94 replies to this topic

[karlcars]

I'm interested in a theme on which I'd appreciate your thoughts. The theme is this:

How much does intelligence have to do with success in today's Formula One racing? And, as a corollary, how smart are today's Formula One drivers?

About the only way we can measure intelligence is in relation to the education that they have received and the success that they have gained in getting that education. I'd be interested in any knowledge that's out there about the levels of education that today's -- and recent -- drivers have attained. Any other insights into the intelligence of drivers -- or its opposite -- would be of interest.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I would say a random racing driver or even F1 driver is no more or less intelligent than any rando mbulletin board member. I dont know that education is really the best indication of intelligence. Ive met a lot of stupid people with some impressive degrees. I think the biggest issue and most limiting with drivers is their stubborness. I work for a NASCAR these days and our crew chief has a degree in fluid dynamics. However our veteran driver is so set in his ways and 'seat of the pants' he wants the car setup his way and not the engineer's. Result? Its not as fast as he could be. Now granted its unintelligent to go against an engineer like that, but its more stubborness than anything.


Parker Johnstone used to race in CART and I think he had an engineering background, and I recall reading it actually hurt him because he was very set in how he should setup the car. Ive met a lot of people where their 'book smarts' made them very inflexible.

[Rediscoveryx]

Thereäs not a big correlation between education and intelligence

[zfh10]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Thereäs not a big correlation between education and intelligence

On the contary - I think there certainly is!
Perhaps you could elaborate why you think there isn't?

[jimm]

Originally posted by zfh10

On the contary - I think there certainly is!
Perhaps you could elaborate why you think there isn't?

I know several educated idiots.

successful F1 drivers are probably in two groups just like every other sport. THe naturally talented that don't need to think and live (for a while) off their gifts and the talented that are very smart and study how to go fast and win races. The greats are the ones that are supremely talented and smart.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by jimm

I know several educated idiots.

That's not very convincing point to prove the absense of correlation. Try to look among uneducated. You'l be surprised about the outcome ;)

[jimm]

Originally posted by Vagabond

That's not very convincing point to prove the absense of correlation. Try to look among uneducated. You'l be surprised about the outcome ;)

I am not aware of any studies that either support or do not support the statement.

Having said that, I think the statement assumes an idea for which there is equally no support: That all/only intelligent people become highly educated.

Not only are their many standards by which one could quantify inteligence but many reasons one might choose to or not to persue continued education: opportunity, family, culture, ambition just to name a few.

I am currently finishing a program that will grant me 2 doctorate degrees. By any standard, a high acheivement in education. By your standard I may be the smartest person on this BB!

While it makes me much more "educated", does that make me more intelligent than the mechanic who choose to work on cars instead of going to college, the musician who choose to learn his trade on the road instead of going to Berkley, or the successful buisnessman who took over the family buisness instead of getting and MBA? I think not. Letters behind your name do not make you smart just as the money in your bank account has no relationship to intelligence.

I know several individuals who do well in classes but are idiots when faced with practical applications. This gets them through the program and they graduate but is memorizing a bunch of facts and answers for the tests insightful or intelligent?

Intelligence is that ability to learn from the past, apply to the future and adapt when faced with new situations. All of these succesful drivers, and for that matter people, do well regardless of how long they spend in school.

[Bob Nomates]

I think Kimi R has special needs.
Ralf came across really gay in the post qualifying press conference on saturday, he kept giggling at the end of each answer he gave, I couldn't look at the screen.

[Nomad]

In the first episode of Jeremy Clarkson's series Speed, he investigated what makes someone faster. During the program some professor who had studied both fighter pilots and racing drivers (professional ones, not turnip mowers) stated that they were nearly always above average intelligence by some way although not genius level.

Another observation he made was that they feel less guilt than normal people, bordering on the psychotic in some cases.

I think I still have the program on tape somewhere....I'll have to dig it out.

