end of the day all you need to do is be faster than your rivals
wither it is by car or raw skill and i feel raw skill makes little difference these days (unless its rains and your rivals make bad choices)

gets coat

[timbo]

In modern days the car makes more difference than the driver.

Do you remember 1992? 1988?

[zac510]

Talent doesn't matter until somebody with even more of it comes along, ie M Schumacher, Senna, etc.

[Miguel]

Thanks for your responses, guys.

the talent of which you talk is entirely subjective

firstly you need a father or other sponsor to get you into racing
at a young age or a father with his own karting track

[...]

at the end of the day all you need to do is be faster than your rivals
wither it is by car or raw skill and i feel raw skill makes little difference these days (unless its rains and your rivals make bad choices)

Nae, you make a good point. What I meant was, that after so many tests, these guys have a pretty high minimum skill. It's not like picking up 20 random people from the street and making them drive an F1 car. In that scenario, I feel the best driver would win regardless of the car.

By the way, a definition of "talent" or "skill" for me would be "driving lap after lap within 99.5% of the car's physical limit with a 0.1% margin". Of course, numbers may change, and knowing the car's physical limit is an NP-complete problem, but that is other story. We could see the "within X%" as raw speed and the "X% margin" as the consistency.

I must point out that yes, were I a McLaren sponsor, I'd rather have Hamilton over Fisichella on my car. And I also think there are some drivers (3 or 4) better than the rest. It's just that I want to exchange my point of view.

[the stig]

In modern days the car makes more difference than the driver.

Do you remember 1992? 1988?

I'm talking modern days as in 2007 and 08.

[Miguel]

In modern days the car makes more difference than the driver.

Do you remember 1992? 1988?

I'm talking modern days as in 2007 and 08.

Timbo is recalling 1992 because Mansell there got a record 12 victories (only equaled by Schumacher in 2002) and often got the pole by a margin of over a second. You may get a grid in which he was 2s faster than the second car.

And 1988 is a great year for a McLaren fan: the MP4/4 won all races that year safe one: the italian GP, the first GP after Enzo Ferrari passed away. Even then, Prost retired with, IIRC, an oil leak. Senna was about to get a clear victory, until a lapped Jean-Louis Schlesser hit him. It's even more funny, because Schlesser was only a replacement driver for an injured Nigel Mansell. Some Tifosi joke saying he was actually a ferrari driver in disguise.

Basically any driver would have won in those cars, as long as they beat their teammate. And 1988 is already 20 years ago .

EDIT: Obviously, only a Ferrari could have won that day in Monza.

[timbo]

I named that season because it was a period of total dominance of one constructor, when it seems like anybody could race for title in that cars.
My point was that there's no difference between "modern" F1 and past (well, maybe 50's or 60's were different but even Fangio preferred to be in the team that would build him fastest car, and Clark despite all his genious coiuldn't win when his Lotus was too slow). What makes people think that there's a difference that in current F1 there's no such striking differences in abilities between the top drivers and the rest like it was in 90's and before.

PS Miguel was faster=))

[vyselegend]

I think some titles won in lower formulae (F3000, F3, GP2, etc) can be misleading, because even while all the cars are suposed to be the same, teams (and the treatment given to their drivers) aren't equal at all. Art GP comes to mind as an established "top" GP2 team and Piquet sport also as the exemple of the perfect driver bias (even Nelson easily admit he was advantaged in his own team obviously).

Another thing to consider, thoug, is driver adaptability. While you are right in saying all the drivers are quite on the same overall level, it's very obvious that some performs very well, and some struggles radically. Praised modern drivers like FA or MS are known for their capacity to salvage some result in dogs (F2005, R28). Some critisized drivers like Fisi or Ralph (and Bourdais I suspect) are always calling for more performance in the car. Ralph needed a very nervous front drive train, and a car able to brake very late. When he didn't have that, he did crap. Fisi was always complaining about understeer, now Bourdais is having the same speaking about the STR3.

Those are very skilled, but unadaptable drivers IMO, and that's where they lose the game...

[f1italia]

I always thought if you put Raikkonen in a more reliable car with his talent, he would be a great champion.

I was wrong he has been a disappointment and he should have never won the championship last year. His drive is gone and now there are rumors for retirement. I guess he just wants to party.

[Conceptual]

I always thought if you put Raikkonen in a more reliable car with his talent, he would be a great champion.

I was wrong he has been a disappointment and he should have never won the championship last year. His drive is gone and now there are rumors for retirement. I guess he just wants to party.

With his money, health, and youth to still enjoy it?

I wonder if he asked Schumacher if it was worth his accomplishments to miss his children grow up?

Chris

[f1italia]

I always thought if you put Raikkonen in a more reliable car with his talent, he would be a great champion.

I was wrong he has been a disappointment and he should have never won the championship last year. His drive is gone and now there are rumors for retirement. I guess he just wants to party.

With his money, health, and youth to still enjoy it?

I wonder if he asked Schumacher if it was worth his accomplishments to miss his children grow up?

Chris

I don't think he missed his children that much growing up. He had his own private jet and would fly home and his family would also come to the races.