CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Sports › Formula 1 › Drivers or the cars?

Drivers or the cars?

Started by Anonymous · · 👁 4 views · 13 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants ARaymond Palmer8mistybear87Charles Martin78redheron12Drew Anderson3Walter Peterson5shadowtinker29Terry Carter2
A Anonymous VeteranOP
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#1 ·
Alright, let's settle this once and for all...

What actually matters most in Formula 1? Is a team great because they’ve secured a legendary driver, or is a driver only performing at an elite level because they’re sitting in a championship-winning car? If you swapped them out for a mediocre machine, would they even hold their own?

A buddy of mine (you might recognize him as 😉) and I were just going back and forth on whether the car or the driver is the true deciding factor...

I mean, look back at the 1950s. Fangio snagged five world titles, but he did it across three different teams and three different cars. Yet, people rarely talk about his raw talent; instead, they just shrug and say, "Well, cars only went 80 mph back then." Sure, that's true. But *every* car went 80 mph! It’s the same logic today—the field is so tight that almost every car hits roughly 230 mph. The gap isn't the variable; the skill is.

Then there's Ayrton Senna. He's idolized like a god, but we're left wondering: if he hadn't tragically passed away, would he have kept dominating? No one can know for sure. Maybe he would've kept tearing up tracks forever, or maybe he would've hit a ceiling.
Schumacher also pulled off five titles... was that pure talent or just being in the right seat at the right time? Personally, I think he was the real deal. If Michael leaves Ferrari, they aren't going back to the top anytime soon. Regardless of how arrogant he could be, you can't deny he was in a league of his own.

So, I want to hear from you. Who's the real MVP: the driver or the team? Back up your take with facts, but keep it real—don't just quote other people. Use your own words and give me your honest opinion.😉
Raymond Palmer8 Raymond Palmer8 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2006
#2 ·
I’d say the driver is the one who actually matters.
Sure, you need that perfect marriage between the car and the person behind the wheel—no doubt about it—but if you have to pick a side, it’s the driver every single time.
There are tons of examples out there:
Michael turned a pretty mid-tier Benetton into a championship machine, then once he left, they just became another average team while he pulled Ferrari straight from the ashes and put them right back on top.
Hill proved he was elite by winning the title, and his run in Canada showed that even an Arrows can look competitive when you’ve got a real talent in the seat.
Hakkinen and McLaren were the ultimate duo—they basically proved that if you pair a solid car with a driven, high-level driver, you’re going to win. Meanwhile, Coulthard showed that being too much of a "gentleman" won't get you anywhere in a car that's just as fast as everyone else's.
Ralf, on the other hand, showed that even a decent car can look okay sitting in a Minardi...
And Montoya? He just lacks that tiny bit of focus needed to really step it up...
Then you've got Barrichello, who proves a fast car can inflate someone's ego so much they actually start thinking they're a world champion?!?😁

etc
mistybear87 mistybear87 Regular
406 messages
joined Nov 2010
#3 ·
I think everything has already been said 😉
Charles Martin78 Charles Martin78 Active Member
101 messages
joined Mar 2011
#4 ·
Let’s look at it this way...
If you’re essentially asking whether we value the drivers or the machines more, then the answer is obviously the drivers.

People talk about Ayrton Senna being "elevated to the heavens," and it isn't because of some tally of championship trophies, but because he was just a damn good driver. Honestly, I'm certain he'd still be out there tearing up tracks today. But would he be winning titles? Well, I couldn't tell you. You can't use championship counts as the sole metric for greatness, especially if those wins come behind a car that's leagues ahead of the rest of the field. I can already hear the Schumacher devotees shouting, but sometimes the truth is just a bit hard to swallow...🙂
Now, I really don't want to drag us back into those old, dusty debates, but I did want to touch on your comment about someone being "in a league of their own." There aren't actually that many people in that category, and let's hope for the sake of Formula 1 that this season—and the ones following it—proves that point.

If Ferrari decides to revert to their old ways—becoming untouchable again simply by fielding an overwhelmingly dominant car, regardless of whether Michael is there to pilot it or not—then frankly, nobody is rooting for them to go back to that style of dominance...

I just don't quite grasp why it never seems to cross that particular faction's mind that it would be much better for the sport if we had three or four teams fighting at the top instead of just one.🙄 😛
redheron12 redheron12 Regular
306 messages
joined Aug 2008
#5 ·
👍

Charles Martin78—consider this my way of treating you to some strawberry pie
Drew Anderson3 Drew Anderson3 Member
14 messages
joined Mar 2003
#6 ·
Häkkinen and McLaren really showed everyone that when you pair a beast of a car with a driver who actually gives a damn, you get results.

A "solid" driver? Are you kidding me right now? Seriously... He was the one guy capable of consistently beating MS whenever his car wasn't total junk and he actually made the grid (back before they brought in Mission Control). And man, I don't think anyone here forgets how he used to tear up the starts. If the DC hadn't been handing him wins on a silver platter—just like how EI and RB used to do for MS—things would look a hell of a lot different today...
Walter Peterson5 Walter Peterson5 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Mar 2003
#7 ·
Didn't the Democratic Congress help him out?

