which do you consider more important to winning a race

[A2K78]

Just wondering in honesty, I think the pit crew overall is most important factor.

 

[Ardius]

All are important factors - its the sum of the parts that makes the result not one or the other.

Take 2000-2004 F1 for example. The combination of Schumacher as a driver, Brawn and Todt on strategy and the best engine and aero packages created utter domination.
Vettel won the 2008 Italian Grand Prix through a combination of having the most balanced car in the wet, a good strategy, superb skill in driving the car (relative to his teammate, who was unlucky but still was behind him in practice and qualy) and a good team to run the entire weekend smoothly.
Button won the last season with the best team, car and driver ability combination.

Sure, having one part that is superb does make a difference, but the overall package is what matters.

 

[Roo]

Just wondering in honesty, I think the pit crew overall is most important factor.

Why?

To answer your question: the car. A great driver with a great pit crew in a crap car might score points. An average driver with an average pit crew in a fantastic car could still win races. Jenson Button didn't just magicly get better last year, in the same way that Hamilton and Alonso didn't suddenly become mediocre - if the car's not underneath you, you won't win without unusual circumstances (rain/accidents etc.).

 

[Ardius]

I disagree, you can have a good car but not win a race. Its rare to have car so dominant that it requires little to no skill by the team or the drivers, in fact I personally believe its never happened.
And it goes the opposite way, there have been race winnners who didn't have the best car on that day, but a combination of factors led to their victory. You can't win the race without a good driver, you can't win the race without a good car and you can't win the race without a good team.

Though I hold the belief that most if not all drivers that make it to F1 are very good drivers, even most of the pay drivers (ignoring the 90s) have some speed.

 

[Earth]

It depends on which racing series and the situation in a race.

In NASCAR a fast pit crew can get a driver out of the pits first during a late race caution or the crew chief can make the bold decision to leave him out there on old tires like Chad Knaus did during Thursdays duel races which ended up in a win. Bootie Barker Left Max Papis out on old tires and it barely worked out earning him a spot in the Daytona 500.

NASCAR is unlike most other auto racing series because its near impossible to script a race. The night before you can't say we're going to run a 3 stopper tomorrow or we're going to change drivers every 3 hours. Many times a crew chief has make a call to leave someone out on old tires, two right sides, gas only, theres alot of decisions that have to be made in the moment. A crew chief also has to understand what a driver is saying to him about how the car handles over a 4 hour race, someties day into night and what changes he needs to make to the car.

A driver in NASCAR has to be able to change his line during a race to accomadate the way his car is handling, he has to rely on his experience to ake changes during 4 hour 500 mile races to his car to keep up with changing track conditions. It took the Audi drivers 16 hours to figure out what how to get their car to handle at Le Mans, a NASCAR driver doesnt have that long. A stock car driver is rarely hotlapping the same line over and over, hes constantly searching for where the grip is in the track and where his car works best

Yes the top teams have a bigger budget and build better cars and make more power, but compared to other racing series this difference is minimal. A dyno test showed the difference between the stock car making the most horesepower and the one making the least was just 25 horsepower. In other racing series the difference can be 100+ Hp not to mention torque differences in sports cars.

So I'd say for NASCAR its

1. Crew
2. Driver
3. Car

For sports cars I've seen the Peugeot pit crew lose the race for the car in 2008 with extremely slow pit stops and bad strategy while Audi won it with the pit crew.

I've also seen veteran drivers avoid problems on track with other drivers throwing the car away late in a race. The 2008 Peugeot pit crew was a rarity and an abomination.

You need a car that is semi quick and wont break down for the endurance races. Really fast cars have let their drivers down many times in the endurance races. So I have to put cars #1 even though keeping a car clean for 1000kms to 24 hours through day and night while dodging much slower cars does require good drivers.

