Drivers Winning With The Fastest Car

[MTW]

One argument I see circulating the internet which basically comes in this form or similar; "he is not a good driver, he simply has the fastest car."

This argument to some degree I can appreciate if someone seems to have only had the fastest car for the majority of their career.

What I don't like is when people use this as a way of saying a particular driver isn't very good, because if they get wins and pole positions they simply say, "only because he has the fastest car".

But when you think about it properly, if you ARE a great driver, like Schumacher or Senna (or whoever you think is great) what can you actually do other than win and get pole positions and championships, if you are in the fastest car? It doesn't make any sense - are the people that argue this saying that if a driver has the fastest car they basically have to perform some kind of miracle like make the car fly?

Conclusion: I just can't see how if a driver has the fastest car, it would follow that this means we can simply ignore any pole positions, any wins, any championships and any impressive performances. It seems to be a very popular argument but I regard it as a silly one. Are the people that argue this saying that it is impossible for a driver to be great if they are in the fastest car? This seems very silly, for that would mean that as soon as a Fangio or a Schumacher sat in the fastest car, they are immediately not great anymore. (absurd)

P.S. It's also a tautology, that the fastest car will go the fastest. Yes, we may generally expect that the fastest car will go the fastest in a capable drivers hands, given it is "the fastest car".

[Akrapovic]

The best drivers tend to find the fastest cars anyway. It's very rare for the best drivers to be stuck in uncompetitive machines - that's why there's so much fuss over Alonso right now - because it's the exception to the norm.

[djinvicta]

Yes agree...but I would still like to see Alonso in a Force India. I think his extra "touch" and input would just push it up one more notch..

[Armco Bender]

First car to the chequered flag generally wins...

[MTW]

Alonso is certainly one of the best in F1.

[MTW]

Originally Posted by Armco bender

First car to the chequered flag generally wins

Not sure if you're being funny, but my point was only that if the fastest car is the fastest car, this in itself doesn't tell us much.

That is my point, that tautologies don't usually tell us anything because they are true in every circumstance. So judging a driver predicated on that alone is not a very smart argument.

[TrapezeArtist]

A great driver in a great car is still a great driver. I suppose the problem (sometimes) is that it is difficult to gauge how great the driver is if he is in the best car. Anyway, the great driver has generally earned his place in the great car, by being great.

[stripedcat]

Most of the time(indeed, pretty much all of the time), it's the fastest car that wins both the driver's and constructor's championships. There are a few exceptions, one of the most famous is 1986 and Alain Prost's McLaren TAG betting the superior Williams Honda to the driver's championship. I am not saying that Prost didn't deserve it(he's one of the all time great drivers after all), but it certainly helped that Williams had two drivers taking points off one another compared to Prost's situation at McLaren.

[S griffin]

Yes 1986 was a famous example. 82 was another one, but that was a chaotic season, but still Rosberg did the maximum he could with that car. Then there was 95 with Schumacher and 05 with Fred. There are other examples too

[Kempi]

95 and 05 were fully the norm. The best car wins, even if the Renault was down on power. 94 might be arguable, but in 95 the Benetton was at least on par with the Williams.

[Paradise City]

I've never seen "he's not a good driver but he has the fastest car" in respect to a world champion. As long as you're not Giovanni Lavaggi, if you're in F1 you're most probably pretty good. And you're even better if you're no. 1 in a team that's in a space to win the WC.

I've seen "he's not the best driver but he has the fastest car" in respect to a world champion. I have seen that. And that's alright. It's just a quirk of the sport.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Kempi

95 and 05 were fully the norm. The best car wins, even if the Renault was down on power. 94 might be arguable, but in 95 the Benetton was at least on par with the Williams.

I don't see '95 like that. The Williams really ought to have beaten Benetton in '95. It was Schumachers skills that made up the difference which I reckon was at least half a second a lap at some circuits. Hill and DC often bungled the advantage. Senna certainly would not have.

The Williams was certainly much better than in '94. I suspect the Ferrari was also on par with the Benetton in '95.

In '05 the Mclaren was quicker but unreliable. Enstone had Alonso and better strategy.

2003. I venture both Mclaren and Williams were quicker than Ferrari but Schumacher won!

1990. Ferrari was probably fastest but lost out to Senna's McLaren.

[S griffin]

McLaren and Williams ceratinly had the momentum over Ferrari till it all got ruined by Ferrari throwing their toys out the pram over the Michelin tyres. I don't agree though that the McLaren was faster, considering it was an updated car from 2002. Only Kimi really kept it in the title fight

Ferrari probably were a bit faster than the McLaren in 2008, while in 2009 I'd say the RBR were probably faster than the Brawn, but Button made hay while he had an advantage, and his rivals didn't make the most of their opportunities

[LC2guy]

I also think there's a difference between having the best car after you've done your apprenticeship and proved what you can do in F1 in NOT the best car, ( Senna Toleman, Alonso Minardi, Schumacher Jordan/Benetton, Mansell Lotus, Lauda BRM Vettel Toro Rosso, etc, etc ), and those who have only ever had a race winning car, every season, in ever increasingly LONG seasons. That's where the stats get confused !!! That's why you can't compare eras', or take these records seriously. IMHO of course.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by LC2guy

I also think there's a difference between having the best car after you've done your apprenticeship and proved what you can do in F1 in NOT the best car, ( Senna Toleman, Alonso Minardi, Schumacher Jordan/Benetton, Mansell Lotus, Lauda BRM Vettel Toro Rosso, etc, etc ), and those who have only ever had a race winning car, every season, in ever increasingly LONG seasons. That's where the stats get confused !!! That's why you can't compare eras', or take these records seriously. IMHO of course.