[later]

I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. What I have seen is this. Is eduation level indicative of intelligence? No. But, you cannot get the degrees without some intellectual competence. The other side is this. There are lots of people without Ph.Ds who are more intelligent than those with the degree. So, if you are looking for a correlation here, you will not find it if you only compare intelligence with what you have attained educationally. The rigors of the degree require intelligence, as a below average person will not be able to get the degree. The basic requirements for a Ph.D., for instance, are the ability to identify, research, defend, and publish unique work. This is not an easy task. But, there are lots of highly intelligent people who choose not to pursue the degree.

Regarding Parker's engineering background, I would tend to believe this based on his comments throughout a race. I would question his competence and knowledge as an engineer though. IMHO, a competent engineer would tend to try to understand the factors which would impact his/her performance and would, therefore, consider the impact of these factors. When I was a prof, I taught engineers to know that they were right (tried and tested ideas considering the thoughts of others) than to think that they were right (ideas based on anecdotes, for instance). Parker's limitations are quite common of an engineer with fundamental knowledge who thinks that they know more than they do. Have been guilty of that. Only when I pursued advanced education in engineering did I really understand how much I really did not know.

[OpenWheelGuru]

To answer the question posed in the topic: I think that Formula One drivers have above-average intelligence. I don't think that you can make the split-second decisions, mentally learn the many tracks, and master all there is involved in being an F1 driver without a somewhat high degree of intelligence. Granted, hand-eye coordination means a lot to a driver, but in today's F1 environment you need more than mere physical skills to be successful. I am not speaking of formal education in this case, but of innate brain power.

[Witt]

I think drivers are less culturally educated these days. Their fish bowl seems to get smaller and smaller every year. Not sure if this counts as the sort of intellegence you are looking at writing about. Definitely drivers are more and more under the thumb of their fame thesedays, and i think that affects their abilty to see outside their own little worlds, and learn a bit about the rest of the realer world.

[Alfisti]

As an example .. M.Webber vs pizzonia .. i am sure Mark is not much "quicker" than jungle boy but i will be $1000 he understands the data, the set up and the car better.

[100cc]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dont know that education is really the best indication of intelligence.

[MrSlow]

With all respect karlcars, but I think maybe you should let go of this theme

There is many ways to measure a persons "intelligence". None of them is very good.
Level of education? I think it is fair to say that in 80% of the world rich parents = good education.
The ability to make split-second decisions? Mike Tyson was good at that...
Understand the cars mechanical parts and setup? That has a lot to do with the interest of understanding the car.
Talk to media? That comes down a lot to practice, people who likes attention and are for whatever reason popular have lot's of experience on talking to crowds and they like it. They will usually make a good impression anywhere.
Take advantage of situations on racetrack? Mostly experience IMO.

That said, I believe that some drivers would get better score in a IQ test then others. Schumi, HHF, Fisicella and some others seem to have a form of intelligence that fits well to the tests, but that is just my opinion and I have not even met any of them. In any case, from personal experience I can say that those tests measure a skill that you can train.

Intelligent = smart?
Intelligent = wise?

Once, very long time ago, I saw a talkshow where they had invited a representative from MENSA (the society for bright people) and a guy who lived on the streets. I do not remember what they discussed, all I remember is that the Bright Guy did not look very bright at all after a while and I started to feel pity for him rather than the guy who slept under a couple of magazines everynight...

No, I agree with Ross. F1 drivers has for sure something that makes them different from ordinary people, but it is not their intelligence. It's not even their (driving) talent. Altough they of course have that, talent alone does not even get you close to F1.

IMO of course

But I must admit that I would read a story on that theme with quite big interest

[ffiloseta]

Originally posted by Alfisti
As an example .. M.Webber vs pizzonia .. i am sure Mark is not much "quicker" than jungle boy but i will be $1000 he understands the data, the set up and the car better.

Why?

[Alfisti]

Listen to him, watch him work with the Jag tech heads in practice. He has a basic understanding of what makes a car tick ... you know this is the case whwnwvwe engineers say "we love him".

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dont know that Webber is that technically asute, but his feedback is supposed to be amongst the best in F1.

