47 replies to this topic

[raceday]

Every now and then I read posters claiming some driver has the best “natural ability”. My question is what does that mean?

Does it mean that the driver in question would be the best at jumping in to any car and outperform anybody else who has jumped in to an identical car at the same time?

Does it mean the same as above but with set up skills coming in to play?

Does it mean the same as above but with feedback and development skills coming in to play?

Does thinking and exchanging thoughts while you’re driving count?

Does any out of the car activities count?

I suppose changing conditions, ability to overtake, mental strength, fast learning etc. comes in to play some somehow?

So in short, please describe what “natural ability” is to you?

[italia]

To me, natural ability means going fast immediately in any car, showing brilliance in car control under difficult circumstances. To excel in the rain you need it!
But it is not enough to become really succesful: This talent combined with all the other mentioned skills, in development, organising, choosing the right team and people at the right time, etc. make a true champion.

[HSJ]

Well, I never use "natural ability," I use "natural talent" and by that I mean the neurology (biology) that the driver has gotten at birth. Basically the part of car control that comes without any real practice, but also ability to learn (quickly). I don't count in abilities outside the car, such as teamwork abilities.

[KenC]

It means, that the speaker or writer, has not watched the driver in question practice all those long hours, to make the driving look so effortless or fast or natural!

[mtl'78]

Instinct for one.

Car control, in both senses as I see them: The ability push the enveloppe while still maintaining racing speed, and the ability to take the car to its limit and hold it there with little or no mistakes being made.

Some drivers are really good at identifying the changes in handling from setup modifications, and make great test drivers for that reason.

In fact I'd say all the different facests of driving will have different doses of born and learned abilities.

To apply this to F1, I'd say the natural ability of a driver are the areas he excells in. The fact is all the drivers are extremely skilled in all areas of racing. But take MS' rain ability, its clear that he has tremendous car control, which is demonstrated by his ability to lap proportionally faster in wet or low grip conditions. DC or Panis, seem to be naturally sharp at "reading" their cars and targeting the areas of the setup that need to be imnproved. Trulli would be a natural when it comes to pushing the enveloppe. Of all the drivers he seems to be the "most" able to push his car up ahead of where it should be.

[raceday]

By HSJ
Well, I never use "natural ability," I use "natural talent" and by that I mean the neurology (biology) that the driver has gotten at birth. Basically the part of car control that comes without any real practice, but also ability to learn (quickly).

What’s confusing about that is that all the drivers has done “real practice” and how do you tell the difference between the learned and the born skill?

[raceday]

By mtl'78
In fact I'd say all the different facests of driving will have different doses of born and learned abilities.

To apply this to F1, I'd say the natural ability of a driver are the areas he excells in.

So if I understand you correctly, anything that is to be regarded as a skill for a driver has elements of "natural ability" in it and the difference between "ability" and "natural ability" would then be skills you are "born with" and skills you "have learned"?

If so, then how do you distinguish between the two in a driver if you claim a driver has the best "natural ability"?

[Daemon]

It means the guy that has this "Natural Ability" has worked a lot harder than the rest.

[Brian O Flaherty]

No, I'd say the opposite. The guy with the most natural ability hasn't had to work as hard as the rest because it comes more naturally to him.

I'd say HSJ basically got it bang on with his description.

Take Gilles Villeneuve as a prime example. The most naturally talented driver of the modern era BAR NONE. Yet he never had the opportunity to fine tune himself into a world champion.

A world champion needs so much more than just natural ability.

On some occasions, like with Damon Hill, you dont even NEED it, all you need is the right car.

[raceday]

By Brian O Flaherty
Take Gilles Villeneuve as a prime example. The most naturally talented driver of the modern era BAR NONE

If that is a fact, can you explane to me what makes him the driver with the most "natural ability"?

[Todd]

"Natural ability" is what you claim your favorite driver has bags of once Michael Schumacher has kicked his ass on every circuit in the series.

[Mammoth]

Originally posted by Todd
"Natural ability" is what you claim your favorite driver has bags of once Michael Schumacher has kicked his ass on every circuit in the series.

fanboy time! Is it always about schumacher??... that contributes zero to the point of the thread....

[Brian O Flaherty]

well the fact that every driver who raced against him, at one time or another, admitted that he was better. Even the champions said he was better. In the wet he was untouchable even leaving out when he qualified 11 seconds faster than second place with Laffitte questioning why everyone else even bothers. He was the only guy in the pitlane who everyone respected because they knew what he was capable of. Rarely does someone stand out from the crowd as much as he did. If you dont know much about him then I highly recommend reading about him. The anecdotes and stories are very entertaining. There will never be another Gilles Villeneuve.

