Hulkenberg gets new chassis for Malaysia

F1 Fanatic round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Nico Hulkenberg, Sauber, Melbourne, 2013In the round-up: Nico Hulkenberg will have a new chassis for the Malaysian Grand Prix following the fuel system problem which kept him from starting the Australian Grand Prix.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Preview ?ǣ 2013 Petronas Malaysian Grand Prix (Sauber)

[Nico] Hulkenberg’s Sauber C32 was sent back to Hinwil and will be examined thoroughly. He will start with a new chassis in Malaysia.”

Alonso not expecting early win (Sky)

“It will be a surprise to be honest if we win one of the first races. It will be welcome for sure, but we need some strange conditions – maybe like last year in Malaysia, rain or something. But in normal conditions I think the podium is more or less the maximum target we have to ask [for].”

Ferrari fears windtunnel disruption (Autosport)

Nikolas Tombazis: “The sooner [it was done] the better and we decided to do it notwithstanding the fact that there is the 2013/2014 pressure.”

McLaren are running out of time (The Telegraph)

David Coulthard: “Over the next three races in Malaysia, China and Bahrain, they need to start understanding what the problem is. If it is a fundamental issue, then they need to make sure, come the Spanish Grand Prix in May, that they have the requisite parts to maximise the potential. The general rule is that by the fifth race, when the teams come to Europe, you start to see the true pecking order emerging.”

Torotrak takes stake in Flybrid (FT, registration required)

“Technology developed to cut fuel use by Formula 1 cars could soon debut in buses and trucks after Torotrak, the UK engineering group, took a stake in Flybrid, a pioneer of the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS), and renewed its licensing deal with Allison Transmission of the US.”


Comment of the day

Do the best F1 drivers have great natural ability or are they at the top because they worked hard?

Myths are often sexy, some even romantic, but they are myths nonetheless. I don?t believe in “innate talent”. It?s not appealing to me at all.

I see it as a pretty idea to make lazy people feel better about themselves. “If only I had a talent” sounds better that “if only I worked harder”.

I think that natural predisposition is a tiny, negligible factor. I respect drivers not because of their “talent”, but because of their hard work, skill and dedication.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Girts!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Five years ago today BBC announced they would take over the rights to broadcast F1 in the UK from ITV as of 2009.

However they renegotiated their contract just three years into it and now broadcast only half the races live each year.

Image ?? Sauber

89 comments on “Hulkenberg gets new chassis for Malaysia”

  1. so when alonso finishes second and massa fourth, what does he mean when he says we don’t expect a win? imo , i think he is just blowing his own horn .

    1. +1, and I really hope Massa gets the victory first, so Alonsoman won’t have what to say
      BTW, Why didn’t Ferrari try the same strategy with Massa? Mmmmmmm

      1. same strategy as in pitting him on the same lap? why would you bring both cars in on the same lap? by all accounts it was alonso/alonso’s side of the garage that called the early stop anyway

    2. Its called keeping your feet on the ground. Im sure they know that they have a chance of winning races, but the fact remains that Ferrari aren’t tops on single lap pace..Red Bull are comfortably ahead. As of last Sunday, we know the RB isnt kind on its tyres..but just give Newey a couple races, Im sure he will find a balance and Vettel will be off in the distance once again.

      Then there is Lotus. Kind on tyres and in the hands of Kimi a potent weapon.

      So in these circumstances, I doubt Ferrari are favourites to win races just yet. Yes they will be on the podium, but they will probably need a few things to go their way if they were to win a race easily.

      1. I think you’re right. Alonso isn’t getting ahead of himself this early in the season. However Ferrari may not be the favourites for victory just yet but if Australia is any indication then they’ll be in the hunt. I wouldn’t be surprised if they won soon (but I would be delighted!).

      2. Sandbagging.

    3. Ben (@scuderia29)
      20th March 2013, 1:06

      i believe that interview was before the first grand prix, at the time he had no idea that ferrari would be as competitive as they were…if asked about winning a grand prix in the next few races now i expect his answer to be very different

      1. @scuderia29 you are correct. the interview is from before the Australian GP.

    4. I agree that it sounds like he is downplaying the situation cause in the end they did had the chance of winning in Australia, even though by their own admission the track highlighted all their current problems, that said the rear of the car still looks pretty snappy but fortunately for Ferrari the rears seem to wear at a better rate than the fronts. Honestly I wouldn’t expect much either, not until Barcelona.

