planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:58 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
We aren't talking about the primary function of any "racing driver". We're talking about the primary function of a Formula 1 racing driver. Drivers in different categories have different roles, and thus different factors affect their desirability to teams. I've worked with a team who needed a hot shoe to get them the best possible result on track regardless of the fact that none of the fans knew who he was, he didn't speak the language very well, and he was useless to us for promotional activities. I've also worked for a team who had two strong professional drivers in the car and needed a third whose performance was completely irrelevant and could bring a huge bank roll. The one they chose could barely drive the car "the steering, its very difficult for me" she said after climbing meekly from the car a few laps into practice, but money paid by the company who backed her was more important.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
There are teams that have an adequate operating budget regardless of what their drivers can bring. If results were the absolute paramount concern, they'd hire the driver with the best records, that fits in that budget. But they don't always do that. Often times they choose a driver that brings additional money. Its not that they can't afford the one with the better results, its that they want the one with extra cash more. Similarly, a team may be able to afford a young kid with a great record but choose an experienced veteran with a bit less pace, sometimes even with less money, because the experience is of greater value to them for development than sheer speed. All of the teams value different parts of the equation above others.

Look at Red Bull for example. Most people think they can afford just about anything they want right? Well, Mark's contract was up this year, and Lewis was available. Lewis has much more impressive records, including a WDC title. But RBR didn't go after Lewis did they? We can come up with a few possible reasons...RBR thinks keeping an established member of the team with okay results is more important than bringing in someone who could possibly outperform him, their sponsors are happy with Mark's image, Mark is willing to do the commitments requested by said sponsors, perhaps Lewis' perceived ego doesn't mesh with their strong team methodology, etc. No matter how you look at, they chose a driver with weaker on track results because the equation they use to determine who is best for them values other factors more than records on the driver's wikipedia page, even though they could afford either one.

But in that instance Mark is the best driver for Red Bull. He's strong enough to get consistent points without being good enough to challenge Seb, so he's perfect for what they want. So they have chosen him for his driving ability, not what money he can bring to the table, which is exactly the point I was making

If they've chosen him for his ability to not drive outstandingly well, then surely teams don't hire the driver with the best results, that they can afford, like you've now said they do, a hundred times.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Well ever tried to use a ? to mark a question?

And again it's not waffle, we have provided examples to back up our statements where other things have been the primary factor.

As for Schui who mentioned Merc?

As for Merc he drove for Before F1 we are talking about getting into F1 something that did not happen on driving talent for Schui. He still needed someone to pay or else he wouldn't have gotten the Jordan drive, he then needed Bernie to get him into Beneton. Driving was not the primary factor for either seat.

    1. Often, but in this case it wasn't necessary. All you had to do was read the sentence and you should have got it. You seemed to read everything else.
    2. but it still strayed from the point, therefore it's waffle
    3. I did. I thought Mercedes paid for his first drive
    4. for someone who is pedantic enough to insist on ? to mark a question you sure play fast and free with grammar. I'm struggling to make head or tails of your final paragraph. And again, he wouldn't have had someone pay for him, irrespective of who it was, if he didn't have the talent to back it up. Chicken. Egg.
    5. Are you for real? Even after finding the question you still won't answer it? (note the ?)


Last edited by Zoue on Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
There are teams that have an adequate operating budget regardless of what their drivers can bring. If results were the absolute paramount concern, they'd hire the driver with the best records, that fits in that budget. But they don't always do that. Often times they choose a driver that brings additional money. Its not that they can't afford the one with the better results, its that they want the one with extra cash more. Similarly, a team may be able to afford a young kid with a great record but choose an experienced veteran with a bit less pace, sometimes even with less money, because the experience is of greater value to them for development than sheer speed. All of the teams value different parts of the equation above others.