[crouchyaj]

The thing about this is there really is 3 types fo smarts:

1. Practical smartsts
2. Theoretical smarts
3. A mix of both

Now I think you would find the practicle smarts would be what most drivers have to have. Seeing how to make things work in practice. Theoretical smarts is great for the concept guys but not so good in racing as nothing seems to work to plan in that.

The best drivers would have 3, both the understanding of what was happening and how to apply it. I read an article once that talked about how MS always went through all the data, proposals, failures, etc of his car. It made his input so much more meaningful in the developement of the car to best suit his potential. It is probably the main reason why he drives the best car, cause the car is built to enhance his strengths and limit his weakness'.

[Don Capps]

Karl is attempting to delve into an area where several have expressed some comments which are pertinent and relevent and others have simply proved that their ignorance is exceeded only by their lack of knowledge of what "education" and "intelligence" actually are.

Ronnie Peterson is usually rated as one of the most rapid drivers ever to strap on a racing car. Yet, my first impression of when I spoke to him was that he almost seemed, well, "********." That, of course, was a very mistaken notion which erased as we spoke, but Peterson was certainly not an "intellectual" by any stretch of the imagination. But, he was most definitely a very "smart" individual, especially with his realm -- motor racing.

"Intelligent" and "smart" are akin to "good" and "lucky" in a certain sense. The rule of thumb is to always pick "lucky" since "good" is something you can work on, while "lucky" isn't. "Intelligence" does not necessarily correlate with educational succcess. While being "educated" is as much a factor of socio-economic factors as "intelligence," being "smart" is perhaps best thought of as the pragmatic application of "intelligence" with "education" in both the formal -- schools and whatnot -- and informal -- surviving, adapting, creating -- sense.

In racing, being "smart" is perhaps more an element of the successful participant than "education" and "intelligence" in the formal sense. "Smart" is the pragmatic application of what has been "learned" -- that is knowledge acquired and then its mastery demonstrated in an objective sense, versus an "affective" sense.

There is a great deal of research data available -- or used to be before the USA Patriot Act -- on studies done by the US (and other nations) armed forces on such folks as pilots, special operations soldiers, and so forth. Some of the studies are quite interesting reading since the people being studied in most cases are from much the same cut of cloth as racing drivers. One general finding I recall is that "smart" soldiers are usually better soldiers, be they pilots or Army Rangers (shameless plug for my former line of work). It would seem to hold true for racing drivers as well.

Keep in mind that many not deemed as "educated" in the formal sense but who are obviously "smart" were either not schooled in a fashion that enabled them to "learn" -- what a term! -- or simply not asked the "right" questions, another way of saying the same thing. What might be interesting is seeing which learning modalities drivers engage and how their brains function when dealing with stress and a constantly changing environment. It would be not out of the ball park to think that perhaps there are some commonalities which have already been found in the research done on fighter pilots, particularly Naval Aviators.

Anyhow, we looked at tons of these things when I worked at DARPA.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Ronnie Peterson is usually rated as one of the most rapid drivers ever to strap on a racing car. Yet, my first impression of when I spoke to him was that he almost seemed, well, "********." That, of course, was a very mistaken notion which erased as we spoke, but Peterson was certainly not an "intellectual" by any stretch of the imagination. But, he was most definitely a very "smart" individual, especially with his realm -- motor racing.

Reminds me of a certain vodka swigging hooligan.

[felttip]

To get back to the original question, I'd like to point out that most racing drivers start racing at an early age. JPM started karts when he was about 5, and was running in karting championships for pretty much all the same years most kids would be in grade school. During the years they're racing, how much time do you think they have to devote to their studies (outside of race-related stuff)? I would guess that excellence in school takes a back seat to excellence at the track. As for those who start racing later in life, the numbers would suggest that this group is less successful than those who start at an early age.

This of course only covers "book-learning" which is what I call intelligence. As for smarts, which I call wisdom, or "street smarts," that's something that comes from experience, and those racers who have had to confront the real world from an early age would have more experience and time gaining wisdom, as opposed to intelligence. This may hone their ability to make the best decision based on the limited facts they have on hand. They may have a better handle on the fear of taking risks, and understand how to evaluate them.