    5. Who knows if they have a good enough car? RBR will fix their tyre problems in a race or two and then everything will go back to normal with Vettel running away with the races and the rest fighting for scraps.

    6. This quote by Alonso was made before the race in the Australian gp…and reported monday from some European sites.
      By looking at the race there is no way that Alonso had said that.

  2. I have never heard anyone discount the existence of talent as a factor in any field of performance from knitting to being a race car driver. There are plenty of examples of people who have extraordinary work ethic yet, alas, no talent.

    Unless I am missing the point of @MaroonJack‘s comment.

    1. @kisii I completely agree.

      There’s clear evidence, even in young children, a discrepancy in coordination, motor skill control and adaptability. You only have to compare kids in a playground.

      Work ethic goes a long way, and someone with talent and no work ethic probably isn’t going to get very far. But as you said, there are plenty of people with tremendous work ethic and struggle at high levels of competition.

    2. And in the case of F1, it completely disregards the fact that hard work is no match for hard cash. In the same vein, having talent is also no match for having wads of cash. There are 22 drivers at the pinnacle of motorsport and what, half of them could be replaced in an instant if someone with more money comes along.

    3. Indeed. This is the first time I completely and utterly disagree with the COTD. Innate talent is absolutely necessary to even start thinking about success in any professional sport. No amount of work can overcome the lack of innate predispositions. These of course need to be developed and can be wasted, but their existence and meaning is undeniable. Skill is derived from talent and training. Training alone is not enough. Existence of individuals with natural predispositions towards certain sports, who didn’t need training to be among the best, is well documented and known throughout history. You can make a diamond shine more with polishing, but no amount of it will make a precious stone out of an ordinary rock.

    4. @kisii – Its a lovely, fluffy egalitarian idea to think that everyone might be brilliant at anything, if only they’d practice. It’s been much popularised by Malcom Gladwell (of “The Tipping Point” and “Outliers” fame). However it’s also demonstrably wrong. A quick Google will turn up loads of rebuttals of the “10,000 hour rule”.

  3. I really disagree with the comment of the day. Hard work can make a major difference between people who have roughly similar ability levels, but only to a certain extent. Hard work will not cover up a lack of talent the further up the ladder you progress. Eventually you will get found out. Some people can try as hard as they want but they will never reach the highs that a more talented but less hard working person may achieve.

    Case in point translating to the world of Formula One, Mark Webber is someone who I would say is a very hard working guy who has made the most of the talent he has been blessed with. Yet despite that application he has not reached the highs of say a Kimi Raikkonen, who despite putting in less graft has a greater amount of racing talent to compensate. I fully agree with @hairs, some people are more equal than others.

    1. @debaser91 @hairs agree with you and disagree with COTD.
      Talking about Kimi and his “lazy” approach (which I’m sure It’s not so lazy after all, just exaggerated by the fact of the photos where he is clubbing or drinking), it makes me wonder if he would have won the 2008 championship with steady dedication to defend his 2007 championship

      1. Kimi is not lazy, F1 drivers can’t afford to be lazy, you have to be fit to drive a go kart let alone a F1 car. He has what appears to be a relaxed, uncaring attitude, some might describe it as confidence.

    2. As do I: it is evident that much isn’t true from the fact that talented parents usually spawn more talented children. The best genes will always prevail – sure you can have a fantastic work ethic, but that can only buy you so much. It is in your DNA if you are a future F1 driver in the making – the potential has to be there to be tapped, and for most of us the potential simply doesn’t exist. As has been said, you can teach a talented driver to work hard, but you can’t train a hard worker to drive fast.

  4. Being a musician i can tell you that some people have talent, and some people just plain dont. If you have it, and you work really hard, you will continue to improve. If you dont have it, you can work as hard as you like, but you will never reach the levels of the truly talented.

    The cotd is basically saying that jimi hendrix and johnny rottern have the same amount of natural talent at playing guitar. Or that lionel richie and one of the first round x-factor rejects have the same amount of natural vocal talent. Or even that james may from top gear and michael schumacher have the same natural talent.