Look at Red Bull for example. Most people think they can afford just about anything they want right? Well, Mark's contract was up this year, and Lewis was available. Lewis has much more impressive records, including a WDC title. But RBR didn't go after Lewis did they? We can come up with a few possible reasons...RBR thinks keeping an established member of the team with okay results is more important than bringing in someone who could possibly outperform him, their sponsors are happy with Mark's image, Mark is willing to do the commitments requested by said sponsors, perhaps Lewis' perceived ego doesn't mesh with their strong team methodology, etc. No matter how you look at, they chose a driver with weaker on track results because the equation they use to determine who is best for them values other factors more than records on the driver's wikipedia page, even though they could afford either one.

But in that instance Mark is the best driver for Red Bull. He's strong enough to get consistent points without being good enough to challenge Seb, so he's perfect for what they want. So they have chosen him for his driving ability, not what money he can bring to the table, which is exactly the point I was making

If they've chosen him for his ability to not drive outstandingly well, then surely teams don't hire the driver with the best results, that they can afford, like you've now said they do, a hundred times.

You are twisting my words somewhat. I said best drivers they can afford, not the ones with the best results. In all my posts I've maintained that driving skill is what initially attracts teams, and nothing above changes that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
If all along you've been saying they get the "best drivers" they can afford meaning "best for their needs" why did you not just agree with either Johnston or me when we said, a hundred times, that they hire the drivers that best suit their needs?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
    1. Often, but in this case it wasn't necessary. All you had to do was read the sentence and you should have got it. You seemed to read everything else.
    2. but it still strayed from the point, therefore it's waffle
    3. I did. I thought Mercedes paid for his first drive
    4. for someone who is pedantic enough to insist on ? to mark a question you sure play fast and free with grammar. I'm struggling to make head or tails with your final paragraph. And again, he wouldn't have had someone pay for him, irrespective of who it was, if he didn't have the talent to back it up. Chicken. Egg.
    5. Are you for real? Even after finding the question you still won't answer it? (note the ?)



Well it's not a question without it.

It didn't stray from the point. The point as I take it still is Racing talent being the primo defacto reason to handle a driver. The examples being drivers who were choosen for other things rather than there driving talent first and foremost.

Nope it was Sauber as a thank you.

He maybe had talent but that wasn't what got him into F1. No F1 team before Ferrari hired him on his Talent first and foremost. again I repeat flavio didn't want him. I can read that final paragraph alright. You mentioned Merc I presumed Pre-F1 . We are talking F1. Something he did not get into on talent alone. Saying he must have had the talent to get the backing. Well plenty of drivers have had backing does that mean they all have shown they are of the top 24 in the world?

As for your question. If Driving was the primary function. Drivers wouldn't be getting seats based on other factors. Would they?

Hence why we have showed numerous examples of drivers being picked because of things like bringing cash. Their primary function is to bring money.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Lets look at some of your statements. They all seem to indicate that you think "best driver" means the one with the best results, and not that "best driver" means "fits best with what the team needs"
Zoue wrote:
They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that,


Zoue wrote:
That's not the same as saying that every team will only hire the best driver available, as economics invariably play a part, but they will hire the best available driver they can afford. Ultimately, the teams are on the grid to race and they will hire whoever will get them the best possible chance for points at a price they will be able to meet;


Zoue wrote:
The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic


Zoue wrote:
Macca might want Lewis (and any driver) to carry out PR duties as part of their contract, but that's not the same as saying that the PR duties will take precedence over driving ability. They will always choose the latter first.


Zoue wrote:
And Massa only got to keep his after his performance improved, so it was his driving that made the difference...


Zoue wrote:
I've always maintained that teams will pick the best drivers they can afford


Zoue wrote:
Not true. I suspect most believe Massa managed to save his seat because he turned his season around and managed to finally perform.


Zoue wrote:
They look at proven winners and then decide which one they can afford to get. Therefore driving ability is the prime factor, followed by affordability.