One theory that relates to financial independence is that some people who never have to worry about it (i.e., children of affluent parents), never develop the skills needed to be financially independent, and become dependent on their parents' gifts and inheritence, only to spend all of it and be in debt in a short time. The same could be said about other skills.

I would also question whether you can quantify "smarts" on a linear scale. One person may have the skills to be a race car driver, while another may have the skills to be a doctor. How can you compare the two? It's like apples to oranges. Maybe you can try, but it seems to be riddled with controversy. Maybe you could use personal income as a measure.

There does seem to be a correlation with the level of education and level of income, however there are many notable exceptions. (Bill Gates springs to mind.) OTOH, people who go for a PhD are more likely to seek a position in academia. This may be because a PhD is designed with academia as the destination, as opposed to training from a technical school which has a different goal.

And this gets back to racers who start at an early age. Perhaps we can think of racing as a school in itself, with the goal to produce "race-smarts" as opposed to academic intelligence. And we can say that as long as a driver is interested in improving his racecraft, he's possibly continuing to learn, and is a smart person, even if it's a very specialized form of "smarts."

[nick stone]

It can probably be safely assumed that racing drivers are of average or above average intelligence, but few contemporary fulltime drivers are likely to have formal tertiary qualifications because of the need to devote their time to competition from about the age of 10. And getting younger!

Intelligence is only one component of a modern, successful race driver - and a small part at that.

[ensign14]

Depends on how you define 'intelligence'. David Beckham would probably not do well in a Summarizing Proust competition, but on the footy pitch he is capable of calculating probability, spin, spatial dynamics and psychology in an instant.

Look at someone like Morgan Shepherd. Struggling to learn to write in his 40s but a genius behind the wheel at the tiem. Is he stupid? Not formally educated, certainly. Doesn't make him stupid. But again able to assess tactics, react to changes, calculate where the momentum is &c while his heart is racing at 160bpm and temperatures are in the 100s.

Compare again to Ottorino Volonerio. A lawyer, so almost certainly highly educated, eloquent and intelligent; and successful enough to buy a contemporary Formula 1 car. But behind the wheel he was...let's say...slow.

If you were congenitally stupid, you could not drive a racing car at the top level. Simply because you could not assess all the information you were receiving and apply it. You'd be trying random things without logically seeing where you are going. If 100 is the average IQ, I'd suspect the average F1 driver would be at maybe 120.

But they may not be TOO supergenius, because if they were the chances are they would be diverted into other fields - look at Ben Collins, IIRC an Oxford graduate, but the sheer mental energy taken up in trying to keep up while an undergraduate may have compromised his racing.

Plus, if you have an IQ in the 150s, you may be more interested in translating Sumerian cuneiform than in going on a 15 mile run.

[Oho]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Thereäs not a big correlation between education and intelligence

Ave !!!

My guess is the positive correlation is about as strong as the correlation between intelligence test results and actual intelligence if there is such a thing. Funnily enough the more intelligent, by my obeservations, people, I have had the pleasure or not to meet have significantly more often than not been quite highly educated.

Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me or perhaps its just another PhD dissing the significance of his/her achievement. I am happy and a bit proud to have completed my studies et the end of 2002 after years in motivational doldrums, I certainly dont think just about anyone can pull it off.

- Oho -

[ffiloseta]

Originally posted by Alfisti
Listen to him, watch him work with the Jag tech heads in practice.

I'd really wish I could do that...

[Ross Stonefeld]

We almost need to go back and define what we think of intelligence as. One driver might be amazing in his comprehension of the mechanics of the car, but his teammate might be of a really quick sharp wit in the press conferences. Both are intelligent in their own way, though the former would probably have the better career

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
We almost need to go back and define what we think of intelligence as. One driver might be amazing in his comprehension of the mechanics of the car, but his teammate might be of a really quick sharp wit in the press conferences. Both are intelligent in their own way, though the former would probably have the better career

wouldn't intelligence be more related to the way people learn and adapt to new situations than to their ability n any particular field. For example a driver who starts out knowing nothing about the mechanics of the car , yet works at it and gets a working comprehension relatively quickly , would that person not be intelligent?