For sports cars I say

1. Car
2. Driver
3. Crew

Formula 1 probably more then any other racing series is about the car as most of the 20 something drivers in the field are very good and could be World Champion given the right car. The races are short, around 90 minutes, and only require 1 or 2 five second pit stops where things hardly ever go wrong. So a good pit crew really doesnt help much. A team principle decided the day before the race how much fuel the car will have and how many tire stops they'll make. There's hardly any curve balls thrown in.

However a team must be able to interpret what a driver wants in his car. Somebody like Brawn can figure out a trick diffuser and give his car an advantage.

And Jenson Button, a mediocre F1 driver by any standards, winning the title last season so easily kind of confirmed its about the car in F1. I dont thinkyou could put a driver who was equal to Button in past accomplishments and skill in his particular racing series in a Hendricks car or a Ganassi DP and watch him win 10 straight races and run away with the title. It wont happen. If I'm not mistaken he had one win, which was a fluke win in the wet after most of the leaders crashed prior to his 2009 title run.

Formula 1:

1. Car
2. Crew
3. Driver

 

[Ian Poole]

I disagree, you can have a good car but not win a race.

Agree totally with you, take the 1992 Monaco GP. Mansell had the best car but couldn't get past Senna. I know that it isnt the best example because Monaco is a sytreet circuit but the McLaren that year was not even close to the Williams and because of Ayrton's skill, he was able to keep Mansell behind him

It depends on which racing series and the situation in a race.

In NASCAR a fast pit crew can get a driver out of the pits first during a late race caution or the crew chief can make the bold decision to leave him out there on old tires like Chad Knaus did during Thursdays duel races which ended up in a win. Bootie Barker Left Max Papis out on old tires and it barely worked out earning him a spot in the Daytona 500.

NASCAR is unlike most other auto racing series because its near impossible to script a race. The night before you can't say we're going to run a 3 stopper tomorrow or we're going to change drivers every 3 hours. Many times a crew chief has make a call to leave someone out on old tires, two right sides, gas only, theres alot of decisions that have to be made in the moment. A crew chief also has to understand what a driver is saying to him about how the car handles over a 4 hour race, someties day into night and what changes he needs to make to the car.

A driver in NASCAR has to be able to change his line during a race to accomadate the way his car is handling, he has to rely on his experience to ake changes during 4 hour 500 mile races to his car to keep up with changing track conditions. It took the Audi drivers 16 hours to figure out what how to get their car to handle at Le Mans, a NASCAR driver doesnt have that long. A stock car driver is rarely hotlapping the same line over and over, hes constantly searching for where the grip is in the track and where his car works best

Yes the top teams have a bigger budget and build better cars and make more power, but compared to other racing series this difference is minimal. A dyno test showed the difference between the stock car making the most horesepower and the one making the least was just 25 horsepower. In other racing series the difference can be 100+ Hp not to mention torque differences in sports cars.

So I'd say for NASCAR its

1. Crew
2. Driver
3. Car

For sports cars I've seen the Peugeot pit crew lose the race for the car in 2008 with extremely slow pit stops and bad strategy while Audi won it with the pit crew.

I've also seen veteran drivers avoid problems on track with other drivers throwing the car away late in a race. The 2008 Peugeot pit crew was a rarity and an abomination.

You need a car that is semi quick and wont break down for the endurance races. Really fast cars have let their drivers down many times in the endurance races. So I have to put cars #1 even though keeping a car clean for 1000kms to 24 hours through day and night while dodging much slower cars does require good drivers.

For sports cars I say

1. Car
2. Driver
3. Crew

Formula 1 probably more then any other racing series is about the car as most of the 20 something drivers in the field are very good and could be World Champion given the right car. The races are short, around 90 minutes, and only require 1 or 2 five second pit stops where things hardly ever go wrong. So a good pit crew really doesnt help much. A team principle decided the day before the race how much fuel the car will have and how many tire stops they'll make. There's hardly any curve balls thrown in.

