Perpetual Question: Car or Driver wins Championships?

[Valve Bounce]

Let's wind back the clock one year. Anyone who even suggested that Bunsen or Honda would get on the podium in 2009 would have been whisked off to the looney bin. Yet, Bunsen dominated the early part of the season with the revamped Honda and both driver and car won both championships this year.

So, what was the defining factor? The car or the driver? To answer this question, we have to look deeper into the races this year, where Bunsen had an unbeatable car in the early races, owing in no small part some would claim to the dodgy diffuser. But Toyota and Williams never even looked like getting anything out of these diffusers and big improver Red Bull never had one.

Then the Bunsen fell into a slump, and suddenly couldn't win or even do well in races for whatever reason, and his immense lead was suddenly being eaten away by both Red Bull drivers and his own team mate Rubens. Then last weekend, a botched qualifying session in atrocious conditions left the Bunsen in P14 on the grid. Yet, for once, he was able to show what he was really made of, and came through to place 5th and win the championship.

Red Bull's effort was dogged by inconsistency as sometimes one driver would do well in a race while the other would not finish.

McLaren had a dog of a car in the early part of the season, and WDC Hamilton never had a chance until it was too late in the season before the car was competitive enough to win races.

Ferrari, tipped to be the champions never looked like it in 2009.

So, how much of the chance to win a race is due to the car and how much to the driver? How many drivers, if they were peddling a Brawn could have won a race this year? and how many would never have looked like winning no matter what car they were given to drive?

This is the intriguing part of F1. It has been rumored that Bunsen would go to McLaren to partner Hamilton next year. The way I see it this year, he had been able to beat a driver who on several occasions was even faster than SchM, and if he can be the equal of Hamilton next year in the same car, then in my eyes he will go from being a good driver to being great.

Webber and Vettel? hard to say, because Vettel is very good and Mark has proven his equal this year.

And what of Fernando? This guy was brilliant when he raced against SchM, and when he was at McLaren even though things got very "complicated". How good is he, we may find out against the ever improving Massa at Ferrari next year.

And of course Kimi, the man I dubbed as the fastest driver on the grid all things being equal. What if he was racing for Brawn next year for argument's sake?

I don't have the answers, and I doubt these questions will ever be fully answered. That's the secret of F1.

[F1boat]

In my opinion you need a very good car and at least a decent driver to win the championship. And also luck...

[AndyL]

I think at least half the drivers on the grid could have won a race in the Brawn, probably more. But as F1boat said there's a big slice of luck in it too.


But Toyota and Williams never even looked like getting anything out of these diffusers and big improver Red Bull never had one.

Worth noting that Williams did show some flashes of great speed in those early races, but could never maintain it. It seems to me that one of the key factors in a great car is that it's not too sensitive to set-up. So that if you get the set-up there or thereabouts you'll be competitive. I think it's more common to see cars like the Williams that can be fast when perfectly set up, but nowhere if they fail to find the sweet spot with set-up, and that vary a lot in performance as the tyre condition and fuel load change. Seems like maybe the Ferrari has also been a bit like that this year, Toyota too.

[woody2goody]

I dispute the fact all Button's wins were down to a car advantage. He didn't have one in China, Turkey and Malaysia at least.

I agree that half the drivers would have got a victory in the Brawn this year, it was a great car at times early in the year, also, half the drivers probably would have won in the Red Bull too.

There doesn't seem to be much the Toyota drivers could have done, likewise Rosberg and Kaz over at Williams, those two cars are just too sensitive to be winners.

I did anticipate both teams being on the podium more often, but surprisingly, most of Rosberg's points have come towards the end of the season, breaking with Williams tradition a bit there.

This season it's been 50-50 between driver and car IMO.

[F1boat]

I agree that half the drivers would have got a victory in the Brawn this year, it was a great car at times early in the year, also, half the drivers probably would have won in the Red Bull too.


Too true.

[wedge]

I dispute the fact all Button's wins were down to a car advantage. He didn't have one in China, Turkey and Malaysia at least.

Malaysia - Brawn was better in the dry but rain was an equaliser and red flag favoured Button.

