F1 Drivers - Really the best????

[driversdomainuk]

Hi

As with all sports you need to be the best in the world to be up there at the highest level. Often people will talk about nautral talent + dedication is needed to get there.

However, I can't help thinking with elite sports like F1 or racing in general, the most naturally talented drivers (from birth) are probably those who have never competed in motorsport ever...

Confused? By this I mean I bet £1000 there is someone out there with the naturals skills in place, albeit untapped, to make them better then any racer ever...

Surely the "greatest F1 driver" is really only the best out of the small lucky few who ever got into motorsport...?

As a comparison, with football you know the best footballers are probably the most talented in the world (comparing with all humans :) ) as EVERYONE gets to have a kick around sometime in their life...

I guess there is no way of really knowing this for sure.....

Wonder if there is any way of measuring absolute performance of a human racing a car (i.e how near 100% max performance is reached)

[cosmicpanda]

personally, I don't like the idea of 'natural' talent from birth. That implies that it's all genetic rather than learning from your environment, and that to me is just stupid. Why on earth would our genes have the very specific instructions to drive a car well, and if they do why did it take so long for humans to invent the car?

And also, that implies that driving talent is inherited and in that case, you'd have children driving F1 cars.

Fortunately, Anthony Hamilton is able to show us that Lewis is as good as he is because he worked at it rather than merely inheriting genes.

[Mark]

I'd say almost certainly you are right. The person who has the potentital to be far better than Schumacher and Senna combined is stacking shelves at Tesco. But the key there is potential, unlocking it is another matter entirely.

And I'm not sure it doesn't apply to football too, albeit less so, there are plenty of good footballers who never made it to teams for one reason or another. Same with all sports.

[ShiftingGears]

Why on earth would our genes have the very specific instructions to drive a car well, and if they do why did it take so long for humans to invent the car?

Not at all.

The natural talent would not be a gene that says "drive a car well" it would be a combination of genes for, say, good balance and reflexes. And those genes are the ones that translate into having driving potential, and not genes that say "you will be good at driving".

[TMorel]

I think genes do have a lot to do with it.
Look at all the top drivers that are also pretty good at other sports, such as (showing my rally bias here)
Carlos Sainz - squash + football
Seb Loeb - gymnastics
Some people just have a head start in sporting activities just like I've been blessed with good looks, wit and charm *nods*

[cosmicpanda]

Not at all.

The natural talent would not be a gene that says "drive a car well" it would be a combination of genes for, say, good balance and reflexes. And those genes are the ones that translate into having driving potential, and not genes that say "you will be good at driving".

Potential, certainly. But potential doesn't equal skill.

I accept that genes have a role in governing how the body functions, but I still think that environmental influences rather than genes have a bigger influence on the development of a skill like driving - learning by racing experience will always be more useful than sitting around for 20 years and then hoping that the potential to go fast exists inside you.

It's a bit like learning to play a musical instrument - for example, on the piano, having long fingers isn't as important as practicing every day for 10 years. And no amount fancy genes can make a performer feel less nervous on stage (unless you're mentally ill) - only performing experience can help that.

[jens]

From this view angle the thread author is right. In a lot of places around the world there is a real lack of possibilities to try motorsport. So we have no idea, how much talent may be hidden in Africa for example.

But this is more or less the case in every area, also in football. Yeah, a lot of people may have a chance to kick a football, but this doesn't mean all the talented ones have a chance of getting somewhere careerwise. 'Specialisation' takes place in the world and if a human being chooses one area, where to build up his/her career, then this person's other strengths may not unveil.

[Whyzars]

Young females are the best, most talented drivers in the world, just ask them. They can navigate a high speed corner whilst one hand operates a mobile phone and the other hand holds the rear vision mirror whilst applying eye liner...

[wedge]

Hi

As with all sports you need to be the best in the world to be up there at the highest level. Often people will talk about nautral talent + dedication is needed to get there.

However, I can't help thinking with elite sports like F1 or racing in general, the most naturally talented drivers (from birth) are probably those who have never competed in motorsport ever...

ills in place, albeit untapped, to make them better then any racer ever...