Judging soneone's intelligence by simply rating them in a field, is kinda limited.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
We almost need to go back and define what we think of intelligence as. One driver might be amazing in his comprehension of the mechanics of the car, but his teammate might be of a really quick sharp wit in the press conferences. Both are intelligent in their own way, though the former would probably have the better career

Except in the IRL.

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by ensign14
Except in the IRL.

shouldn't we have a "how intelligent are BB posters " thread now ?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Jordan191


shouldn't we have a "how intelligent are BB posters " thread now ?

Yeah, like having a thread of people 'who cannot detect taking the piss until there is a smiley in the post'.

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by ensign14
Yeah, like having a thread of people 'who cannot detect taking the piss until there is a smiley in the post'.

or how about a thraed dedicated to random IRL bashing posts. You and molive would have some fun.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by ensign14
Depends on how you define 'intelligence'. David Beckham would probably not do well in a Summarizing Proust competition, but on the footy pitch he is capable of calculating probability, spin, spatial dynamics and psychology in an instant.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
We almost need to go back and define what we think of intelligence as.

I see it that way too. "Sports smarts", or any other particular brain skill in sports or elsewhere, doesnt necessarily relate to overall intelligence.

[petri]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Thereäs not a big correlation between education and intelligence

True, there isn't. However, there is a big correlation between poverty and uneducation.
Saying that uneducated people are more stupid was a common attitude 100 years ago.

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by Simioni




I see it that way too. "Sports smarts", or any other particular brain skill in sports or elsewhere, doesnt necessarily relate to overall intelligence.

wouldn't auto racing be unique in this regard because of the technical factor ?

[ehagar]

Originally posted by later
I
Only when I pursued advanced education in engineering did I really understand how much I really did not know.

I think in todays society, most engineers end up being managers by the time they reach their early thirties and they don't really learn the tools of their trade (there is an interesting Racecar Engineering article on this out now...). It also seems that managers are more skilled at politics than anything else... So far with my Engineering degree ,I've learned that pretending to know what your talking about and getting along with everyone else in the team seems more important than the engineering itself! I find it kind of sad actually... I have the unfortunate habit of saying '****ed if I know' too often...

I've often felt my Dad would make a good mechanical engineer. It seems people who grew up on farms have a designing bent about them. I've met some pretty bright people that had absolutely no mechanical sense whatsoever... and they became mechanical engineers!

I suppose it is only around in retirement do we ever really figure things out. How old was Da Vincci when he was most productive? Porsche when he made his best cars? Thank goodness they didn't become a bloody middle manager.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
Thereäs not a big correlation between education and intelligence

There's not a big correlation between intelligence and what is usually perceived as success as many other factors (persistence, etc.) play important roles.
Particular intelligence isn't crucial even for achieving certain degrees of education - not even university degree.
My opinion is the following:
high intelligence + certain amount of laziness = success above average but not on the top. Such people know that nothing is worth trying too hard and have enough intelligence to capitalize on easy opportunities.
high intelligence + enormous will = place at the very top but for what price?
average intelligence + certain amount of laziness = average success
average or below average intelligence + enormous will = politician. The main source of evil in the world.
:-)

Hrvoje

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Jordan191


wouldn't auto racing be unique in this regard because of the technical factor ?

I dont think so, not necessarily. Take Schumacher, a guy who knows just about everything in regards to being succesful in F1. He´s got a great head for F1, and that involves quite a number of non-physical abilities. But would you say he´s particularly intelligent? Surely dumb he isnt, but would he stand out in this world if motorsports didnt exist? Himself admits he´d probably have been a mechanic if he hadnt turned out as a racing driver

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by Alfisti
As an example .. M.Webber vs pizzonia .. i am sure Mark is not much "quicker" than jungle boy but i will be $1000 he understands the data, the set up and the car better.

I agree, Mark also got a good reputation for this at Renault. Having a first language of English helps Mark compared to Pizzonia when working with the Jaguar staff.