Turkey - 3 stopping Vettel beating 2 stopping Button would be marginal considering Hamilton tried it the previous year and didn't work.

Button destroyed Rubens in the first part of the season when the Brawns were at their best. I hand it to him. Rubens is rated and he looked like a donkey with his 3 stoppers.

In a bad car, Bunsen can't out drive it. Too few occasions during the summer onwards did Button make a bad car look decent let alone make a bad car look good. Rubens was arguably the better driver since Silverstone.

[F1boat]

Rubens was arguably the better driver since Silverstone.

A meaningless title IMO. Especially when your car is dominant, you have to get the maximum. After Silverstone means nothing, honestly...

[Rollo]

Jackie Stewart wrote in in his autobiography that it's about 75% car and 25% driver; quite independantly Alan Jones maintains that it's 80% car and 20% driver.

The way I figure it, they're probably hitting around the right mark. Certainly the driver is the single most important component, but if the car isn't much chop, then the driver is merely posting laps.
see: Ayrton Senna in 1993.

Likewise, a car that is almost there can be dragged upwards by a better driver.
see: Schumacher in 1994.

[JSH]

Neither. You need a Ross Brawn. Only someone like him can focus the vehicle development to build the best chassis/engine combo, then focus the drivers on what they need to do to get the best out of it, and then in the race lead the team so the strategy and team work all meld into an unbeatable formula.

The answer is Ross Brawn. His team's performance this year, combined with the proverbial "Wheels Falling Off" at Ferrari since he left tell me he and people like him are the deciding factor.

PS : Ferrari may still look "ok" but compared to when Ross was there the team is a shambles.

[markabilly]

Neither. You need a Ross Brawn. Only someone like him can focus the vehicle development to build the best chassis/engine combo, then focus the drivers on what they need to do to get the best out of it, and then in the race lead the team so the strategy and team work all meld into an unbeatable formula.

The answer is Ross Brawn. His team's performance this year, combined with the proverbial "Wheels Falling Off" at Ferrari since he left tell me he and people like him are the deciding factor.

PS : Ferrari may still look "ok" but compared to when Ross was there the team is a shambles.
yep.

But i would say car designer, engine and engineer like brawn are all far more important than the driver.....

just ask Stevie Dee at ferrari and he will tell you.....errr....eerr......that Kimi is not a leader yadadyyada and it was all his fault for selecting wrong tires, lousy refueling equipment, poor race strategy, inability of team to get car to match driver's skills, motivate the janitors.........and so on..........

[keysersoze]

My chassis designer is Adrian, not Ross. No knock against Ross, though; he's brilliant, too.

Newey read the rules in their "true spirit" and made the best car. Ross was too imaginative in his interpretation and therefore gave himself a 3-month head start on most of the field.

But when Adrian was granted the same interpretation of rules, his car turned out quicker. Three wins in the second half of the season and about 60 points for Red Bull vs two wins and 50-odd points for Brawn proves it IMO.

[F1boat]

Newey read the rules in their "true spirit"

No such thing as spirit or true spirit. There are rules and one should use them to maximize his potential. Besides, RBR was less reliable than Brawn GP and it is a well know flaw of Newey.
And Ross, BTW, is first of all brilliant manager.

[Valve Bounce]

No such thing as spirit or true spirit. There are rules and one should use them to maximize his potential. Besides, RBR was less reliable than Brawn GP and it is a well know flaw of Newey.
And Ross, BTW, is first of all brilliant manager.

To be fair, much of Red Bull's "reliability" has nothing to do with Newey. It has more to do with inconsistency, bad luck and in some cases bad driving habits of the drivers. I will be the first to say that I always admired the management skills of Brawn, but I do think that had he used some of his superb skills for better strategies for Rubens in the earlier part of the season, then Rubens would have done better in his races also.

[F1boat]

Rubens did well in the races. Jenson just bested him.

[Valve Bounce]

Rubens did well in the races. Jenson just bested him.

Actually, Rubens's strategies in some races were awful.

[wedge]

A meaningless title IMO. Especially when your car is dominant, you have to get the maximum. After Silverstone means nothing, honestly...

You have to be good in a bad car as well as dominant in the best car - that has been a gauge of how good a driver you are but Button got away with driving badly because he had 6 wins in his pocket.


Rubens did well in the races. Jenson just bested him.

If Rubens did well he would've been regularly on the podium in the first 7 races.

[keysersoze]

No such thing as spirit or true spirit. There are rules and one should use them to maximize his potential. Besides, RBR was less reliable than Brawn GP and it is a well know flaw of Newey.
And Ross, BTW, is first of all brilliant manager.

It seems to me that if eight teams thought (and they were the ones who were actually present during the meeting) the double-diffuser was illegal, and that only three thought it was OK to build one (when it was obvious it was a performance advantage), I'd say that the spirit of the rules were in question. You, obviously, don't think so. Fine.

As for Newey's car, the axiom is valid: you can't make a slow, reliable car quick, but you can make a fast, fragile car reliable. AN wanted a fast car first and foremost.

This is key: Newey's double-diffuser car was quicker and scored more points in the second half of the season than Brawn's, even with the mechanical gremlins and DNFs.

[Sleeper]

I'll give the same answer I always give. Both. It doesnt matter how good you are, if you have a car then you're going to be at the back except for those few events where the driver transcends the car. But conversly you need a very good driver to win with a good car as there will always be good drivers/cars out there to go against you.

[F1boat]

It seems to me that if eight teams thought (and they were the ones who were actually present during the meeting) the double-diffuser was illegal, and that only three thought it was OK to build one (when it was obvious it was a performance advantage), I'd say that the spirit of the rules were in question. You, obviously, don't think so. Fine.

As for Newey's car, the axiom is valid: you can't make a slow, reliable car quick, but you can make a fast, fragile car reliable. AN wanted a fast car first and foremost.

This is key: Newey's double-diffuser car was quicker and scored more points in the second half of the season than Brawn's, even with the mechanical gremlins and DNFs.

As I said before with the case of Rubens, it is meaningless to classify drivers from the second, third or first part, the whole season matters. And IMO there is no such thing as SPIRIT of the rules. Only rules.

[Roamy]

Jackie Stewart wrote in in his autobiography that it's about 75% car and 25% driver; quite independantly Alan Jones maintains that it's 80% car and 20% driver.

The way I figure it, they're probably hitting around the right mark. Certainly the driver is the single most important component, but if the car isn't much chop, then the driver is merely posting laps.
see: Ayrton Senna in 1993.

Likewise, a car that is almost there can be dragged upwards by a better driver.
see: Schumacher in 1994.

I like this post. You will need a top car to win but you still have to drive it.
Kovy can't drive a top car! Everyone can talk crap cuz button coasted to the championship. But he won and won big and the made sure he got the title. When he finally had to step up he did. Now if you had Kovy and Piq jr fag
in the brawn you would not have won the titles. But you would have gotten some noticable points. Ala Toyota - sorry pino - Toyota should have won a race or two this year. So all and all I think the ratios indicated herein are pretty valid.

[F1boat]

I like this post. You will need a top car to win but you still have to drive it.
Kovy can't drive a top car! Everyone can talk crap cuz button coasted to the championship. But he won and won big and the made sure he got the title. When he finally had to step up he did. Now if you had Kovy and Piq jr fag
in the brawn you would not have won the titles.

I agree.

[jens]

The whole teamwork is what counts most of all. Drivers are part of the whole process as employees. As for the question that how many drivers would have won races in BGP001, I would say that clearly the majority of current drivers. If a duo of drivers like JB-RB, who aren't really regarded as the first-tier drivers, managed to wrap up WCC comfortably, then quite a fair amount of possible driver pairings would have managed to achieve that as well. Brawn has had a few dips this season, but RBR has been more inconsistent and others weren't simply good enough to pose any kind of a challenge. So the highly professional teamwork of Brawn won.