    Dont get me wrong, obviously hard work improves your skill level, but if you wernt in some way naturally gifted at something would you get as far as the best? No

    if i didnt pick up a guitar and find it pretty simple to knock out a tune when i was younger, i would have picked other things up until i found something that felt natural.

    1. So lucky you to play tunes on a guitar so easily… I don’t play quite often (short free time) but when I play and IO try my best (I know I’m learning) I’m just a good background guitar hahaha

      As hard as I would work, I could never be a new Schumacher for sure (and probably not even a Narain!!!!!)

    2. I’m a musician myself (leisure time that is) and I disagree with that. Primarily when it comes to listening to what you’re doing, I have been training that a lot and tried to understand when a note is out of tune. I did this with a tuner and started playing the piano to hear what tuned notes and good chords sound like. As a result, I can now hear when notes are out of tune and I can name the notes and chords (with respect to the keynote) when I hear music.

      But when it comes down to creativity, I agree with you: a large part of that is down to ‘talent’ (read: ‘brain layout’).

    3. In the discussion about it yesterday it Keith brought up a study that found that large part of the talent shown by people was in fact due to them being “exposed” to music at early age, thereby getting a head start in practicing it @mike-e.

      Now I am no musician, nor do I have any special talent for sports I know of (and I might be lazy as well :-) ), but I think that what @andae23 writes in his post seems to make a lot of sense.

    4. Something that’s interesting to read is the book ‘Outliers’ which argues that it takes about 10,000 hours to master any field or discipline, whether it be playing the violin or tennis.

    5. Complelely agree mike-e

      Some peoples brains are just better wired/suited for certain tasks. This is the old nature vs nurture subject and theres quite alot of science on this topic already that suggests that while nurture is importnat, so is nature.

      I find it actually quite proposterus that people can even think that any 2 people on earth would reach the same levels of ability at a given task if they spend the same amount of effect practicing.

      1. @andae23 I agree that a large part of your final overall talent comes down to thousands of hours of practice and honing your skills, or thinking of an analogy, adding colours to your pallet, but it is the natural born talent that decides if you make a mess or a masterpiece with it.

        The learned talent has boundaries, the natural talent can take you beyond those IMO. Like i believe damon hill is a prime example of learned talent, it won him a WDC, so it can take you pretty far. I believe ayrton senna was a natural talent, and broke the boundaried because of it, but he obviously had to spend a long time honing those skills to master them. Also, raikkonen, spotted after 23 single seater races. If that isnt proof of natural talent, given the few races he had to practice his skills, then i dont know what is.

  5. @maroonjack Regarding COTD the only word I can say and not be hypocrite is: RUBBISH

    I had a boy in my class at middle-school who had a work ethic unbeaten ever since by anyone I knew. He never went out playing football he just sat and studied constantly. The only problem was: he was hopelessly stupid and no hard work managed to mask that part. The best case were English classes: He would translate articles from English(it’s a foreign language for me as you can understand), sitting with a dictionary, literally, word by word without ever really understanding the meaning(think google translate but even worse). The class were falling from their chairs from laughter as he read his drivel.

    You can say that hard work is equally important to natural talent and that would be true. You cannot reach the heights in any field of endeavor unless you exercise both

    An important saying of F1 teams that emphasizes the importance of talent is that you can teach a fast but erratic driver to be consistent but you can never teach a slow but steady driver to be fast. He either has it or he doesn’t

    1. @montreal95

      @maroonjack Regarding COTD the only word I can say and not be hypocrite is: RUBBISH

      Thanks for keepin’ it real, dawg! Woof! Woof!

    2. he was hopelessly stupid and no hard work managed to mask that part. The best case were English classes: He would translate articles from English(it’s a foreign language for me as you can understand), sitting with a dictionary, literally, word by word without ever really understanding the meaning(think google translate but even worse). The class were falling from their chairs from laughter as he read his drivel.

      @motreal95 – did you ever consider that it was not being stupid, nor being useless at languages as much as the different approach for this kid?

      My wife teaches languages (not in school but as a private teacher), and so far she has found a way to teach just about any “hopeless” student can get to reach a very good level of comprehension and use of language if you just find the right way to get it to them (some need seeing it, some need hearing, some need pictures, or drill, or ….), and they really want to do it and work towards it.

      But when I think about it, I do think that there’s something as having a talent for things that makes it easier.