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by felttip
They may have a better handle on the fear of taking risks, and understand how to evaluate them.

but at a certain point you have to be stupid, not smart, to go beyond what you think is the limit and really risk your life.

[karlcars]

The responses we're getting suggests to me that this is a topic worth pursuing. I don't plan to give up!

I agree that innate intelligence and academic attainment do not necessarily correlate. But academic training can help hone an intellect and allow it to be more effectively and convincingly applied. It also allows the holder to operate more successfully in the field of specialization that they may choose.

I'd like to raise again the question I put initially: How much do we know about the academic attainments of Formula One drivers? This doesn't seem to be much of a feature of their CVs! Or does someone have a clue as to how we can find this out?

Thanks a lot for your thoughts!

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by karlcars
I'd like to raise again the question I put initially: How much do we know about the academic attainments of Formula One drivers?

I'd imagine they are like any other professional sports person, who must chose that sport very early in life and make it their first priority, usually entering the top echelon of the sport at age 17 or even younger. This leaves little time for school or higher education.

[Enamuser]

If you consider that intelligence tests based on reaction speed like choosing the blinkin dot on a computer screen have a correlation to other more traditional IQ tests I would say that the top drivers are definately above average. Why it sometimes doesn't seem that way is that they've spent also their childhood on an activity to what most of us think is alien to what we would traditionally call intelligent.

[lanius]

.....

[jondoe955]

Intelligence? Too generic and indefinable to argue about.
I think brass balls and analytical concentration make the best driver - and greed, that someone mentioned, sounds right.
But how many ‘great drivers’ never get recognized as such if they never get the right combination of car/money/team/manager/support ….

[petri]

Originally posted by karlcars

I'd like to raise again the question I put initially: How much do we know about the academic attainments of Formula One drivers? This doesn't seem to be much of a feature of their CVs! Or does someone have a clue as to how we can find this out?

KR and MH do not have any academic backgroung, that's for sure. I don't know about the rest but I doubt it. It's all about concentrating on the essential, you have to leave everything else!

You can be a decent driver and study at the same time but to be the best you have to make choises. It's not a question of intelligence really, IMO.

[diego]

Hello Karl,

Fascinating subject. I think it would help to break down the various components of intelligence -- I'm no cognitive psychologist, but here's a try:

IQ: Intellectual Quotient: the ability to think linearly, solve constrained problems and drive toward a single answer. Convergent thinking.

EQ: Emotional Quotient: self-awareness, altruism, personal motivation, empathy, and the ability to love and be loved by friends, partners, and family members. Have you read the book "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman?

Creativity: the ability to think laterally, to make connections between things. Divergent thinking. I think perhaps the best analysis of the "intelligence" behind creativity is the book "Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention", by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Racing drivers are indeed creative individuals.... and flow is a critical aspect of their existence.

I think these three factors go a long way to describing the "intelligence" of various drivers.

For example, what's the difference between the Schumacher brothers? I'd wager that Ralf would score much lower on an EQ test relative to Michael. Michael is also likely a better linear thinker, which in his environment would translate into the ability to help engineer good setups, etc...

The mix of these three would also be revealing when one looks at "failed" drivers who end up running huge racing empires -- Dennis, Todt, Williams, Jordan -- compared to the "failed" racing managers who were once brilliant drivers -- Prost, Fittipaldi, Lauda.

Good luck! Keep us posted.

[Pete Stanley]

Not an expert by any means, but here are some observations, for what it's worth.

A few posters have brought up the (relatively recent) phenomenon of drivers beginning at age 5 or six. Montoya is an example. In American racing, Jeff Gordon and Jimmy Vasser are two more examples. In fact, before his family moved to Indiana, Gordon and Vasser competed against each other in the same quarter-midget series.

This brings in the issue of brain plasticity at a young age. If you learn how to do something early, you will likely be skilled at it for your whole life. Your brain will naturally establish certain "circuts." There have even been a few cases, concerning rare and grave disorders, half of a child's brain has been removed, and the remaining half has assumed the function of the missing half. Those who learn another language early will have a much easier time than someone who learns as an adult - or even a teenager. (One of the major faliures of foriegn language education here in the USA - but I digress...) Most professional classical musicians start at an extremely young age.