[Brian O Flaherty]

I digressed slightly there raceday.

He was the most naturally talented driver because his car control was unrivalled.

He could have a car fully sideways coming out of a corner at 130mph and be fully in control, where the rest looked like they were on rails (and going noticeably slower).

Everyone admired his raw ability to tame a $hitbucket Ferrari.

[mtl'78]

Originally posted by raceday


If that is a fact, can you explane to me what makes him the driver with the most "natural ability"?

I'll try

Gilles only got into racing at the age of 18 or so. He started on snowmobiles and within 2 seasons he had designed his own and won the WC. His move to cars was just to supply him with extra income during the off season. He took to it rather well, and running a 1 man team faced against semi-pro teams with budgets for mechanics and pit crews he eventually won 7 of 10 races, including one against F1 WDC James Hunt. This victory over Hunt got him a ride in Hunts team, Mclaren in the #4 car, which was a 2 year old model. His 1st time out he outqualified #2 driver Jochen Mass, in the regualr chassis, and was running 4th when he was forced to pit for what turned out to be a faulty temp gage.

He was incredibly fast in the rain, the first of the modern "rain masters", getting incredible results in wet races considering the cars he drove ( not to mention my quote, refering to wet friday quals at USGP '79!).

He had a driving style that was very aggressive, this was at a time when F1 cars could still be drifted, and he did it as well as anyone. He was known for creative ideas in the cockpit, doing things like burnouts on his starting box to lay down rubber, not a common practice back then.

So I'd say that he had all of the elements I've mentioned above. The reason that people attribute it to natural ability is because:

- He had very little experience in cars.
- He made the gigantic jump from Formula Atlantic to F1 and was fast (if inconsistent) straight away.
- His car-control was considered born in, because he constantly attempted things that no one had tried before. A great example is how he passed Jones around the outside of the Tarzan hairpin, it was a corner that almost never saw passing, and it was always done on the inside...
- His instincts were fantastic. He was often the last to change to wet tyres in a race, lapping just as fast as the rain-tyred cars and having made up as many positions as possible.
- He seemed to have a true "racer's" mind. He was only interested in taking everything he touched to its maximum performance, be it boats, cars, helicopters, whatever. He was only satsfied once he had extended his limits.
-After 1980, when he became team leader at Ferrari, he helped bridge the gap in performance for Ferrari, as well as being the key tester in what eventually became pretty competitive Ferraris in 82-85.

And finally, there's something to be said for charisma and Gilles had plenty of it. As you can see in mine and many other's opinion, Gilles had everything except time to develop and mature into one of the very best ever. That he did what he did was all down to his incredible talent.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Todd
"Natural ability" is what you claim your favorite driver has bags of once Michael Schumacher has kicked his ass on every circuit in the series.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Mammoth

fanboy time! Is it always about schumacher??... that contributes zero to the point of the thread....

Next time he will replace MS with JPM, and we then all know your response will be thunderous applause.

[Mammoth]

Originally posted by Nikolas Garth
Next time he will replace MS with JPM, and we then all know your response will be thunderous applause.

Of course... that´s different because it would actually make sense

[Mila]

for sure, as HSJ has pointed out, the neurological wiring has to be distinctive. coordination and equilibrium are critical.

the mental strain is high in a GP car, which, itself, has been described as a physically hostile environment. so a successful driver must possess a superior ability to concentration. (take notice, if you will, of the "crows feet" wrinkles that appear around a driver's eyes after he's finished a race.)

and I think that it would be correct to make a distinction between "natural talent" and "will," as they are two very different (yet, often complimentary) elements.

[MONTOYASPEED]

Easy question.

Just look at Ayrton Senna, Gilles Villeneuve, Michael Schumacher or Juan Pablo Montoya... that's natural ability.

[King Sputum]

If someone says that driver X is a natural talent / has natural ability it means that: "I am a fan of driver X but I don't have better reason for it, so I say the he is natural talent"

[HSJ]

Originally posted by raceday


What’s confusing about that is that all the drivers has done “real practice” and how do you tell the difference between the learned and the born skill?

By the experience level. For example KR driving like he's been doing it for 10 years.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Daemon
It means the guy that has this "Natural Ability" has worked a lot harder than the rest.

Not at all. Genetics is the most important part. Or do you think Marques could have reached AS's level by practicing hard enough? Don't make me laugh. It IS a common illusion today that genes don't matter so much. A myth, nothing more. Genetics matter more than environment. Thus talent over experience, always, in the long run.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Mammoth


Of course... that´s different because it would actually make sense

[Nustang70]

doesnt every driver have "natural ability"?
isn't that what distinguishes them from regular people that just like to driver fast?