      1. eh, must be stupid myself there – that should have read @montreal95!

        1. @bascb Read carefully. I said “best example of this was English”. But he was the same at everything:would study endlessly, and yet know nothing. My point is he didn’t have what it takes to be good at school, and no amount of repetition would change that. And yes, this kid didn’t have a good time. Children are a cruel lot, much crueler than F1 journalists(and wham, we’re back on topic :) )

          1. Oh, I noticed that, that is why I mentioned the same example of you in the English lessons.

            But certainly the fact that someone has trouble doing school does not have to mean they are stupid (Gates, Jobs all were dropouts for example), in large part its because the teaching methods are wrong for them. But sadly its not just the kids that are cruel.

            I do not mean to say that anyone can be good at everything, but I certainly know that hydraulics baffled me before a fellow student took me home and there, in his garage we build a nice circuit of hydraulics and I got behind how the complicated looking maths work!

          2. @bascb But, with hand on heart do you think you have what it takes to be a top-line hydraulics engineer? To be relatively competent on something is not the same as being brilliant at it. like say, a top F1 driver must be :)

            I agree with you on all counts mate especially on education. I disagree with COTD who says natural talent’s influence is “negligible”. It’s not

          3. @montreal95, it depends. As I chose other things to do, by now I will certainly have a big handicap in ever getting to be a top level hydraulics engineer by now.
            But – Hand on my heart – had I decided at the time to get into the thing more, and thereby had had the motivation to work on it (put in the work) I am certain that I would by now have managed to get to a very respectable force in the field, yes.

            I think that the motivation to actually want to achieve something helps a great deal (as do being offered a way into a subject that is inspiring)

    3. @montreal95 you can be good by effort, brilliant by effort, or brilliant without any effort!!!
      You can be either a brilliant tracks desginer… or just a lucky Tilke

      1. @omarr-pepper You cannot be brilliant without any effort, and neither can you be brilliant just by effort

        And Tilke is a brilliant track designer, who worked hard to get where he is, definitely not just lucky. I may dislike some of his creations, and criticized him about a thousand times previously, but that doesn’t make him talent-less, the circuit we’re gonna watch this weekend is a total proof of that. Not any different from other designers really. People praise John Hugenholtz for Suzuka and Zandvoort, but he also designed Jarama and Nivelles which are total rubbish

        1. @montreal95 Nivelles wasn’t well-liked at the time but given the recent additions to the calendar I find the idea of a simple, 3.7km track with nine turns rather appealing.

          1. @keithcollantine I agree. It is appealing. But not Nivelles. As Kimi would say about it:the first few corners are quite good but the rest of it is $$$$! a couple of chicanes and a slow hairpin is boring and we have plenty of that. the first complex really reminds me of the Chinese circuit first complex which I rather like but it’s not exceptional.

  6. When I saw the COTD, I almost had a seizure, and I rushed to the login and “Add your comment” fields to say a lot of things, but reading what others wrote, I think it’s almost unnecessary. Only a person without any talent would write such a preposterous comment, as most seem to agree.

    Yes, it is important to work your technique and polish your skills with some work, but the rough diamond is talent. While some untalented people may work hard enough to be among talented people, and some talented people may be so lazy as to be among non-talented people, to say you don’t BELIEVE in innate talent means you’ve never come across yours (I’m 100% sure everyone has some innate abilities) – perhaps @Maroonjack is really talented with the Bassoon or with taxidermy, but he is instead working really hard to be an engineer… some people may never discover their talents because they don’t have the opportunity to do so. That doesn’t mean it does not exist.

    1. I had a same reaction, COTD, is a bit misguided.

      Try compete in a professional sport and you will realise just how much impact “natural ability” have.

      Dont forget when we talk about drivers, they ALL are EXTREMELY talented. Most people couldn’t match Narain if they wanted. But there is still difference among the drivers. Some compensate with hard work some loose some of their talent due to lack of work.

      That is why Schumacher is so clinical, that guy is unbelievably talented but his dedication made him legend.

      1. Excellent comment.

    2. very good comment

  7. I disagree with the Comment of the day, but I also agree with it up to some extent. In my opinion, hard work definitely is decisive, but it is a mathematical fact that person one is better or worse by nature than person two at something.