However a team must be able to interpret what a driver wants in his car. Somebody like Brawn can figure out a trick diffuser and give his car an advantage.

And Jenson Button, a mediocre F1 driver by any standards, winning the title last season so easily kind of confirmed its about the car in F1. I dont thinkyou could put a driver who was equal to Button in past accomplishments and skill in his particular racing series in a Hendricks car or a Ganassi DP and watch him win 10 straight races and run away with the title. It wont happen. If I'm not mistaken he had one win, which was a fluke win in the wet after most of the leaders crashed prior to his 2009 title run.

Formula 1:

1. Car
2. Crew
3. Driver

I agree with you on the NASCAR front, especially if your name is Jimmie Johnson but I have to disagree with you on the sports car front. If Audi were supposedly the best car and Peugot were failing because of their stops, why was it that a Peugot won the 200 24 Hour and not an Audi? I will tell you why, it is because Audi's R15 was not the most reliable car in the field because it kept on having engine problems.

 

[Small_Fryz]

motogp

1. Rider
2. Crew
3. Bike

 

[iced16]

All are important factors - its the sum of the parts that makes the result not one or the other.

Take 2000-2004 F1 for example. The combination of Schumacher as a driver, Brawn and Todt on strategy and the best engine and aero packages created utter domination.
Vettel won the 2008 Italian Grand Prix through a combination of having the most balanced car in the wet, a good strategy, superb skill in driving the car (relative to his teammate, who was unlucky but still was behind him in practice and qualy) and a good team to run the entire weekend smoothly.
Button won the last season with the best team, car and driver ability combination.

Sure, having one part that is superb does make a difference, but the overall package is what matters.

Button won the last season with the best team, car and driver ability combination.---WRONG! Every F1 driver in season 2009 would win the championship... Button is just an average driver... even lowest then that... Im not Hamilton fan, but hamilton will destroy him this season... button was just on the right time on the right place... Rubens is way better and he would beat Button if he was allowed... Poor Rubens is always 2nd driver in the team!

 

[Only_in_f1]

Agree totally with you, take the 1992 Monaco GP. Mansell had the best car but couldn't get past Senna. I know that it isnt the best example because Monaco is a sytreet circuit but the McLaren that year was not even close to the Williams and because of Ayrton's skill, he was able to keep Mansell behind him

That's kind of a bad example.
He was only infront due to the fact Mansell thought he had a puncture when really he only had a loose wheel nut.

Had the crew picked up on this it could have been fixed in 5 seconds rather than the 15+ it took to change it.

So really the most important thing to winning a race is luck.

 

[Northstar]

I always thought leading was the most important thing.

[/smartassness]

 

[Ardius]

Button won the last season with the best team, car and driver ability combination.---WRONG! Every F1 driver in season 2009 would win the championship... Button is just an average driver... even lowest then that... Im not Hamilton fan, but hamilton will destroy him this season... button was just on the right time on the right place... Rubens is way better and he would beat Button if he was allowed... Poor Rubens is always 2nd driver in the team!

I'm sorry but Rubens had his chances and didn't use them. Button beat him fair and square...even Rubens acknowledges that.

I will agree Button isn't the greatest ever, and I also agree that his odds against Hamilton are severely against him. But he isn't rubbish, you don't win the championship by being rubbish, name me a champion who was rubbish.
Average drivers aren't champions.

 

[Clark]

The car does always play a part (look a diesels in sportscars for example) but as Ardius has said, a good car doesn't necessarily mean winning package. Drivers always have to make the difference. Look at Hamilton and Slowvaleinen the past two years, especially last year. The car was just about where it should be for most races with Heikki, but Hamilton made the difference and got some very good results.

 

[homeforsummer]

motogp

1. Rider
2. Crew
3. Bike

I'd agree with that, though I'd put "Balls" between Rider and Crew too...