And lets look at what I've said..

me wrote:
Teams buy the whole package that best suits their business model.


me wrote:
Replacing Massa upsets the good balance they've already got going in Ferrari for Fernando. Its in their best interests not to hire the "best driver".


me wrote:
They hire personalities who contribute to their bottom line, that means their results on the track, their marketability, their public personas, their mental toughness, ability to work within a team, etc.


me wrote:
No matter how you look at, they chose a driver with weaker on track results because the equation they use to determine who is best for them values other factors more than records on the driver's wikipedia page, even though they could afford either one.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
    1. Often, but in this case it wasn't necessary. All you had to do was read the sentence and you should have got it. You seemed to read everything else.
    2. but it still strayed from the point, therefore it's waffle
    3. I did. I thought Mercedes paid for his first drive
    4. for someone who is pedantic enough to insist on ? to mark a question you sure play fast and free with grammar. I'm struggling to make head or tails with your final paragraph. And again, he wouldn't have had someone pay for him, irrespective of who it was, if he didn't have the talent to back it up. Chicken. Egg.
    5. Are you for real? Even after finding the question you still won't answer it? (note the ?)



Well it's not a question without it.

It didn't stray from the point. The point as I take it still is Racing talent being the primo defacto reason to handle a driver. The examples being drivers who were choosen for other things rather than there driving talent first and foremost.

Nope it was Sauber as a thank you.

He maybe had talent but that wasn't what got him into F1. No F1 team before Ferrari hired him on his Talent first and foremost. again I repeat flavio didn't want him. I can read that final paragraph alright. You mentioned Merc I presumed Pre-F1 . We are talking F1. Something he did not get into on talent alone. Saying he must have had the talent to get the backing. Well plenty of drivers have had backing does that mean they all have shown they are of the top 24 in the world?

As for your question. If Driving was the primary function. Drivers wouldn't be getting seats based on other factors. Would they?

Hence why we have showed numerous examples of drivers being picked because of things like bringing cash. Their primary function is to bring money.

1. Pedantic again. I was referring to the fact that you hadn't answered the previous question and inviting you to do so now. A question mark was not needed, which you'd realise if you read the sentence properly.
2. It does stray from the point, which was what is the main function of a driver. You managed to turn that into whether money or driver skill is more important when hiring a driver. Can you not tell the difference?
3. the internet says differently:
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2012/09/sc ... -sale.html
http://www.enterf1.com/the-bite-point/1 ... future.asp
http://f1insight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08 ... track.html
4. read the above articles. His talent impressed everyone, but of course you know best
5. You can read that gibberish, which has no punctuation, correct grammar or syntax but complain when a question mark is missing. Hypocritical much?
6. That's a question, not an answer. It's clear to me that you know that driving is the primary function of an F1 driver but you are too proud to admit that you got it wrong. You're just trying to avoid the issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
Lets look at some of your statements. They all seem to indicate that you think "best driver" means the one with the best results, and not that "best driver" means "fits best with what the team needs"
Zoue wrote:
They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that,


Zoue wrote:
That's not the same as saying that every team will only hire the best driver available, as economics invariably play a part, but they will hire the best available driver they can afford. Ultimately, the teams are on the grid to race and they will hire whoever will get them the best possible chance for points at a price they will be able to meet;


Zoue wrote:
The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic


Zoue wrote:
Macca might want Lewis (and any driver) to carry out PR duties as part of their contract, but that's not the same as saying that the PR duties will take precedence over driving ability. They will always choose the latter first.


Zoue wrote:
And Massa only got to keep his after his performance improved, so it was his driving that made the difference...


Zoue wrote:
I've always maintained that teams will pick the best drivers they can afford


Zoue wrote:
Not true. I suspect most believe Massa managed to save his seat because he turned his season around and managed to finally perform.


Zoue wrote:
They look at proven winners and then decide which one they can afford to get. Therefore driving ability is the prime factor, followed by affordability.