    Let’s take school as an example: I’m not going to express my entire train of thought here (that would take way to long), but I’ve always experienced that if you consistently keep with your homework and understand the topics, you will get high grades. There have been complaints that the youth is becoming dumber, but what’s really happening is that people stop putting in effort, in my opinion because they don’t see the point in working hard because these days you can have a nice comfortable life without ever putting in effort.

    There have been experiments with babies from parents with a low IQ, who were stimulated to train their brain (I like that sentence) every single day, and as a result they ended up with an IQ above average. And I’m convinced this is the same for every aspect of life, including sports. Every sport requires a unique range of competences, like hand-eye coordination, distinguishing patterns or whatever. And in my view, these are all skills for which a base-level can be established at a young age by training, and it can be trained during the rest of someone’s life.

    That being said, if there wasn’t something like ‘talent’, that would imply that every single person is unique, which of course isn’t the case. Therefore someone with a better ‘ability’ to train muscles will be better at boxing, someone with a better ability to use energy more efficiently when running will be better at marathons. For every sport there are people who are better at it by nature than others, that’s a fact. The question is in what way this compares to the training described in the previous paragraph, which pretty much comes down to opinion really. And it differs for different discipline: I think that being good at marathons has more to do with talent than being good at driving cars comes down to talent – it’s no coincidence that the best 50 or so marathons have been run by athletes from the horn of Africa. In my opinion, driving Formula 1 cars mostly comes down to training really hard and having sublime coordination.

    1. I really should start paying attention to grammar when writing these things..

    2. @andae, an interesting point about training the brain at a young age. it reminds of the ‘experiment’ with the Polgar sisters in chess. Their father set out to prove that anyone can become a Grand Master, so instead sending his sending his children to school, he kept them at home and educated them himself, concentrating on improving their chess skills. Sure enough it worked: all three became strong chess players, with Judit the strongest female player in the game’s history, to date.

      Perhaps the brain is more malleable than muscles, and since Formula 1 skills are governed by the brain rather than the muscles, perhaps it is possible to create the next World Champion from a young age. As I said in my own comment below, though, it’s difficult to train in motor racing. It’s not like you can put your three-year old in a go-kart. Oh wait. (Sorry, couldn’t find the right video, skip to 1:00).

      1. @adrianmorse Just read up on the Polgar sister story: amazing story, gives a good foundation for my comment. :)

        1. The Polgar project worked possibly because no one else went the same route with their kids.

          Would it have worked similarly well in an alternate universe where thousands of fathers had the same ambition for their daughters, and the same commitment to prove their point?

          Or, in that case, would they have turned out to be Karthikeyans of chess: very good compared to mere mortals, but still not good enough?

          Regarding F1, we are living in that “alternate” universe.

      2. The problem with malleability is that exploiting it takes time.

        Life span is limited, an active sporting career is even more so. Someone who, by innate talent, can skip most of the early childhood “brain re-conditioning” will thus have a virtually unassailable head start.

        Anyway, among 7 billion people you can always expect the combination of extraordinary work ethic + extraordinary talent to pop up. Trying to counter it by only having the first is a hopeless endeavour.

        What confuses people regarding the necessity of talent, I think, is that in everyday life it is possible to outperform a talented person by hard work, as there is a very good chance (s)he will be less than stellar in terms of perseverence, industry etc.

        To expect the same at the top level of any field is self-deception, as you’ll inevitably come up against someone with the perfect combination. Like brilliant talent paired with a karting career starting at the age of three…

      3. @adrianmorse, I suspect the father might have been fairly talented at chess himself, and this talent was passed on to 1 of his daughters who, given the opportunity and encouragement, was able to excell at her given talent. Why didn’t the other 2 become equally good?

    3. @andae23 I basically agree with almost everything you have said on the matter.

      Proffesional = hard work + dedication (or) natural talent + dedication (or) natural talent + hard work

      Legend = natural talent + hard work + dedication

  8. Have to disagree with cotd.
    At the end of the day you cant polish a turd.

    1. Alexander (@)
      20th March 2013, 7:03

      But you can roll it in glitter. Could take you far.

      1. But you can roll it in glitter. Could take you far.

        Just ask Bernie! :)

    2. Actually, as Mythbusters proved, you can polish a turd quite easily.
      But I agree with the common thought that is going on here.
      I find it bizarre that someone can even begin to dismiss the importance of talent.
      Often times it is the ONLY differentiation.