 

[The Outlaw]

The car does always play a part (look a diesels in sportscars for example) but as Ardius has said, a good car doesn't necessarily mean winning package. Drivers always have to make the difference. Look at Hamilton and Slowvaleinen the past two years, especially last year. The car was just about were it should be for most races with Heikki, but Hamilton made the difference and god some very good results.

Exactly. Teammate results alone prove that the driver plays a huge part in the successfulness of a team/package.

F1 has a lot of potentially great teammate battles for the new season.

Hamilton vs Button
Alonso vs Massa
Schumacher vs Rosberg
Vettel vs a healthy Mark Webber

 

[iced16]

I'm sorry but Rubens had his chances and didn't use them. Button beat him fair and square...even Rubens acknowledges that.

I will agree Button isn't the greatest ever, and I also agree that his odds against Hamilton are severely against him. But he isn't rubbish, you don't win the championship by being rubbish, name me a champion who was rubbish.
Average drivers aren't champions.

well thats true... but button was lucky because his car was 2sec. faster then any other... Check out second part of the 2009 season... they all eventually cought up with brawn gp as he started to be less and less competitive...

Rubens was second driver... always second driver is behind the first one...
where was button when he was in ferrari? Rubens would be multi-champion if only he was first driver back then... and remember austria 2002... THAT finish! and that explains it all... cheers lad!

 

[Ardius]

Button was 3rd in his BAR behind the Ferrari's in 2004. Is this what you're referring to as bad driving?
Rubens beat Jenson when he was in a superior team, so what? Are you trying to say the Ferrari was rubbish and it was all down to Rubens?

Also, where is your proof that Rubens was number 2 at Brawn? Rubens himself has stated that he lost himself the championship last year, not team orders. Even if there were team orders - Button really didn't need any, Rubens screwed up so many starts and had so many collisions by himself. Even when Rubens had a good strategy, he just didn't have the pace on Button. Team orders don't cause rubbish driving, which Rubens was very guilty of in the first half of the year.

Team orders didn't stop Rubens becoming champion, not even at Ferrari. He was never up there with Schumacher, he could be on his day but not through the whole season.

As for Button's 2nd half of 2009 - well, yes, the other teams caught up and it became harder...so? No one ever said that Melbourne 2009 or any of the other early races were entirely down to Button's dominating skill, so of course when his car isn't so dominant, he isn't going to give a dominant performance. Hamilton can't deliver a dominant performance either without the right car, no one can.
Fact is, Button scored points positions all through the year bar one race. His "mid-season slump" was barely a slump if you compare it to previous championship winners and his consistencey and ability to pull off his race strategies are what won him the championship as well as the right car and team.
So, yes, Button was lucky, but he also made the most of his situation unlike Rubens....and he didn't make crucial mistakes like Vettel did.

 

[The Outlaw]

Button was 3rd in his BAR behind the Ferrari's in 2004. Is this what you're referring to as bad driving?
Rubens beat Jenson when he was in a superior team, so what? Are you trying to say the Ferrari was rubbish and it was all down to Rubens?

Also, where is your proof that Rubens was number 2 at Brawn? Rubens himself has stated that he lost himself the championship last year, not team orders. Even if there were team orders - Button really didn't need any, Rubens screwed up so many starts and had so many collisions by himself. Even when Rubens had a good strategy, he just didn't have the pace on Button. Team orders don't cause rubbish driving, which Rubens was very guilty of in the first half of the year.

Team orders didn't stop Rubens becoming champion, not even at Ferrari. He was never up there with Schumacher, he could be on his day but not through the whole season..

I completey agree.

As for Button's 2nd half of 2009 - well, yes, the other teams caught up and it became harder...so? No one ever said that Melbourne 2009 or any of the other early races were entirely down to Button's dominating skill, so of course when his car isn't so dominant, he isn't going to give a dominant performance. Hamilton can't deliver a dominant performance either without the right car, no one can.
Fact is, Button scored points positions all through the year bar one race. His "mid-season slump" was barely a slump if you compare it to previous championship winners and his consistencey and ability to pull off his race strategies are what won him the championship as well as the right car and team.