So this early education is difficult to factor in. It wasn't very common in earlier times, because racing was so dangerous. But now it's gotten to the point where parents feel that the risk is not too great under certian low horsepower circumstances. But is such training "intelligence"?

Another factor that top drivers share is a good sense of balance. Riding bicycles, skateboards, skis, etc. is never seems to be a problem for the best drivers. I distinctly remember Roberto Moreno amusing the crowd by tricking his bicycle during a rain delay at Milwaukee a few years ago - on top of the pit wall! Extraordinary balance allows a driver to detect where his car is going, just a fraction of a second earlier than an average human would. (See Don's comment on Navy carrier pilots above.) This is obviously not intelligence. But how to rate an extremely smart driver who has post-concussion syndrome, and is therefore lacking in balance?

One must take into account, too, how the nature of auto racing has changed. I'm sure you know the quote: "In my day, the drivers were fat, and the tires were skinny..." As more cubic dollars are poured into racing, more science goes into racing. We know more about the behavior of racecars now than ever before. Racing is more technical now.

But does that necessarily mean that drivers must understand more about mechanical engineering and aerodynamics? (See Ross's example.) No, I don't think it does. The $^3 have brought not only science to racing, but they have also brought scientists with them. Now racing teams have more people, with more specialized functions. In the past, an outstanding driver such as Mark Donohue might have an advantage by his depth of technical knowledge. But now any team worth its salt will have a man with that sort of knowledge - just not in the cockpit.

Mario Andretti said he was faster in the first ground-effects Lotus (forget the year right now - excuse my ignorance!) because he knew about stagger from his oval experience. Colin Chapman didn't believe it though. Chapman told the mechanic to tell him the change had been made. Andretti went out and did a few laps, came back in and said "Change it." Again he went out, and came back in again. This time Mario got out of the car, and eyeballed the car, to make sure the change had been made. And then he was faster.

You see the same sort of thing happening with Ross's example, only the situation is reversed. Apparently on Ross's team, the driver has a final veto on technical setup, and the driver is disinclined to listen to advice from the technical expert. Such things still happen. In 1996, when Jacques Villeneuve went over to Williams, there was disagreement on car setup between JV and Patrick Head. Head wanted to setup the car in the manner of "front" and "rear" Villeneuve wished to adjust the car in a differnent way: all four corners different. This was not done in F1 at the time, but it was done in CART, due, I suspect, to the influence of ovals.

About halfway through the year, the team relented and allowed JV to persue his eccentric setup, and by the account I read, everyone profitted. JV was faster. So team organization can have a tremendous effect on a drivers speed; Williams and Head haven't trusted a driver since Alan Jones quit, while the driver on Ross's team has much more influence.

This sort of story illustrates yet another dimension - openmindedness, or ability to adapt. This is something hinted at from the very beginning of the thread. If you've got a vast pool of tecnical knowledge, and a piece of paper on the wall with ribbon and sealing wax, certifying that you spendt a few years acquiring a vast pool of technical knowldege, you might not be inclined to accept new data, or a new way of looking at things.

Whereas racing is a competative activity, with an increasing amount of people involved, there will always be new ideas here and there. Is open-mindedness "intelligence"? Yes! The very definition, I think. While memory and intelligence are closely linked, and knowledge and memory are closely linked, all of these things remain discreet; that is, they are seperate, defineable qualities.

Open-mindedness requires evaluation: "It's a great idea." or "It's crap." But this evaluation will be based on memory and knowledge. I can commit the entire text of Halliday/Resnick's Fundamentals of Physics to the hard drive of this computer, but that doesn't make the computer intelligent. To actually solve problems, you've got to not only know stuff, but put it to use - you've got to see the paralells, the similarities.