And lets look at what I've said..

me wrote:
Teams buy the whole package that best suits their business model.


me wrote:
Replacing Massa upsets the good balance they've already got going in Ferrari for Fernando. Its in their best interests not to hire the "best driver".


me wrote:
They hire personalities who contribute to their bottom line, that means their results on the track, their marketability, their public personas, their mental toughness, ability to work within a team, etc.


me wrote:
No matter how you look at, they chose a driver with weaker on track results because the equation they use to determine who is best for them values other factors more than records on the driver's wikipedia page, even though they could afford either one.

you conveniently missed out the one where you said that an F1 driver's primary function is not to race, which is what kick started the whole debate. Not matter how much you try and twist it otherwise you know that that is just so much garbage. An F1 driver may have many duties, but his primary one is to race the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
The primary function is to fulfill all of the team's needs for his position. Can't even GET the job without fulfilling all requirements, on and off track.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
No, the complete job description is to fulfil all of the team's needs for his position. The primary function is to race the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3428
Location: Nebraska, USA
ashley313 wrote:
Nobody thinks Ferrari re signed Felipe because of his performance. He is there because he works well with their #1.

RoGro was casting doubt on his ability to even drive the car safely, nevermind drive it quickly.


I guess that I am "Nobody" then, as I do think that Ferrari signed Massa because of his performance. There was no obviously better choice available, and given the way he performed the last part of the season, I have no idea of who could have done any better in his seat... not perez, not hulk, or any other.

If you are referring to when Ferrari first signed Massa, I think that then too he was signed because of his performance and his potential. If you remember watching him during his Sauber time, it was obvious (at least to me) that he had potential, and... he already had experience with Ferrari as well.

sincerely,
Nobody

;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Blake wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
Nobody thinks Ferrari re signed Felipe because of his performance. He is there because he works well with their #1.

RoGro was casting doubt on his ability to even drive the car safely, nevermind drive it quickly.


I guess that I am "Nobody" then, as I do think that Ferrari signed Massa because of his performance. There was no obviously better choice available, and given the way he performed the last part of the season, I have no idea of who could have done any better in his seat... not perez, not hulk, or any other.

If you are referring to when Ferrari first signed Massa, I think that then too he was signed because of his performance and his potential. If you remember watching him during his Sauber time, it was obvious (at least to me) that he had potential, and... he already had experience with Ferrari as well.

sincerely,
Nobody

;)

Hi Nobody,

I agree that Massa was re-signed because his performances started to improve. If he hadn't done so I've no doubt he would be out. I don't think Ferrari are best impressed that they were so far off the WCC and he needs to maintain his end of season form for 2013 if he is to stay any longer. He's shown he has got the talent to race at the front if the car and his confidence are on form, so he will be interesting to watch next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
1. Pedantic again. I was referring to the fact that you hadn't answered the previous question and inviting you to do so now. A question mark was not needed, which you'd realise if you read the sentence properly.
2. It does stray from the point, which was what is the main function of a driver. You managed to turn that into whether money or driver skill is more important when hiring a driver. Can you not tell the difference?
3. the internet says differently:
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2012/09/sc ... -sale.html
http://www.enterf1.com/the-bite-point/1 ... future.asp
http://f1insight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08 ... track.html
4. read the above articles. His talent impressed everyone, but of course you know best
5. You can read that gibberish, which has no punctuation, correct grammar or syntax but complain when a question mark is missing. Hypocritical much?
6. That's a question, not an answer. It's clear to me that you know that driving is the primary function of an F1 driver but you are too proud to admit that you got it wrong. You're just trying to avoid the issue.


Well let me take you back to your original question I believe.

Zoue wrote:
Seriously, you're contending that racing prowess isn't the primary element of the job?


I believe this is exactly what we have pointed out many times.

As for your links, 2 written many years after the fact and one about his return to F1 with Merc. When did anyone mention his return to F1? One stats he impressed in the test, but Sauber (The article is wrong Peter kept it secret until fairly recently) still had to pay money. Would he have gotten the drive with out the money? Probably not. so which was the primary factor? The driving or the money? If someone offered Eddie 300K who do you think would have gotten the seat for Spa? especially considering Jordan was so tight for funds he didn't want to change clutch in the car pre-race.