That's FAR from true. How did you come up with that?

So, yes, Button was lucky, but he also made the most of his situation unlike Rubens....and he didn't make crucial mistakes like Vettel did.

Neither did Button have any CRUCIAL mechanical failures or pit crew mishaps throughout the season, which could have cost him the Championship like it did to Vettel (Hungarian & European GP) last year.

If those two little things had happened to Button, then one would look at his performance in the last 10 races of the season as one giant flop, considering his car was probably still the first or second strongest car OVERALL throughout the last 10 races.

 

[Ardius]

Well, just look at the bare results, Hamilton championship year featured 4 non-points finishes. Button had 1, and it was a retirement caused by another driver's inexperience. When Button was "in trouble" he was in points positions everytime.

Ok, Vettel also had some horrible strategies laid on him by his team and some unreliability, but my point was that he made mistakes which Button did not when under pressure. Australia, Turkey and Monaco are what I'm referring to.

 

[The Outlaw]

Well, just look at the bare results, Hamilton championship year featured 4 non-points finishes. Button had 1, and it was a retirement caused by another driver's inexperience. When Button was "in trouble" he was in points positions everytime.

Ok, Vettel also had some horrible strategies laid on him by his team and some unreliability, but my point was that he made mistakes which Button did not when under pressure. Australia, Turkey and Monaco are what I'm referring to.

Well I'm not referring to his performance throughout the entire season...rather his "mid-season slump" you originally brought up. Hamilton's performance in 08 was very inconsistent on the whole (but w/o a slump as long as Button's) and one of the worst performances we've seen from a WDC in years. But contrary to your original statement, Raikkonen's performance in 07 was much more consistent (and without any long/consistent slump) than Button's performance of 09.

The number of non-point scoring positions doesn't tell the entire story anyway. You have to look at other important details and factors like finishing order relative to how strong the car was at the time. Managing to barely score a point or two in several races doesn't mean that your performance is consistently GOOD either...especially when your car is capable of winning races. Button's performance in the latter 10 (minus 1 or 2 races) races was consistently poor if anything.

Regarding Vettel's mistakes under pressure - Yes he was completely at fault those times. Vettel was in an all or nothing situation to have a chance at the title, due to the Brawn chassis utter dominance in the first several races. This obviously led him to over drive the car from time to time. As I've said many times before, Button's under performance in the last 10 races (when his car wasn't absolutely dominating) was one large mistake in itself, as he seemingly began to crack under pressure. But in the end, none of his under performing driving mattered, as he was given a car in the first races (which 10-15 drivers on the grid probably could have won with...given that particular situation.) which allowed him to squeak by to capture the WDC, despite clearly under performing in more than half of the latter part of the season.

 

[Ardius]

Ah, but, Raikkonen and Hamilton arguably had more experience at fighting for the WDC and just as dominant cars. Ferrari and McLaren were clearly the top teams for 2007 and 2008 and I would say that the gap between them and the midfield teams was a little bit bigger than last year, judging by the consistencey.
So, for last year, by the middle of the year the improvements to the other team's cars finally brought them close enough to be on a level with the Brawn, especially properly integrating the DDD.

Looking at the details for how strong the cars were? (Correct me if I'm wrong) I remember the 2008 season quite well I think, and the McLarens and Ferraris were almost always on the front rows of the grid. Can't say the same for Brawn, and we do have a reliable indication with Rubens at least displaying his real skill in the 2nd half of the year when Button fell back.

I disagree about Vettel having to overdrive the car because the Brawn was dominant - the Red Bull was a match for it in some races and he could have scored more points than he did if he had not blown it under pressure. But they were simple rookie mistakes from someone who hasn't fought for a WDC before, just like Button and Hamilton. So I don't think the pressure was really because of the Brawn's speed, more because he is a newbie.