Surely the "greatest F1 driver" is really only the best out of the small lucky few who ever got into motorsport...?

As a comparison, with football you know the best footballers are probably the most talented in the world (comparing with all humans :) ) as EVERYONE gets to have a kick around sometime in their life...

Of course, you're right.

Motorsport is an elite sport. Unfortunately you need deep pockets as well as talent and dedication to succeed and progress up the motorsport ladder.

[Valve Bounce]

Talent can be inherited. Fletcher and Ablett are primes examples.

[driversdomainuk]

personally, I don't like the idea of 'natural' talent from birth. That implies that it's all genetic rather than learning from your environment, and that to me is just stupid. Why on earth would our genes have the very specific instructions to drive a car well, and if they do why did it take so long for humans to invent the car?

And also, that implies that driving talent is inherited and in that case, you'd have children driving F1 cars.

Fortunately, Anthony Hamilton is able to show us that Lewis is as good as he is because he worked at it rather than merely inheriting genes.


Well no, I don’t mean you would have children driving F1 cars, like in the same way you would not have a school captain running to be Prime Minister, but the basic human setup is there ready to be launched....in time and with nature.

You could then go into it deeper. I.e you Jonny is a great tennis player (has the right mind to be great) but has very poor discipline - in which case it would be unlikely he would get far.

In my mind the best people has an optimum condination of
1. natural raw skill
2. mental focus
3. self discipline
4. self awareness
5. good attitude.

the above can be applied to any sport/or job for that matter

As I say, to be an Olympic athlete you need an Olympic level of natural skill but this will only be of use if you have an Olympic standard of mental focus..

any one remembers someone at school who was great at exams etc, but had no real focus....often these people appear to be in jobs beneath them...?



sorry I dont know what I have done to the postings below!!!

[driversdomainuk]

personally, I don't like the idea of 'natural' talent from birth. That implies that it's all genetic rather than learning from your environment, and that to me is just stupid. Why on earth would our genes have the very specific instructions to drive a car well, and if they do why did it take so long for humans to invent the car?

And also, that implies that driving talent is inherited and in that case, you'd have children driving F1 cars.

Fortunately, Anthony Hamilton is able to show us that Lewis is as good as he is because he worked at it rather than merely inheriting genes.


Well no, I don’t mean you would have children driving F1 cars, like in the same way you would not have a school captain running to be Prime Minister, but the basic human setup is there ready to be launched....in time and with nature.

You could then go into it deeper. I.e you Jonny is a great tennis player (has the right mind to be great) but has very poor discipline - in which case it would be unlikely he would get far.

In my mind the best people has an optimum condination of:
[
1. natural raw skill
2. mental focus
3. self discipline
4. self awareness
5. good attitude

the above can be applied to any sport/or job for that matter

As I say, to be an Olympic athlete you need an Olympic level of natural skill but this will only be of use if you have an Olympic standard of mental focus..
any one remembers someone at school who was great at exams etc, but had no real focus....often these people appear to be in jobs beneath them.

[ShiftingGears]

Potential, certainly. But potential doesn't equal skill.

It sure helps you though. Look at Bernd Rosemeyer - motorcycle champion, and beat most of his teammates in a test session in the recalcitrant Auto Union Type C...and it was his first time driving a racing car.


I accept that genes have a role in governing how the body functions, but I still think that environmental influences rather than genes have a bigger influence on the development of a skill like driving - learning by racing experience will always be more useful than sitting around for 20 years and then hoping that the potential to go fast exists inside you.

Of course, but as stated, you need to unlock your potential to get anywhere.


It's a bit like learning to play a musical instrument - for example, on the piano, having long fingers isn't as important as practicing every day for 10 years.

Of course, but neither of those qualities will make you have the creative genius of Chopin or Mozart. Those guys were something else.