[Brian O Flaherty]

Of course. Compared to a normal person, every F1 driver has natural ability otherwise they wouldn't be in F1. But within F1 itself, occassionally you get someone who has it in spades and stands out from the rest. That's where champions and legends come from. People have mentioned Senna, G.Villeneuve & M.Schumacher. I say in the last 20 years that's a pretty good tally. I'd put Prost in there too, after all, he did it all and it came so easy to him. People didn't like his style because he won at the slowest possible speed. People dont like that approach (I don't either) but it still gets the job done.

Before these there was Peterson, Andretti, Clark, Moss, Fangio, Ascari.

[LeTurc]

Prost won the slowest way possible yes.
How do you know how much more impressive would he be if he had driven to impress instead of bringing the car to home like Senna?

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by LeTurc
How do you know how much more impressive would he be if he had driven to impress instead of bringing the car to home like Senna?

Senna did NOT drove to impress, he drove to WIN.

[LeTurc]

No he drove first to impress than to win. Like before 98 schumacher. If Senna had driven like Prost he had 5 wdcs and more wins than prost. But you would rate him even with prost.

Look at Montota 1st half 2001 and 2nd half 2001 , he was way impressive in first part even he was outraced by Ralf. He is ordered to race for points and we sa the rest.

[tifosi]

HSJ probaly has the best definition, but the funny part is anyone on this BB saying any F1 driver has natural ability. Unless you peronally saw these guys the first time they ever stepped into vehicle and were close enough to them to actually know what was happening, u have NO way of knowing if any particular driver has natural ability or not. Most people seem to be using a particular style of driving to define natural ability. How someone drives has zero to do with it. In the end Natural ability simply means a person has certain mental and/or physical abilities that make him/her better able to master a certain skill.

[Peter Perfect]

Nature or Nurture? The age old question...

[Todd]

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
Senna did NOT drove to impress, he drove to WIN.

You're both sort of right. Senna was certainly competitive in the sense of wanting to win, but he was also looking to impress, like throwing away a Monaco win to set a meaningless fastest lap. Obviously, he did more winning than he did humbling mistakes, but he was a bit of a show off.

[berge]

Originally posted by Todd


You're both sort of right. Senna was certainly competitive in the sense of wanting to win, but he was also looking to impress, like throwing away a Monaco win to set a meaningless fastest lap. Obviously, he did more winning than he did humbling mistakes, but he was a bit of a show off.

spa 98

[AD]

Originally posted by HSJ
By the experience level. For example KR driving like he's been doing it for 10 years.

So you're saying that karting experience counts for nothing?

[HSJ]

Originally posted by AD


So you're saying that karting experience counts for nothing?

Yes I am, pretty much anyway. For example, FA has been karting since he's been 4 or so, KR since 10 or so. Also the age at which the drivers have started karting varies so much that it simply cannot matter too much. Didn't Sato start extremely late (when 20?), or did he do karting at all? Doesn't seem to hurt him. Also, if KR's karting is the key as you seem to suggest, then why most rookies then don't drive like KR? They've all done just about as many years of karting, a lot of them more actually, and all of them more car racing before F1. Yet they're not KR.

[AD]

And thank God for that too. The world would be awful boring if everyone was the same. Different drivers have different styles. The series you start in doesn't determine the way you drive for the rest of your carrear.

[pfa]

Senna had to learn and practice a lot in the rain before he mastered it. The story is that, early in his life, when he was karting in Brasil he was beaten badly in a wet race. From then on he took every opportunity to practice in the rain until he became the master.

Natural ability????

No. Hard work, 110% dedication and absolute self confidence is what made Senna the best.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Brian O Flaherty
He could have a car fully sideways coming out of a corner at 130mph and be fully in control, where the rest looked like they were on rails (and going noticeably slower).

Everyone admired his raw ability to tame a $hitbucket Ferrari.

This is the type of thing that annoys me about peoples supporting arguements. If he was sideways, he is not fully in control, he can't be by definition. You may want to romantasize about it, but that doesn't make it so. He may have gone around the corner faster than the others (more likely he looked like it because he was sideways) but there is also undeniably (thanks to physics) a faster way to round the corner without sliding.

This is not an arguement for natural talent, but for agressive, singleminded driving. This may be admirable to many but does not reflect natural ability. I'm not saying GV wasn't blessed with incredible talent, merely peoples perceptions of events do not make something fact.