The stuff with Bernie is well documented. Including that Schui thought he didn't have the seat and Bernie said something in the lines of "Go to bed and when you wake up it will be yours"

As for avoiding the issue? I have given umpteen examples of drivers being picked when driving talent was a lesser needed quality. That's hardly avoiding the issue.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Zoue wrote:
No, the complete job description is to fulfil all of the team's needs for his position. The primary function is to race the car.

When you can't do one without the other, or even get the job without ticking ALL of the boxes, that means they are ALL the primary function. You can't go out and drive the wheels off the car and flip off the media every time they ask you a question, and you can't be the darling of the media and put the car in the wall every week. They go hand in hand.

When things beyond driving talent are considered in choosing a driver, it means those things are just as important for those teams. As we've proven, its even MORE important for some, in the case of cash.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Blake wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
Nobody thinks Ferrari re signed Felipe because of his performance. He is there because he works well with their #1.

RoGro was casting doubt on his ability to even drive the car safely, nevermind drive it quickly.


I guess that I am "Nobody" then, as I do think that Ferrari signed Massa because of his performance. There was no obviously better choice available, and given the way he performed the last part of the season, I have no idea of who could have done any better in his seat... not perez, not hulk, or any other.

If you are referring to when Ferrari first signed Massa, I think that then too he was signed because of his performance and his potential. If you remember watching him during his Sauber time, it was obvious (at least to me) that he had potential, and... he already had experience with Ferrari as well.

sincerely,
Nobody

;)

Considering that his performance wasn't consistently improved until AFTER he was re signed, that doesn't make much sense. At the time, there were lots of drivers out performing him on a regular basis. So if performance were the "primary" standard, Ferrari would have chosen someone else. They didn't.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
If all along you've been saying they get the "best drivers" they can afford meaning "best for their needs" why did you not just agree with either Johnston or me when we said, a hundred times, that they hire the drivers that best suit their needs?

sorry, missed this one earlier.

Because Johnston has said that he believes sponsorship, not driving ability, is the prime factor when considering a driver for a seat, while your position is that driving is not the driver's primary function, neither of which positions I agree with.

I've always maintained that teams look for drivers first, and other attributes are secondary considerations. Money is important and may have a big impact upon the final decision, but the initial act of considering a driver will be based upon his on-track ability. Otherwise why even bother having a Young drivers test if not to evaluate driving ability? They may as well just organise an auction if money is the prime factor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
But as I've shown with your quotes, many times you have defined the term "best driver" as the one with the most driving prowess, skill, and likelihood to score points. So why now do you change your tune to what we have been saying all along, that the "best driver" is the one that fits all the needs of the team, even if that means not having the best scoring record?

Its funny that you bring up the young drivers tests as some of the teams use them solely as a revenue generating opportunity :lol: In addition, those tests are as much about testing their own development parts as they are to have a look at the kids. And the things they look at are far deeper than who puts in the best lap times.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
1. Pedantic again. I was referring to the fact that you hadn't answered the previous question and inviting you to do so now. A question mark was not needed, which you'd realise if you read the sentence properly.
2. It does stray from the point, which was what is the main function of a driver. You managed to turn that into whether money or driver skill is more important when hiring a driver. Can you not tell the difference?
3. the internet says differently:
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2012/09/sc ... -sale.html
http://www.enterf1.com/the-bite-point/1 ... future.asp
http://f1insight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08 ... track.html
4. read the above articles. His talent impressed everyone, but of course you know best
5. You can read that gibberish, which has no punctuation, correct grammar or syntax but complain when a question mark is missing. Hypocritical much?
6. That's a question, not an answer. It's clear to me that you know that driving is the primary function of an F1 driver but you are too proud to admit that you got it wrong. You're just trying to avoid the issue.


Well let me take you back to your original question I believe.

Zoue wrote:
Seriously, you're contending that racing prowess isn't the primary element of the job?


I believe this is exactly what we have pointed out many times.