[Robinho]

i've often thought the same - Car racing at any level is only taken up by a small miority of people, albeit ones who generally love cars and speed, so there may be plenty of people out there who would, with the backing and training have the skill to go far but will never get the chance.

i think the comparison with football is a good one, virtually everyone, no matter what background or where they live has the opportunity to kick a ball around. if they show any flair or enjoy it they will try and take it further and will likely get spotted.

of course there is stil an element of "right place, right time" about getting picked up by a proffessional, but the chances are far higher.

one example in racing is that of Rob Ngyun (sp?), who i only know a little about, but i belive got seen doing particularly well for a novice in a track day or kart race, and was given a chance to test a single seater and proved very quick - i belive he made it to F3 or F3000/GP2 having started very late and being effectively plucked ioff the street in racing terms, i'm sure someone else will have more details about him - what is he doing now?

[ioan]

MS himself said in an interview that he has no doubts that there is a person on Earth who could be a much better race driver but didn't get the chance to go on the right path.

[Shai-Hulud]

Potential, certainly. But potential doesn't equal skill.
It's a bit like learning to play a musical instrument - for example, on the piano, having long fingers isn't as important as practicing every day for 10 years. And no amount fancy genes can make a performer feel less nervous on stage (unless you're mentally ill) - only performing experience can help that.

It's really a bit more complex than that; Rachmaninov for instance wouldn't have been able to play a lot of his work if he hadn't had such enormous hands. For a lot of tasks, having the right set of genes is absolutely necessary, but you're absolutely right when you say that your predisposition isn't going to take you anywhere without lots of effort and determination. You could argue though that mentality is, at least partially, genetically determined, so here we go again.
On a more basic level, your genes play a huge role. You can practise as much as you want, but you're going to get nowhere in an F1 car if you're over 2 metres tall for example...
And finally: the amount of nervousness in advance of a performance or so is largely mediated by a part of your brain called the prefrontal cortex. There are large differences between people concerning the extent of inhibition it generates. This is why some people are indeed more predisposed to be nervous than others. Once again it's absolutely clear that experience plays a role in this as well, but that's only part of the story.

To relate this to the original topic of this thread: IMO, there should be several persons somewhere on this world that have the genetic material to become greater than MS or Senna, but still, without the effort, the right circumstances (you're not going to become an F1 driver if you spend your entire life in the middle of nowhere and don't have any access to anything with wheels on it) and some sheer dumb luck (never count that factor out), that counts for nothing.

[cosmicpanda]

We cannot debate whether a person has natural ability driving a race car, and then not consider genetics separate to external influences.


It sure helps you though. Look at Bernd Rosemeyer - motorcycle champion, and beat most of his teammates in a test session in the recalcitrant Auto Union Type C...and it was his first time driving a racing car.

...

Of course, but as stated, you need to unlock your potential to get anywhere.

...

Of course, but neither of those qualities will make you have the creative genius of Chopin or Mozart. Those guys were something else.

You seem to contradict yourself a bit - first you say that Bernd Rosemeyer was naturally talented due to his potential, which according to you allowed him to be faster than others when driving a racecar for the first time. You then agree that racing experience is useful. What of Rosemeyer's racing experience on motorbikes? Surely this would help?

In more recent times, Rossi has shown that it's possible to go from bikes to both the WRC and F1 testing. Admittedly he didn't set the world alight in either, but in the 2006 Rally NZ he managed to beat two other much more experienced WRC drivers.

I think that you are correct in saying that simply practicing the piano for 10 years straight will not allow you to become as creative as Chopin and Mozart were.


It's really a bit more complex than that; Rachmaninov for instance wouldn't have been able to play a lot of his work if he hadn't had such enormous hands. For a lot of tasks, having the right set of genes is absolutely necessary, but you're absolutely right when you say that your predisposition isn't going to take you anywhere without lots of effort and determination. You could argue though that mentality is, at least partially, genetically determined, so here we go again.
On a more basic level, your genes play a huge role. You can practise as much as you want, but you're going to get nowhere in an F1 car if you're over 2 metres tall for example...
And finally: the amount of nervousness in advance of a performance or so is largely mediated by a part of your brain called the prefrontal cortex. There are large differences between people concerning the extent of inhibition it generates. This is why some people are indeed more predisposed to be nervous than others. Once again it's absolutely clear that experience plays a role in this as well, but that's only part of the story.