 

[iced16]

Regarding Vettel's mistakes under pressure - Yes he was completely at fault those times. Vettel was in an all or nothing situation to have a chance at the title, due to the Brawn chassis utter dominance in the first several races. This obviously led him to over drive the car from time to time. As I've said many times before, Button's under performance in the last 10 races (when his car wasn't absolutely dominating) was one large mistake in itself, as he seemingly began to crack under pressure. But in the end, none of his under performing driving mattered, as he was given a car in the first races (which 10-15 drivers on the grid probably could have won with...given that particular situation.) which allowed him to squeak by to capture the WDC, despite clearly under performing in more than half of the latter part of the season.

You're totally right... every word! great mate! cheers!

 

[The Outlaw]

Ah, but, Raikkonen and Hamilton arguably had more experience at fighting for the WDC and just as dominant cars. .

Well that's beyond the point. I'm not sure if that statement holds much meaning anyway, as Hamilton had only been in F1 for 1 year going into his 2008 WDC season (vs. Button who had been in F1 for 8 year prior to his WDC season), not to mention Button had roughly ~6 1/2 years more experience driving an F1 car over Vettel (his main Championship rival last year).

Let's not forget that the topic of discussion was originally about mid-season slumps and the fact that you said Button's slump from last year was hardly a slump compared to previous Championship winners. I rather not get dragged into something else which is beyond the point

Ferrari and McLaren were clearly the top teams for 2007 and 2008 and I would say that the gap between them and the midfield teams was a little bit bigger than last year, judging by the consistencey.
So, for last year, by the middle of the year the improvements to the other team's cars finally brought them close enough to be on a level with the Brawn, especially properly integrating the DDD.

Looking at the details for how strong the cars were? (Correct me if I'm wrong) I remember the 2008 season quite well I think, and the McLarens and Ferraris were almost always on the front rows of the grid. Can't say the same for Brawn, and we do have a reliable indication with Rubens at least displaying his real skill in the 2nd half of the year when Button fell back...

Yeah but Ferrari and Mclaren were extremely evenly matched throughout the season, unlike the Brawn which couldn't really be touched for the first several races of 09. At the Australian GP, the fastest non-Brawn chassis was 1.6 seconds off Button's pole time. The Brawn did get out qualified from time to time in the first few races, but their heavy Q3 fuel loads accounted for this.

In 08 Kubica was quite strong throughout the beginning of the season and Alonso was also very strong in the last few races of the season, so I don't think it's quite fair to say that Mclaren and Ferrari were the clear cut strongest cars throughout the 08 season in particular.

And Barichello did show what the Brawn was STILL capable of in the 2nd half of the season in qualifying. His problem was that he just fumbled quite often when it came to his race performances, where as with Button, his race performances were his saving grace after qualifying extremely poorly (relative to what the car was capable of). Still in my mind, Button's race performances don't at all overshadow his long slump of poor qualifying performance in the last half of the season, because the car was still capable of a much better end result. (as it was still probably the 2nd strongest car overall)

One last thing - Barichello had issues with his brakes for the first several races of the season, which meant he couldn't run the rear wheel covers which have been said to have been worth 3 tenths on most circuits. This basically meant that he was automatically out of contention to win or at least to outperform his team mate for the first half of the season. This ended up costly him dearly in the end...but hey, that's racing.

I disagree about Vettel having to overdrive the car because the Brawn was dominant - the Red Bull was a match for it in some races and he could have scored more points than he did if he had not blown it under pressure. But they were simple rookie mistakes from someone who hasn't fought for a WDC before, just like Button and Hamilton. So I don't think the pressure was really because of the Brawn's speed, more because he is a newbie.

True and I take back what I said.