LOL, seriously though...
Raymond Palmer8 Raymond Palmer8 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2006
#8 ·
Lewis Hamilton said:A solid driver? Are you kidding me? He’s literally the only guy who could consistently beat Microsoft whenever his car was actually competitive and he managed to start most races.

...and that's assuming Ferrari wasn't breaking down more than they were crossing the finish line—plus, while Microsoft was watching races with a leg in a cast—and even though McLaren was the best car on the track (though they still blew the championship back in Irvine's day...)
calling him "solid" is actually being pretty generous.

And if Disney had been handing out wins to him just like eBay and Red Bull did for Microsoft.

Man, what planet are you from? Mika actually got his first win thanks to Coulthard—well, technically Villeneuve first—but saying there was zero help involved...

I don't get why this certain group of people never thinks it would be cool to have three or four equal teams at the top...

🙄 if you're aiming this at me, I gotta ask—did you even read my posts last year? You should've had a good idea of where I stand by now...😕
shadowtinker29 shadowtinker29 Member
21 messages
joined Mar 2003
#9 ·
mr X said:Honestly, Mika actually got his very first win handed to him on a silver platter by Coulthard—well, technically it was Villeneuve first—so when people claim there wasn't any helping involved...

Mind you, during that same race, even Villeneuve got a little "gift" from Mihajl, so I guess he just decided to pay it forward...😁
Raymond Palmer8 Raymond Palmer8 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2006
#10 ·
shadowtinker29 said:To be fair, Villeneuve got a little "gift" from Michael during that race too—so he decided to return the favor...😁

Well, Michael didn't get his "gift" from Corinna the night before, so he was feeling a bit on edge...😁 😁 😁
shadowtinker29 shadowtinker29 Member
21 messages
joined Mar 2003
#11 ·
Shooby said:back in the fifties, Fangio managed to snag five championships—and if I remember correctly, he did it with three different cars from three different teams. Yet, people hardly ever talk about him as a legendary driver; they just shrug and say, "Well, back then, the cars only went 80 mph." Sure, that's true. But *all* those cars went 80 mph! It’s the same logic as today—everyone is basically equal because all the modern cars hit around 380 mph (or whatever, the exact number isn't the point here).

For anyone who isn't up on the history, Fangio’s winning machine—that 1952 Alfa Romeo 159—could hit speeds over 193 miles/h. And mind you, that was on street circuits or makeshift tracks with basically zero safety, not on these sanitized, "PlayStation" style tracks we have today. I mean, seriously—drivers were wearing work overalls and leather caps, wrestling 17-inch wheels and steering wheels the size of a tractor's... I could go on. Back then, and even decades later (right up until the end of the turbo era when engines topped 1,000 hp), the cars were definitely more "equal," which meant the driver was absolutely everything. It wasn't like today, where someone with almost zero open-wheel experience (like Robotonen) can jump into a car that's mostly controlled by electronics and just start winning... Maybe even the greatest driver of all time—Tazio Nuvolari in the 40s driving an Alfa Romeo 8 C—regularly took down opponents in Mercedes-Benz or Auto Union cars (it's kind of like if Michael jumped into a Minardi and just absolutely demolished the field), but that's a whole other story... In short, drivers are less important now than they've ever been. That's why I still have so much respect for the guys from IndyCar or CART—they’re still out there on slick tires, without traction control or launch control, using manual gearboxes, flying at 242 miles/h while staring down demons living inside concrete walls...
Charles Martin78 Charles Martin78 Active Member
101 messages
joined Mar 2011
#12 ·
Raymond Palmer8 said:🙄 if you were aiming this at me, I really have to wonder whether you’ve actually bothered to read any of my posts from last year? Because, by now, you should have developed at least a vague sense of who I am...😕

No, I wasn't talking to you specifically; I was primarily addressing the newcomer to the thread—that sort of person who, after asking a question, immediately follows up with a comment about "old waters," without actually having any intention of discussing anything related to freshwater, saltwater, or even H2O in general.

By leaning into that metaphor, he falls right into the trap set by the simpletons, who can peer through those very narrow lines and convince themselves they’ve uncovered his sexual orientation or some deep-seated psychological reason for it. It's funny, really—these people are always so eager to demand that everyone else back up their opinions with hard facts, yet when it comes to their own views, they just offer a vague "I think he's good" and then try to pass off "he's a class act" as if it were a scientific certainty.🙄

So, there you have it—a rather brief summary of what you were quoting...🙂
Raymond Palmer8 Raymond Palmer8 Active Member
144 messages
joined Jul 2006
#13 ·
man, you see how ego can totally cloud someone's vision—thanks for the reality check🙂
Terry Carter2 Terry Carter2 Active Member
206 messages
joined Mar 2003
#14 ·
I don't see any point in arguing this! At the end of the day, the car is what matters most!
The proof is right there—even Jack, who is easily the best driver out there, doesn't take the top spot in every single race.

😁

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads