Car vs Driver, who gives more to the race???

There's no way one ratio is going to explain all situations, it's neither realistic nor necessary. Talented driver/crappy car, great car/terrible driver, great car/great driver that are simply mismatched in driving style to car build, crappy driver/crappy car that causes the leaders to wreck while it's being lapped, a great driver that breaks great cars and as a consequence drives lesser cars that have to be built to hold together and cannot sport the delicate technology that some drivers just manage to break. It's variable in every situation so there can't be one ratio that settles the issue definitively. What's more, why is it necessary to try and arrive at only one in the first place? To assume that there is one final answer is questionable on the face of it.


Mr. Ferrari seems to have been completely biased towards the car, mainly because he built them. Not because he had no regard for life due to his own personal tragedy, as many writers have speculated. Sergio Scaglietti sheds light on both aspects of the man by relating that Mr. Ferrari often cried in front of him in private about the loss of Dino. He also relates that Mr. Ferrari was an extremely ruthless competitor who psychologically manipulated everyone around him as they jockeyed the cars he built.

As a socio-geographic thesis, the region of Italy where Mr. Ferrari's family came from, as well as the other supercar constructors, is historically, since the days of the Roman empire, a people that produced implements of war, chariots, and early mechanization, etc. Mr. Ferrari himself grew up in a machine shop that his father owned. Mr. Lamborghini's father owned a machine factory as well except the young Lamborghini showed a definite mechanical genius from an early age. We have only an inlking these days of the car culture that existed in Italy during the early days of the car, it's almost like the Roman Empire all over again. I personally believe that's why Italian automobiles are the most distinctive in character of any cars in the world to this very day.

 

80/20

 

A driver with insane heaven sent talents behind the wheel of an HRT might be able to split the Loti in qualifying (or even surpass them on occasion) but he couldn't manage to elevate them further. 92% car, 1% happenstance, 7% driver , imho .

 

I voted 60% car 40% driver.

 

Me too.

 

80/20, To much car not enough driver.

 

i wanted to, too, but i was too tired and missclicked.... i didn't think 40 car, 60 driver.

 

Put it like this... which driver in the field could NOT drive Sebs Red Bull and win?

That doesn't mean the average track day squid could jump in and be competitive but it takes much more talent to drive a bad car...

 

Mark webber ?
or does he have the same car? ...

i chose 80/20 could be a little more or a little less depending the situation.

 

I agree with 80% car, 20% driver. Many believe Alonso is the best driver on the grid; using that assumption, not even the best driver on the grid can win with this year's Ferrari. Others believe Hamilton is the best on the grid; using that logic, he luckily won one race and has been less then impressive otherwise.

What I am getting at is that it takes the top car to win. No one can consistently win without the right car. Therefore, the car carries the majority of the weight in terms of getting the job done. Can a great driver elevate the car a couple spots? Sure. Can a great driver consistently win in a subpar car? No. On the other hand, can an average driver win in the best car on the grid? Based on some results over the years, yes.

Accordingly, I believe the car carries 80% of the burden and the last 20% is from the driver wringing out every last bit of performance.

Mark