Other drivers may well have had the same control going around that corner at that speed but weren't prepared to risk their race doing it. I would say the best way to beat GV was to let him race. Win, spin, or mech failure, he wasn't going to take out a championship.

[mtl'78]

You are wrong Hegdes.

But you make the common mistake in this thinking. Yes in normal circumstances a sideways driver is not in control. Most people, when the first saw Gilles race, thought this and dismissed him as a reckless daredevil. But the problem for them is that Gilles kept doing this and eventually was winning races and getting incredible results in the process. To the untrained eye, they saw a driver flirting with a crash at every corner. To someone who watched this driver do this at every race, you began to understand that Gilles was somehow able to make his car do whatever he wanted.

Gilles raced in the days of ground effects and 40 inch tyres. His Ferraris were always powerful but had (according to the designers) 1/4 of the downforce of the leading cars (Lotus, Williams, Brabbham). Gilles developed his tail out style in snowmobiles and he was highly successful at aplying it to F1, in order to fight his car through the corners. It was a combination of skill and fearlessness.

In 1981 at a Dijon test sessions, some reaserchers hooked up various F1 drivers to heart and reflex monitors. The drivers averaged heartrates of 140 while racing with spikes up to 180. when the hooked Gilles up he was at 120 with spikes up to 140.

Now you add that bit of info and picture him sideways through the tunnel at Monaco '81, on his way to victory, leaving tyre marks on the barrier the whole way through. He WAS in control....

[Amadeus]

Kind of backing Hedges up a bit (because I have a feeling he is about to get badly flamed!)...

That amazing F1 debut by GV was characterized by practice and qualifying sessions where he repedidly (spl?) crashed at every corner. People thought he was insane (and he didn't get picked up by the McLaren F1 team because they thought he would be too expensive on machinery!), but he later explained that with so little time the quickest way for him to learn the car's limits was to go way over them and then pull back bit by bit on succesive laps until he got around the bend in one piece - in other words - I crashed on this bend at 110, 109, 108 now I'll try 107mph and if I don't crash that's the speed I take the corner. The technique worked, he out-qualified Mass and had a cracking race.

MS on the other hand has said in numerous interviews that when he gets in a car - any car - he instinctivly knows the limits, and how far he can push it. Much less spectacular but it does seem to be effective ;)

So who has/had the greater natural talent?

[mtl'78]

Actually Amadeus, you are only partly right.

Gilles 1st ever time in a F1 car was at the 1977 Silverstone GP. His very first day in an F1 car he had to pre-qualify,as there were over 40 entrants to the event.

It is true, by all accounts that GV spun at every corner that 1st day. He never once "crashed" the car, he kept it safely away from the barriers every time, in fact he had already perfected the art of working the spin until his car faced the right direction again and continuing on his lap.

What you didn't mention, is that he (according to the accounts I read) never spun the same way at the same corner twice. Also, by the end of the 1st day, he had set the fastest time of all the pre-qualifiers...

So yes he had a spectacular entry into F1, but would you expect anything different? The fact that he spun so much IMO is due to the fact that he had to go from Formula Atlantic to F1 racing speed all in the space of 1 practice session.

If that's not natural ability I don't know what is...

[Todd]

If Gilles had amazing natural ability, than Carlos Reuterman was amazingly fast. And if Carlos Reuterman was amazingly fast, then Niki Lauda was operating on another plane entirely. And if Niki Lauda was operating on another plane entirely, then Alain Prost was ignoring the space time continuum. And if Alain Prost was ignoring the space time continuum, then Ayrton Senna was as fast as people thought that he was after his tragic death. And if Ayrton Senna was really that fast, then Michael Schumacher is as naturally gifted as, well, as his resord shows him to be.

[taran]

Originally posted by Todd
If Gilles had amazing natural ability, than Carlos Reuterman was amazingly fast. And if Carlos Reuterman was amazingly fast, then Niki Lauda was operating on another plane entirely. And if Niki Lauda was operating on another plane entirely, then Alain Prost was ignoring the space time continuum. And if Alain Prost was ignoring the space time continuum, then Ayrton Senna was as fast as people thought that he was after his tragic death. And if Ayrton Senna was really that fast, then Michael Schumacher is as naturally gifted as, well, as his record shows him to be.

There have been many replies in this forum. Some were silly, some excellent. Some mentioned technical insights so profound, the world tilted slightly on its axes but your reply, Todd, has reached the world of poetry....BRAVO

I stand in awe!

[hedges]

Originally posted by mtl'78
You are wrong Hegdes.