To relate this to the original topic of this thread: IMO, there should be several persons somewhere on this world that have the genetic material to become greater than MS or Senna, but still, without the effort, the right circumstances (you're not going to become an F1 driver if you spend your entire life in the middle of nowhere and don't have any access to anything with wheels on it) and some sheer dumb luck (never count that factor out), that counts for nothing.

I dispute that the mind and brain are so simple as to depend entirely on genes. Is personality not dependant on external influences? Would a child's personality be like their parents' if they were taken away and raised without contact with them? To relate this to the point you made about the prefrontal cortex (and admittedly, I'm a musician, not a psychologist or a scientist), I can only reiterate my original point: that given enough performance experience - say, several years of performing in front of audiences - stage fright can be controlled.



I think basically we are working towards the same point - that, yes, there is somebody out there who could be a fantastic racing driver given the opportunity. We just seem to differ on whether it's genetic or racing experience that will allow them to become as good as they can be - and I say that racing is similar to performing in one respect: without the experience of racing, you're never going to be better than MS or Senna.

[Shai-Hulud]

I dispute that the mind and brain are so simple as to depend entirely on genes.

Perhaps a bit superfluous to say this, but I never said or meant such a thing. It is the interaction between those factors that does the magic. In fact, you could even argue that this whole nature-nurture discussion is getting a bit old because the expression of genes is very often mediated by environmental factors. This is possible well within even a single generation.
Anyway, the main point that I was trying to make is similar: both are interconnected, but for a couple of very simple factors (type of body, hand-to-eye-coordination, etc.) it is absolutely essential to have the right genetic composition. If you have this as a foundation, your achievements will be highly dependent on the amount of effort. Exactly like with the nervousness example: you can train yourself to be less nervous before a performance, regardless of your predisposed levels, and by training, you can even alter those levels to a certain extent.
Anyway, I agree that we're basically working towards the same point; only the right combination works. Oh, and since I am not only a scientist but also a musician I do really understand your viewpoint; in fact, isn't it a lot more rewarding to achieve something through a lot of effort than through simply having the "talent"?

[ShiftingGears]

You seem to contradict yourself a bit - first you say that Bernd Rosemeyer was naturally talented due to his potential, which according to you allowed him to be faster than others when driving a racecar for the first time. You then agree that racing experience is useful. What of Rosemeyer's racing experience on motorbikes? Surely this would help?

It might help to know the tracks, but considering how extraordinarily different the two categories of racing are, I really don't think that it would be a significant factor.

[cosmicpanda]

It might help to know the tracks, but considering how extraordinarily different the two categories of racing are, I really don't think that it would be a significant factor.

And, if he'd never driven or ridden any sort of motorised transport before, would he still have been so fast?


Perhaps a bit superfluous to say this, but I never said or meant such a thing. It is the interaction between those factors that does the magic. In fact, you could even argue that this whole nature-nurture discussion is getting a bit old because the expression of genes is very often mediated by environmental factors. This is possible well within even a single generation.
Anyway, the main point that I was trying to make is similar: both are interconnected, but for a couple of very simple factors (type of body, hand-to-eye-coordination, etc.) it is absolutely essential to have the right genetic composition. If you have this as a foundation, your achievements will be highly dependent on the amount of effort. Exactly like with the nervousness example: you can train yourself to be less nervous before a performance, regardless of your predisposed levels, and by training, you can even alter those levels to a certain extent.
Anyway, I agree that we're basically working towards the same point; only the right combination works. Oh, and since I am not only a scientist but also a musician I do really understand your viewpoint; in fact, isn't it a lot more rewarding to achieve something through a lot of effort than through simply having the "talent"?

It certainly is.

[ShiftingGears]

And, if he'd never driven or ridden any sort of motorised transport before, would he still have been so fast?


I don't see why not. He learnt to drive when he was 11 when he drove his friends to a neighbouring town without asking his parents. He just picked it up that quickly.