      1. @mateuss

        Actually, as Mythbusters proved, you can polish a turd quite easily.

        I have seen that episode too, but it’s merely a figure of speech! I think a better one may be that you can’t get the tortoise to beat the hare (if we ignore the storyline) – the hare is built for the purpose.

  9. To add to the flow of disagreements about the COTD, you could say that a hard-working attitude is part of someone’s talent, too. Jan Ullrich always had trouble putting in a disciplined winter while training as hard and systematic as possible was always one of Lance Armstrong’s strengths (whatever his other failings). Finally, I think even the way one improves with training is part of one’s talent.

    Personally, I have a pretty good idea where my talents lie. I am rubbish at any sport that involves catching or kicking a ball, have a liking for endurance sports but lack the real speed of the truly talented, and I even have an aptitude for go-karting, though sadly I never seem to be able to get close to any lap records…

    To return to Formula 1, I think F1 drivers need to rely on talent more than most other athletes, simply because there is no chance to practice. Within Grand Prix weekends drivers gain experience, but even then there is not too much opportunity to try things out. In practice you have a program to get through (to ‘train’ the car), and in the race you have to keep it on the black stuff. It’s not like tennis players who can afford to hit the ball in the net time after time while refining their service.

  10. you can have people with amazing natural talent or those with good talent that work very hard. But what is more of a shame is have either and not having the chance to show it, due to lack of opportunity. Im sure some of the best drivers in the world will never get into F1 because their parents couldnt afford to bank roll them through karting in their teens.

  11. I read COTD and thought I was back in 1989, when everybody wanted to “be like Mike”. :P

  12. I found this article about Sochi being in a bit of trouble (from AMuS in German) it seems the original company set up to run it was now declared bankrupt, but a different, bigger, company (called Omega) has taken over the assets and rights and obligations and has agreed with Ecclestone on going forward with it.

    I remember rumours of trouble a couple of months back, so I guess this is the next step in Putin and Bernie making sure everything goes ahead.

  13. I’d expected the Zytec story in the round up. But I expected it also to be all over the web. Only other source than F1today is this. The story I read on F1today appeared on their dutch version. It was apparently based on a tweet from Zytec.

  14. Happy birthday @girts (that is the third one I am writing today :-) )

    1. @BasCB @KeithCollantine Thank you very much, this website and the friends that I’ve found here mean more to me than you know!

  15. Anyone who disagrees with COTD should have a read of this
    A awesome book and it certainly makes a pretty strong case against. although as always it depends on your defintion of talent.

  16. Let me add some support to @MaroonJack ‘s comment.

    “Innate talent” is just an excuse lazy people give for their lack of success. Because it is just difficult to accept that it is YOU who has failed by not putting enough hard work. It is easy to pass the blame to GOD and say that He didn’t give you innate talent.

    I have been through college and corporate life enough and I can tell you, everyone who has reached here is through hard work, not talent. Because simply put, no human being is talented enough to excel in every field without hard work. He or she has to put in hard work in areas he or she is not good at. And unless you put that hard work, you cannot reach the top (be it motorsports or life).

    1. None of those arguments precludes the existence of differences in basic capability.

  17. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    20th March 2013, 9:33

    So I guess that means that Alonso thinks he will win the Malaysian GP.

  18. Reading COTD and then comments… There seems to be an abudance of lazy people around. (Careful this comment was meant tongue in cheek!)

  19. On COTD: One thing I notice is that, all arguments here seem to assume that anybody regardless of their talent can work hard. The way I see it, a strong work ethic’s a talent in itself. Some have it in spades, others just don’t. I also think that measuring the importance of work ethic (which is a talent, in my book) in general, without referring to a specific field, is pointless. Its impact on one’s performance depends largely on the field of application. Since I am from India, I have had the opportunity to witness intense competition at all levels. I can safely say that folks with a talent for work ethic can shine in a large majority of areas but there are areas where they have no shot in a million years.