Some of his mistakes early on could have been avoided, but there's still no question in my mind that Vettel faced a massive uphill battle after just the first two races alone, which didn't leave him with much option but to push as hard as he knew how to make up the 20 point deficit after only the first two races alone

 

[Ardius]

Well that's beyond the point. I'm not sure if that statement holds much meaning anyway, as Hamilton had only been in F1 for 1 year going into his 2008 WDC season (vs. Button who had been in F1 for 8 year prior to his WDC season), not to mention Button had roughly ~6 1/2 years more experience driving an F1 car over Vettel (his main Championship rival last year).

Let's not forget that the topic of discussion was originally about mid-season slumps and the fact that you said Button's slump from last year was hardly a slump compared to previous Championship winners. I rather not get dragged into something else which is beyond the point

Yeah but Ferrari and Mclaren were extremely evenly matched throughout the season, unlike the Brawn which couldn't really be touched for the first several races of 09. At the Australian GP, the fastest non-Brawn chassis was 1.6 seconds off Button's pole time. The Brawn did get out qualified from time to time in the first few races, but their heavy Q3 fuel loads accounted for this.

In 08 Kubica was quite strong throughout the beginning of the season and Alonso was also very strong in the last few races of the season, so I don't think it's quite fair to say that Mclaren and Ferrari were the clear cut strongest cars throughout the 08 season in particular.

And Barichello did show what the Brawn was STILL capable of in the 2nd half of the season in qualifying. His problem was that he just fumbled quite often when it came to his race performances, where as with Button, his race performances were his saving grace after qualifying extremely poorly (relative to what the car was capable of). Still in my mind, Button's race performances don't at all overshadow his long slump of poor qualifying performance in the last half of the season, because the car was still capable of a much better end result. (as it was still probably the 2nd strongest car overall)

One last thing - Barichello had issues with his brakes for the first several races of the season, which meant he couldn't run the rear wheel covers which have been said to have been worth 3 tenths on most circuits. This basically meant that he was automatically out of contention to win or at least to outperform his team mate for the first half of the season. This ended up costly him dearly in the end...but hey, that's racing.

True and I take back what I said.

Some of his mistakes early on could have been avoided, but there's still no question in my mind that Vettel faced a massive uphill battle after just the first two races alone, which didn't leave him with much option but to push as hard as he knew how to make up the 20 point deficit after only the first two races alone

Well, I've been trying to look back and find an example, but I may have been wrong
I could have sworn I remember Damon Hill's 1996 being worse than the records show I guess I was wrong with the slump bit then, the fact I'm having to analyse all the previous champions is a pretty clear sign I'm on a wild goose chase started by myself!
I still think Button's slump is not as terrible as its being made out, my point with the McLarens and Ferraris was that despite being evenly matched, they were never caught up to a point of qualifying any further back than say 6th place +/-. Whereas when teams caught up in 2009, it was far more likely for Button to be fighting not just Red Bull, but Force Indias, Williams, Toyotas, Renaults, McLarens, Ferraris....almost the entire field had a chance in Q3 at one time or other. Hamilton could qualify in 2008 usually knowing he would only be fighting the Ferrari's, his teammate and the occasional Renault or BMW.

I'd totally forgotten about Rubens brakes, thats a good point. Still, I'm not sure he can really blame some of those crashes on that, particularly that terrible Turkey race. Rubens still had a chance up till Brazil though, but then Button had got his act together and we all know the rest.

Besides, my original argument was against the notion that Button was average, it was all the car and that Rubens was "oh so superior". I was wrong on the slump stuff, dodgy memory not helping and all (or perhaps a conveniently twisted memory? ) but even so, I still hugely disagree Button is average...being WDC is not average and I think I've discussed already really that the domination of the Brawn is debatable in the mid-season - not that I'm saying it wasn't the best car, but race by race it wasn't dominant. Really, the Brawn's stength was being consistently good no matter the track, whereas many teams had track-dependant cars (e.g. Force India).