Double posted from GDD, thought i might get better results in here:

Ok I'm writing this persuasive essay here in my final semester of my final year of college. we have been given the liberty to write about anything we want. I have a rough idea of what i want to write about, but was hoping some of you could help me out here.
My topic: Formula1, Is it car, or is it driver (or is it both?)

The Facts

Michael Schumacher:

2003 - 1st overall - 6 poles - 93 pts - Ferrari
2002 - 1st overall - 11 poles - 144 pts - Ferrari
2001 - 1st overall - 9 poles - 123 pts - Ferrari
2000 - 1st overall - 9 poles - 108 pts - Ferarri
*Skipped to his "younger years for comparison"
1995 - 1st overall - 9 poles - 102 pts - Benetton Renault
1994 - 1st overall - 8 poles - 92 pts - Benetton Ford
1993 - 4th overall - 1 pole - 52 pts - Benetton Ford
1992 - 3rd overall - 1 pole - 52 pts - Benetton Ford
1991 - 14th overall - 0 poles - 4 pts - Benetton Ford


Rub. Barichello:

2003 - 4th overall - 8 top 3 finishes - 65 pts - Ferrari
2002 - 2nd overall - 9 top 2 finishes - 77 pts - Ferrari
2001 - 3rd overall - 10 top 3 finishes - 56 pts - Ferrari
2000 - 4th overall - 9 top 3 finishes - 62 pts - Ferrari
*Skipped to younger years
1998 - 12th overall - 0 top 3 finishes - 5 pts - Steward Ford
1997 - 13th overall - 1 top 3 finish - 6 pts - Steward Ford
1996 - 8th overall - 0 top 3 finishes - 14 pts - Jordan Peugeot
1995 - 11th overall - 1 top 3 finish - 11 pts - Jordan Peugeot


Ferrari Constructor:

2003 - 1st overall - 158pts
2002 - 1st overall - 221 pts
2001 - 1st overall - 179 pts
2000 - 1st overall - 170 pts
1995 - 3rd overall - 73 pts (Benetton Renault and M.S. 1st overall)
1994 - 3rd overall - 71 pts (Benetton Ford and M.S. 2nd overall)
1993 - 4th overall - 28 pts (Benetton Ford and M.S. 3rd overall)

With that being said:
You can see that M.S. had winning seasons outside and before he joined the "Big red machine" however, Barichello did not enjoy such success before he joined Ferrari. Also, Ferarri did not place ahead of Schumachers team's during the mid '90s.

My arguments, and questions. Could it be argued that Ferarri makes you better? ie. Barichello a mediocire driver by some has enjoyed success simply beacuse he has joined ferrari? Or does the car have nothing to do with it, as is the case with Schumacher, who was successful before his change to Ferrari.

Just looking for some ideas on how to form this argument.

Would love to hear from some of you, as i know many of you are very knowledgable.......especially Drew, you are quite educated on this.

 

I don't have anything good to add to this argument because I think it's thuper thilly. To use your argument, you have to focus on only the years in which Ferrari has been dominant. There have been plenty of other years when a certain team had the fastest car. There are lots of teams with fast cars and slow drivers.

There is an interaction between good drivers and good teams because a good team will attract good drivers and vice versa. To isolate your variables you'd need to assume that one or the other is level, either all the drivers possess the same potential for results or all the teams do. If you study the interaction you're going to have to run literally thousands of data points to support your argument successfully (or refute it).

 

There are WAY too many factors that you aren't considering in this. Michael brought with him some of the staff from Benneton when he came to Ferrari. Key people. You also have to take into account competition. Back in '93 when he started there were also a lot of highly competitive drivers like Senna and Prost. Nowdays there isn't much of a threat. MS's success comes from a combination of best car and best driver.


Matt

 

I would instead write about the success of ferrari and how it's changed the face of F1 like proposed rule changes other teams reponses and how it affects other drivers on the grid when schuey is in thier rear view ect.

 

1. Your thesis that Rubens was only mediocre before joining Ferrari ignores (a) how well he was regarded when he came into F1, and (b) how well he acquitted himself against his teammates in cars that weren't excellent.

2. It's "Stewart."

This does nothing to diminish the fact that MS is truly a great talent, however.

K

 

Do you think A or B?

A. Schumacher would win in a Minardi,
B. Salo would win in a Ferrari,

 

Just consider Kimi worst waste of a good driver ever.

 

i personally dont think you'll ever come to a definate conclusion, because there is none to offer with such an open question. but one case in point outside of F1 but very similar in terms of technology and engineering just recently highlighted this weekend was Valentino Rossi winning the opening round of MotoGP. its fairly relevant to your question since after dominating the class with honda the last few years, which also dominates the rest of the podium, rossi decided to leave honda for yamaha, that i think only had one podium in the last few years. of course, his head race engineer and a lot of the honda crew followed him to yamaha, but he clearly was not at the significant disadvantage of machinery everyone thought he'd have to overcome to get pole and win the first race of the season. just some more fodder to confuse your analysis.

my advice in writing this is to make a clear outline and thesis and separate your points, as any good essay should, but youll need to be even more precise for a topic such as this. i think a more appropriate topic would be more like "what goes into a successful race team and their relative significance". good luck.

http://www.crash.net/uk/en/new...89878


Modified by Tyson at 1:07 PM 4/19/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i personally dont think you'll ever come to a definate conclusion, because there is none to offer with such an open question. but one case in point outside of F1 but very similar in terms of technology and engineering just recently highlighted this weekend was Valentino Rossi winning the opening round of MotoGP. its fairly relevant to your question since after dominating the class with honda the last few years, which also dominates the rest of the podium, rossi decided to leave honda for yamaha, that i think only had one podium in the last few years. of course, his head race engineer and a lot of the honda crew followed him to yamaha, but he clearly was not at the significant disadvantage of machinery everyone thought he'd have to overcome to get pole and win the first race of the season. just some more fodder to confuse your analysis.

my advice in writing this is to make a clear outline and thesis and separate your points, as any good essay should, but youll need to be even more precise for a topic such as this. i think a more appropriate topic would be more like "what goes into a successful race team and their relative significance". good luck.</TD></TR></TABLE>

excellant advice. Although Rossi is damn good at what he does.