Other than Vettel, how many others on that list were in driver development programmes with an aim to get them into their mentor's top team?

The route to a top car is already laid out for some at an early age. They just have to prove their talent compared to their peers. Hamilton and Vettel have both done that, earned their place in a top car and are now gaining the benefits of another top car.

Some people say Ricciardo deserves a better car - if he was given that next season will he then be labelled as only winning because of the car?

[LC2guy]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Other than Vettel, how many others on that list were in driver development programmes with an aim to get them into their mentor's top team?

The route to a top car is already laid out for some at an early age.

That's really my point, you can't compare Apples to Oranges, especially with the Elongated Calendars we have in F1 today. There are good drivers in lower formulas that really have no chance, ever, as when they compete with " the chosen ones " in supposedly equal equipment, the reality is that the well funded Junior programmes are always going to give an unfair advantage, that gets taken all the way to F1. ( unless you are unlucky enough to arrive in F1 the year your Benefactor Team goes South ( Vandoorne ). ).

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Other than Vettel, how many others on that list were in driver development programmes with an aim to get them into their mentor's top team?

It could be argued that Michael Schumacher was groomed by Mercedes for F1. He was part of their sports car driver scheme, and they actively sought his drive in the Jordan.

By the way, whilst talking about Schumacher, I am yet to be convinced that he was one of F1's greats. Yes, he undoubtedly created a number of records during his career and won many races. I would contend, though, that that was part a very high work rate ethic that helped create winning partnerships with his teams, also a part having very quick cars, moreover always ensuring that his teammate was a designated No 2, and also an utter ruthlessness/aggressiveness on track. Examples, nearly forcing his own brother just centimetres from the pit wall during a race, and his taking out Villeneuve to try to get another title.

And often when he was unable to win, for whatever reason, his teammates were able to easily to take the plaudits.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It could be argued that Michael Schumacher was groomed by Mercedes for F1. He was part of their sports car driver scheme, and they actively sought his drive in the Jordan.

By the way, whilst talking about Schumacher, I am yet to be convinced that he was one of F1's greats. Yes, he undoubtedly created a number of records during his career and won many races. I would contend, though, that that was part a very high work rate ethic that helped create winning partnerships with his teams, also a part having very quick cars, moreover always ensuring that his teammate was a designated No 2, and also an utter ruthlessness/aggressiveness on track. Examples, nearly forcing his own brother just centimetres from the pit wall during a race, and his taking out Villeneuve to try to get another title.

And often when he was unable to win, for whatever reason, his teammates were able to easily to take the plaudits.

Pretty much in the Senna mould. While there were undoubtedly a few villains back in the '50's and 60'S, mainly the drivers respected each other, and in many cases good friends on and off track, I can not say when the 'win at all costs' mentality became prevalent but it was certainly common in the '80's.

With each example from a top driver, the more the rising stars will take note, and learn from the fallout. if any.

One only has to watch a Ginetta Junior race to see what has become acceptable, and don't mention the BTCC.

[Mike Harte]

The BTCC!

[LC2guy]

Ssshhhh. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it ....

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The BTCC!

I have a well rounded approach to all forms of Motor Racing, except, Indycar, F3, WTCC, DTM ... oh and one or two others I can't recall at present.

[chunterer]

The only real way you can gauge a drivers level comparatively is by what they manage to do with the kit they are given season by season.

Even today we have a pretty good idea who has it and who hasn't but it was much easier to tell in the past when the cars were simpler yet arguably much harder to drive.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chunterer

The only real way you can gauge a drivers level comparatively is by what they manage to do with the kit they are given season by season.

Even today we have a pretty good idea who has it and who hasn't but it was much easier to tell in the past when the cars were simpler yet arguably much harder to drive.

Do you see the irony , or is it a paradox, in what you say; probably quite unintentionally?

The FIA/FOM, as well as the drivers and team bosses, have repeatedly claimed that this year's cars would extra hard to drive, yet their seems to be little evidence so far to prove their point.

[bauble]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Do you see the irony , or is it a paradox, in what you say; probably quite unintentionally?

The FIA/FOM, as well as the drivers and team bosses, have repeatedly claimed that this year's cars would extra hard to drive, yet their seems to be little evidence so far to prove their point.

Why even teenage kids manage to drive without a problem,

[Aysedasi]

Yep, it's a stroll in the park......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_mBYbJsUBQ


(Sorry, had to include the link - a favourite of mine..... )