But you make the common mistake in this thinking. Yes in normal circumstances a sideways driver is not in control. Most people, when the first saw Gilles race, thought this and dismissed him as a reckless daredevil. But the problem for them is that Gilles kept doing this and eventually was winning races and getting incredible results in the process. To the untrained eye, they saw a driver flirting with a crash at every corner. To someone who watched this driver do this at every race, you began to understand that Gilles was somehow able to make his car do whatever he wanted.

Gilles raced in the days of ground effects and 40 inch tyres. His Ferraris were always powerful but had (according to the designers) 1/4 of the downforce of the leading cars (Lotus, Williams, Brabbham). Gilles developed his tail out style in snowmobiles and he was highly successful at aplying it to F1, in order to fight his car through the corners. It was a combination of skill and fearlessness.

In 1981 at a Dijon test sessions, some reaserchers hooked up various F1 drivers to heart and reflex monitors. The drivers averaged heartrates of 140 while racing with spikes up to 180. when the hooked Gilles up he was at 120 with spikes up to 140.

Now you add that bit of info and picture him sideways through the tunnel at Monaco '81, on his way to victory, leaving tyre marks on the barrier the whole way through. He WAS in control....

I must admit I was being pedantic. The quote I was questioning had GV fully sideways coming out of a corner. When you are in a slide you have limited traction. You may intentionally put a car into a slide, then turn in to catch it, but untill you catch it, it doesn't matter what you do. You can't brake effectively, can't accelerate effectively and can't steer anywhere except into the slide, not really my definition of control, but I will concede it was intentional and catch them he did, I just don't believe it is the fastest way around a corner.

I don't want to take anything away from GV, he was a great driver who entertained a heap of people. I just find a lot of people tend to overestimate agressive drivers. They look good, but are usually faster when they think more and slide less. Why does intentionally sliding and catching it make you more of a natural than knowing or feeling the optimum speed you can take a corner. I'm sure GV had a lot of natural talent, I just think he could have been faster, though I'm sure he would have thought it less fun.

[Williams]

hedges your post reminds me of Alain Prost's thought on speed and spectacular driving: ""When I look fast, I'm not smooth and I am going slowly, and when I look slow, I am smooth and going fast." Prost was probably talking about his own style, but, as you say, sideways driving is not always fast driving.

[BuzzingHornet]

Originally posted by Todd


You're both sort of right. Senna was certainly competitive in the sense of wanting to win, but he was also looking to impress, like throwing away a Monaco win to set a meaningless fastest lap. Obviously, he did more winning than he did humbling mistakes, but he was a bit of a show off.

I think its more than showing off, its displaying that you have the race in your pocket, not to the paying fans but to Alain Prost. If you let him start reeling you in its good for him and bad for you IMHO.

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by LeTurc
No he drove first to impress than to win. Like before 98 schumacher. If Senna had driven like Prost he had 5 wdcs and more wins than prost. But you would rate him even with prost.

That's called style. Senna's style was agressive and that impressed us. Senna wasn't going to "just bring his car back to the garage" because his naturality was to drive agressive and overtake as many cars as possible and be as fast as he could.

Originally posted by LeTurc
Look at Montota 1st half 2001 and 2nd half 2001 , he was way impressive in first part even he was outraced by Ralf. He is ordered to race for points and we sa the rest.

Yes... Montoya was trying to impress you

[raceday]

I’ll try to summarise the replies as I’ve understood them:

Natural ability is something you are born with, it’s in your genes. It is the (God-given) talent a driver has for any and all skills that are pertinent for driving a racing car. A drivers ability is the result of natural ability and the amount of work and practice that the driver in question has done.

The way to distinguish between ability and natural ability is to see how fast a driver learns and adapts himself when he comes in to formula one and also how well he adapts to difficult and/or changing conditions at the track and/or the car (i.e. puts it in a place where it doesn’t belong).

The above “definition” makes some sense to me. I still think it must be terribly difficult to distinguish between a skill a driver has learned and a skill a driver has been born with. At least if you look up on it from the perspective that someone is claiming that one driver has more natural ability than another. Take for instance Alonso an Raikkonen this year. Both very young rookies but still coming up with very good results, though one of them in very inferior equipment. How can you tell which one has more natural ability? Even if you take their team mates in to consideration, as a comparison, it does not make it clear, due to their team mates different levels of skill.

With the very good description and explanation (thanks!) I got of GV, I’m of course convinced that he had a hell of a lot of natural ability, but I cant say I’m convinced that he had more of it than ANYBODY. It seems to be a fairly large element of subjectivity over this term, but I suppose that goes for most things we’re discussing.
;)