  20. Had Hulk not changed teams could he have fought for the top 3 positions? quiet likely…

  21. COTD is great!! I am a musician and when I give performances I am always bemused when people say things like “I wish I could play an instrument” or “I wouldn’t know where to start, you’re so talented”. In my opinion, talent is irrelevant until you have mastered the tools of your trade. In music talent only comes into the equation when you have established a comprehnsive techincial working knowledge of the instrument so that the operation of the instrument becomes second nature. Only then can you express your own style and interpretation, develop your own sounds and techniques and write interesting original music. You move the mechanics of operating the instrument into the subconscious part of your brain and then your mind starts to do all sorts of interesting things sound knowing that your hands will know what to do with your thoughts. Of course some people will have better ideas than others but that is down to interpretation. This “talent” stuff to me is the ability develop beyond the mechanical limitations of the instrument and can only occur as a fruit of countless hours of toil beforehand.

    1. That’s right, take for example W.A.Mozart, he was renowned for his hard work and dedication.

  22. So what the COTD is saying is that with hard work we could all become Alonso, Messi or Nadal or presumably if we work really, really hard, all three.

  23. I meant to add… that’s not to say hard work isn’t important. The 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert is still a valid principle but to get from the top 100 in your field, where everyone has worked hard, to the top 10 you need that something extra.

  24. Keith why when hell are you posting an Alonso interview from before the Australian grand prix!

    1. @jaymz Seems to me it only appeared on the site yesterday so how could I have linked to it sooner?

  25. More newsworthy than any of these is that McLaren apologized to Red Bull and Webber for the problems on Sunday.

  26. I understand both views in the ‘innate talent’ vs ‘hard work’ debate, but to make things interesting, I’ll remind everybody that Aryton Senna was quoted in saying the his first wet race was rubbish. Completely terrible. Kept spinning off the circuit. So, from then on, every time it rained, he rushed out to the circuit and ran as many laps as he could. So even a man who’s know as being the greatest wet weather specialist in Formula 1, admitted to not having the innate ability to race well in the wet.

    Now for his dry weather races? I would definitely learn towards innate ability….

    1. @skitty4lb – there is no doubt though that Senna had immense natural talent. You could argue that despite the fact his work ethic obviously had a huge influence, not all people could simply go out on track and “learn” to drive on the wet as he did. I certainly couldn’t – my reaction times are awful and I simply wouldn’t be able to compute all the sensory information!

      1. Right. I would agree. Senna, like all other drivers of his time, needed to learn how to drive in the wet, but, with his innate driving ability, he was able to adapt better then the average driver. As we saw throughout his career.

        I believe that if you are an average person of average intelligence, and you fully commit yourself to a discipline and work at it everyday, you will become extremely talented and good at it. But, some people are naturally gifted at doing certain things better and will always be better at it then the average person. No matter how much they learn or improve. I do believe in innate ability, and I also believe in hard work. Both need to be fully committed to their craft to succeed. But no matter how much effort I put into paying the guitar, I will never be Eric Clapton.

  27. I don’t believe in “innate talent”

    Ah yes, but you can believe what you want to believe – people still largely ignore scientific evidence, despite the fact it is evidence. “Innate talent” can be defined as our genetic make-up, favouring certain individuals (this is where the “survival of the fittest” idea comes from). If somebody had adapted to have longer legs or faster twitching muscles then obviously they would make a better sprinter, just look at Jamaica to prove this point (for such a small nation they have dominated sprinting these last few years).

    So in essence, of course dedication and hard work makes a difference, but it’s worth perhaps a tenth or two compared to the several that the best drivers hold on talent alone.

  28. As an American (and I’m making no claim to cultural elegance) I’ve noticed that European press about F1 is negative and drama-filled. Drivers are constantly lowering expectations on how they will perform, like Alonso is doing in the Sky article, or bickering about this or that. Hamilton does this almost as constantly as he complains about Red Bull cars easily finding quick pace. The expectations lowering comes off as childish and insecure. I once thought that perhaps it’s an indicator of more open emotional expression, which can be frowned on in the U.S., and could just show better communication. But I’m not sure. Observations from long-time fans?

    1. @rogue12 I think it’s just a reflection of how today’s drivers are media trained to within an inch of their lives. Expectations lowering is a fairly ordinary PR tactic.

  29. add me to the chorus disagreeing with the comment of the day. i was among the best technicians in my company, but no amount of hard work was going to enable me to play a guitar.

  30. Back to Hulkenberg’s Melbourne car problem, why wasn’t he given the the #2 car instead, as he’s the #1 driver and should have priority in equipment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.