Also there are some complicated questions - Kovalainen has been mentioned in this thread. But who knows, maybe BGP001 and the whole team athmosphere would have suited him more to get the best out of the car. And in terms of time gap Piquet didn't lose that much to Alonso and was making less mistakes than in 2008, but due to extremely tight midfield he failed to score points. But maybe in a dominant car those tenths wouldn't have counted so much and he would have been a frontrunner at times? I personally think that even someone like Bourdais could have excelled at Brawn - he seems like a guy, who needs everything to be 100% to be fast. And Brawn with their nicely performing car this year seems like a very good place for any driver really to fulfill his theoretical talent.

In the beginning of the season in Australia Brawn was over half a second faster than anyone else with heavier fuel loads in Q3. That's dominant. Even Nakajima could have won in that car.



Likewise, a car that is almost there can be dragged upwards by a better driver.
see: Schumacher in 1994.

You must mean some other year, because in 1994 Schumacher beat everyone by more than a minute in the first three races and B194 was a really excellent racing car. 1995 is a better example IMO, arguably Williams was a bit better that year.

[ratonmacias]

so in my opinion:

drivers that wouldnt have a win on the 09 brawn:
kovalainanen
nakajima
piquet
grosjean
buemi
alguesari
sutil

thats how good i think the 09 brawn was i mean button wins 1 race in 8 full seasons and now he is world champ.

toyota shouldnt be trying to sign kimi they should be tring to find a good designer not a camry drawer to move forward thats where its at.

[ClarkFan]

Jackie Stewart wrote in in his autobiography that it's about 75% car and 25% driver; quite independantly Alan Jones maintains that it's 80% car and 20% driver.

The way I figure it, they're probably hitting around the right mark. Certainly the driver is the single most important component, but if the car isn't much chop, then the driver is merely posting laps.
see: Ayrton Senna in 1993.

Likewise, a car that is almost there can be dragged upwards by a better driver.
see: Schumacher in 1994.
I would put Stewart and Jones on the list of those who would know. For most of the history of the World Championship the fastest car has won, with reliability being the "X" factor in the earlier years (see 1958, 1962, 1964, 1967). Extra points to Stewart's opinion, as he is one of the few drivers to have won the championship with what was clearly not the fastest car; in 1973 the Lotus 72 and McLaren M23 were both faster the Tyrell.

Now the driver can also play an important role in how fast the car is, like Andretti with his tinkering with ride height on the Lotus 79, Damon Hill with Williams, and Schumacher with Ferrari. That doesn't seem to have been much of a factor this year - the Brawn was fast out of the box. Chalk this title up to the car.

ClarkFan

[Valve Bounce]

I would put Stewart and Jones on the list of those who would know. For most of the history of the World Championship the fastest car has won, with reliability being the "X" factor in the earlier years (see 1958, 1962, 1964, 1967). Extra points to Stewart's opinion, as he is one of the few drivers to have won the championship with what was clearly not the fastest car; in 1973 the Lotus 72 and McLaren M23 were both faster the Tyrell.

Now the driver can also play an important role in how fast the car is, like Andretti with his tinkering with ride height on the Lotus 79, Damon Hill with Williams, and Schumacher with Ferrari. That doesn't seem to have been much of a factor this year - the Brawn was fast out of the box. Chalk this title up to the car.

ClarkFan

It would be extremely difficult for a very good driver to win if he had to drive a slower car. Moss nearly did, but that was just before he retired (owing to injury) when he was at his top. These days, when cars are that much closer, as evidenced by the closeness of qualifying times, luck can play a greater part in who wins, like when Kimi beat Lewis Hamilton and Alonso, and the following year when Hamilton beat Massa on the last corners of the last race.

Don't forget, up until this year, Bunsen had only won one single race, and nearly everyone labeled him a brick (or curbstone), but with the faster Brawn he is now Champion. Then Mark Webber wins two races, and everyone labels him Red Bull's #2. (even though he has been recovering from very serious injuries and still racing).

I suppose the human factor is the most important, because when a driver wins, some humans will say it's the car; yer can't win!!