Which brings me to my final point - boldness. A driver must be bold to try a new idea at speed. I once read a story about Senna at the final chicane at Montreal(again, I don't remember the year). Everyone else was braking and downshifting. Senna did one lap where he lifted, but didn't downshift. The car gave a big wiggle, but didn't go off. The final lap, he didn't downshift, and didn't lift. The car went through on rails, and he had pole by a large margin. The writer, who was watching this by the fence, then went to resume his duties as a team member in the support paddock. By chance, he came across Senna in the paddock. He blurted out "nice lap!" Senna stopped, looked at him, and said "Ah, you were the one by the fence." (This was on a thread titled "Unboneheads" on the speednet forum four or five years ago. The author said at the end Ayrton Senna da Silva - not a bonehead.)

That is boldness, but it is also other things. It is openmindedness - other drivers apparently considered the possibility of taking that chicane flat as ludicrous. It is sense of balance - he didn't crash the first time, when he lifted. Perhaps for the other drivers, it was ludicrous, because they didn't have his innate talent.

And, mind you, "boldness" does not have to mean "physical courage". A designer might submit a radical new suspension scheme. This can be bold - if it fails, the car crashes, but the designer suffers no physical harm. A driver, in this age of chicanes and gravel oceans, might not face bodily injury at this corner or that, but he might still suffer professional injury, or humiliation, if his car sinks into a sand pit. It is one thing to come up with a theory, to say "This idea has merit." But it takes boldness to put a new theory into practice.

But it took boldness *and* physical courage in earlier years. If you peruse the archives on TNF, you'll find something like this from Buford: "In my time, racing drivers were batshit crazy. Now they're just slightly nuttier than the average street guy."

I hope my observations help. I've based this on modern examples, because these are the examples I know. Sorry for the mis-spellings.

[Red Horse]

Well, after watching Bjorn Wirdheim in F3000, it looks like you can be a total idiot and still be fast......


I honestly don't buy the education/IQ link to intelligence. I have a graduate education and have scored in the 150s on IQ tests, but I don't think either is a measure of intelligence.

In order to get an education you need an average intelligence. If you are not particularly gifted, you can still get an education compensating with hard work. As long as you are not mentally impaired, you can get an education. So, I am really never impressed by degrees and neither should you. Of course, studying will expose you to many ideas and allow you to expand your understanding of many things, which helps in life.

IQ measures is to me a silly system biased in many ways. It is not a measure of intelligence at all, in many cases it simply shows how good you are at taking idiotic test like the IQ test or the LSAT, GRE, GMAT and other garbage like that. Useless.

Also, I find it very limiting to say "intelligence". There are in fact many forms of intelligence. People can be absolutely phenomenal on a mathematical level, but have serious problems communicating effectively. Someone else might be a Pulitzer level writer, yet has problems calculating 10% of any given number. Saying "intelligence" is oversimplifying our mental capabilities.

(RedFever using his son screename, could not resist the intelligent thread).

[zfh10]

Originally posted by jimm

While it makes me much more "educated", does that make me more intelligent than the mechanic who choose to work on cars instead of going to college, the musician who choose to learn his trade on the road instead of going to Berkley, or the successful buisnessman who took over the family buisness instead of getting and MBA? I think not. Letters behind your name do not make you smart just as the money in your bank account has no relationship to intelligence.

I know several individuals who do well in classes but are idiots when faced with practical applications. This gets them through the program and they graduate but is memorizing a bunch of facts and answers for the tests insightful or intelligent?

That is correct, "memorising a bunch of facts and anwers" are not a measure of intelligence. Hence I disagree with your above comments about the uneducated musician who 'goes on the road' and the uneducated 'businessman'. These people are *likely* to have learnt solely BY "memorising a bunch of facts and answers" as they learn by trial and error in the workplace, rather than theory.

There should be more to a university education than this - if "memorising a bunch of facts and anwers" is all your postgraduate university experience is/was about then you should demand a refund! (It certainly isn't how I got my Masters degree!!)

But I concede that in this discussion there is no right and wrong answer, there are many methods of learning as well as many types of knowledge.

However, in my experiences and IMHO, the people that I personally look up to and respect almost always have some sort of academic background.