[ClarkFan]

Don't forget, up until this year, Bunsen had only won one single race, and nearly everyone labeled him a brick (or curbstone), but with the faster Brawn he is now Champion.
Ah, so Button's Genius period is done and he is an Idiot again! :D

To be fair to him, other than the last half of 2006 the only time before this year he had a potential race-winning car was 2004. The 2007-2008 Hondas wouldn't have won races with Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher driving them.

ClarkFan

[Valve Bounce]

Ah, so Button's Genius period is done and he is an Idiot again! :D

To be fair to him, other than the last half of 2006 the only time before this year he had a potential race-winning car was 2004. The 2007-2008 Hondas wouldn't have won races with Fangio, Clark, Senna and Schumacher driving them.

ClarkFan

I think that next year will be very telling for Bunsen, especially if they put a good driver like Kimi in the other Brawn. That would really be exciting.

[gravity]

Back on topic...

When Fissi chased Kimi all the way to the line and looked faster than him, joined Ferrari from the next race on and never looked like scoring another point.
Liuzzi took over from Fissi in Force India yet never scored a point in it.

Is Force India better than Ferrari? Would Force India have WON races this season if they had a 'Kimi'?

Kobayashi came straight into the Toyota, without testing, without F1 experience, and looked awesome. Perhaps Toyota is one of the easiest cars on the grid to drive. What would Kimi have done in that Toyota?

Ferrari were lucky to have finished in 4th. Their drivers (Massa and Kimi) carried them. I think Toyota had a car that could have competed for at least 3rd but their drivers let them down. Imagine what they'd have done with a Kimi/Fernando/Lewis kind of driver at the wheel.

On the other hand, you get the awesome car where the 'any-decent-driver' ought to win the championship in. The late 80's McLaren. The early 1990's Williams. The Schumacher-era Ferrari. And maybe even the 2009 Brawn?

[ioan]

Would Force India have WON races this season if they had a 'Kimi'?

Definitely no.

[ShiftingGears]

Definitely no.

I think they would've won in Belgium.

[wedge]

I think they would've won in Belgium.

With a KERS-equipped Ferrari behind, no chance. Would've been a sitting duck on the Kemmel Straight unless the FI did a Schumi/Koby style last-millisecond chop to defend.

[Somebody]

If Rubens did well he would've been regularly on the podium in the first 7 races.

Well, the anti-stall system cost Rubens places in three separate races.

And, more generally, the way the Brawn worked its' tyres in the early part of the season suited Bunsen a LOT more than Rubens - Bunsen's one of the lightest tyre-users on the grid, so a car which naturally works its' tyres right to the limit suits him; whereas Rubens is better-suited to a car which works its' tyres that bit less and lets the driver push harder to make up the gap. Which is why Bunsen struggled a hellavalot more than Rubens when the Brawn suddenly stopped pushing its' tyres so hard in mid-season.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jackie Stewart wrote in in his autobiography that it's about 75% car and 25% driver; quite independantly Alan Jones maintains that it's 80% car and 20% driver.

The way I figure it, they're probably hitting around the right mark. Certainly the driver is the single most important component, but if the car isn't much chop, then the driver is merely posting laps.
see: Ayrton Senna in 1993.

Likewise, a car that is almost there can be dragged upwards by a better driver.
see: Schumacher in 1994.

Who would I argue on this one?

I just remember the derision in which F1 fans treated Button before this season. He had to know something to do what he did. IT isn't all car....

[ShiftingGears]

With a KERS-equipped Ferrari behind, no chance. Would've been a sitting duck on the Kemmel Straight unless the FI did a Schumi/Koby style last-millisecond chop to defend.

If we are assuming a driver of Raikkonens caliber was in the Ferrari while Raikkonen was in the FI, perhaps.
If we are assuming a driver of Fisichellas calibre was in the Ferrari, then Raikkonen would have won in Belgium.

[Valve Bounce]

If we are assuming a driver of Raikkonens caliber was in the Ferrari while Raikkonen was in the FI, perhaps.
If we are assuming a driver of Fisichellas calibre was in the Ferrari, then Raikkonen would have won in Belgium.

And if we are assuming that Kimi was in that Brawn chasing Mark Webber, would Mark have come second? THAT is the burning question!!

[Hondo]

This is a good thread and I have considered it for some time. The answer is that there is no set answer. The values in the car/driver ratio change, I believe, nowadays, from race to race. For my purposes the driver is only the driver whereas the car means the entire rest of the team from the principal down to the clean up guy. One problem with the car/driver thing is that it ignores luck, both good and bad. Back in the '90s and the day of the Williams Automatic Racer you could argue that it was 92 percent car, 5 percent luck, and 3 percent driver. That can be backed up by William's unwillingness to fork over large money to retain their championship drivers. During the same period for the other teams I'd guess it to be around 88 percent car, 5 percent luck, and 7 percent driver. These are of course, very general numbers.

Next we begin to go through a period where automatic controls begin to fade away but other artificial modifiers come into play. Slick tires go away, CAD and computerized wind tunnels come into vogue, refueling and reliability standards. I would say in the last 5 years it changed to 82 percent car, 10 percent luck and 8 percent drver. The increase in the luck percentage stems from having multiple tire suppliers and not knowing how your tires would behave until you got to the track for that race and the desperate quests for reliability. The lower percentage for the drivers stems not from their ability, but from the limitations placed upon their abilities. Drivers don't have much wiggle room when their tires all want to go in different directions, they have to dial the engine back so it can be used again, and have an engineer badgering them to drive the car perfectly like the computer does in their simulations.

For 2010 and beyond I think perhaps 66 percent car, at least 6 percent luck and at least 28 percent driver. Luck is hard to figure for 2010. The tire situation has yet to be resolved and we will have quite a few new drivers and new drivers like to hit things that don't belong to them. The cars will become more standardized as the CADs and wind tunnels arrive at the same conclusions based upon having the same raw specs entered. Without refueling, race strategy becomes less important. Limited testing will pretty much cap off the whole thing. 2010 will be the year the driver becomes important again.

Not trying to start a fight, but my perception of BrawnF1 2009.
Car 80 percent. The chassis was good, the exploitation of the areodynamics was brilliant and Ross did a good job with strategies and controversies. The team never lost focus.

Luck 15 percent. They were lucky to even be there. They were lucky to have Honda work with them, lucky to have key people stay on for less money, lucky to get an engine deal from Mercedes, lucky that the Mercedes engine and powerband suited their chassis so well on such a hurried retrofit and lucky that the FIA was able to put any bias aside and rule fairly on the areodynamic challenge.

Drivers 5 percent. Button ran wild and had a good old time while the Brawn was more or less dominant. Once the field caught up and became competitive I think Button would have prefered to back ino the championship. I think Button has a confidence problem or possibly just isn't as good as his press, daddy, and himself make him out to be. His on track aggressiveness faded once the pack caught up. It looked like with a 6 win head start, if he continued to be aggressive and lost the championship, he figured that would be the end of his career. He may have been right. He had to win it. I don't think he had the confidence to pursue the championship in a straight fight. As a result he'd take what ever points he could scrabble up while fighting "handling problems" and hoping nobody else could close in on his points lead. It finally got to the point where he had to go and mix it up again and he got by with it, this time. On the other hand, Rubens didn't really seem to come up to speed until the championship was all but out of reach. He was in that warm position where if everything went absolutely right, he could win the championship but everyone would be understanding and sympathetic if he couldn't pull it off. I also think Brawn saw that in both his drivers and for all the talk in public, it wouldn't hurt his feelings to lose both of them.

[motetarip]

I think Button has a confidence problem

I'd agree with that. After 10 years in uncompetitive cars and to then be given the opportunity to take the WDC when he may have thought his career was as good as over he cracked, and I don't blame him one little bit. It is a problem but I don't rate him any less talented as a driver because of it.

[F1boat]

I'd agree with that. After 10 years in uncompetitive cars and to then be given the opportunity to take the WDC when he may have thought his career was as good as over he cracked, and I don't blame him one little bit. It is a problem but I don't rate him any less talented as a driver because of it.

I agree. I think that he admitted that he was sort of scared.