As for your links, 2 written many years after the fact and one about his return to F1 with Merc. When did anyone mention his return to F1? One stats he impressed in the test, but Sauber (The article is wrong Peter kept it secret until fairly recently) still had to pay money. Would he have gotten the drive with out the money? Probably not. so which was the primary factor? The driving or the money? If someone offered Eddie 300K who do you think would have gotten the seat for Spa? especially considering Jordan was so tight for funds he didn't want to change clutch in the car pre-race.

The stuff with Bernie is well documented. Including that Schui thought he didn't have the seat and Bernie said something in the lines of "Go to bed and when you wake up it will be yours"

As for avoiding the issue? I have given umpteen examples of drivers being picked when driving talent was a lesser needed quality. That's hardly avoiding the issue.

All the links mentioned Merc paying for MSC's initial drive back in 1991, which you'd know if you read them through. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to take their word over yours. Why don't you provide some evidence of your claim?

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just genuinely misreading every time. You have NOT answered the question, which is about what the prime function of the job is. You keep bringing it back to hiring preferences, which are not the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand? For example, you think money is the main reason in hiring someone. I disagree, but even if money were the main reason someone was hired, it would not be the main function of their job. How can you not tell the difference?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No, the complete job description is to fulfil all of the team's needs for his position. The primary function is to race the car.

When you can't do one without the other, or even get the job without ticking ALL of the boxes, that means they are ALL the primary function. You can't go out and drive the wheels off the car and flip off the media every time they ask you a question, and you can't be the darling of the media and put the car in the wall every week. They go hand in hand.

When things beyond driving talent are considered in choosing a driver, it means those things are just as important for those teams. As we've proven, its even MORE important for some, in the case of cash.

That's an odd way of looking at it. Many jobs have elements which, although crucial to the end result, are not the main focus of the role. Important is not the same as primary. And the primary role which an F1 driver has to fulfil is to race the car. They have to do interviews when on the podium - it's a requirement of the job, but I'd be very surprised if any driver was considered for a seat based on how he might perform on the podium.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
But as I've shown with your quotes, many times you have defined the term "best driver" as the one with the most driving prowess, skill, and likelihood to score points. So why now do you change your tune to what we have been saying all along, that the "best driver" is the one that fits all the needs of the team, even if that means not having the best scoring record?

Its funny that you bring up the young drivers tests as some of the teams use them solely as a revenue generating opportunity :lol: In addition, those tests are as much about testing their own development parts as they are to have a look at the kids. And the things they look at are far deeper than who puts in the best lap times.

I haven't changed my tune at all. I've said all along that driving ability is the main factor when considering a driver for a seat, not the ability to shake hands or appease the fans, as I believe you mentioned in one of your posts. Other factors may come into play but the initial consideration will be how well the driver could perform.

With regards to the Young Drivers, I don't recall ever saying it's about lap times. That's not the first time that you've attempted to put words into my mouth - what is it with you? I'm aware that there a number of things that take place but there's no denying drivers are being evaluated too.

And if driving ability was so immaterial then why would McLaren get rid of Heikki?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
All the links mentioned Merc paying for MSC's initial drive back in 1991, which you'd know if you read them through. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to take their word over yours. Why don't you provide some evidence of your claim?

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just genuinely misreading every time. You have NOT answered the question, which is about what the prime function of the job is. You keep bringing it back to hiring preferences, which are not the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand? For example, you think money is the main reason in hiring someone. I disagree, but even if money were the main reason someone was hired, it would not be the main function of their job. How can you not tell the difference?



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93894


Okay I'll take your question from a different tact. Taking out how a driver gets into F1 in the first place and look at it from a top team hiring drivers. Going back to the lines of the OP and "Mclaren Driver PR work.."

Look at this list from the link in the OP

Quote:
Life in the fast lane: Lewis Hamilton's schedule

June 26 European Grand Prix at Valencia.

June 27 Vodafone sponsorship appearance at Estoril in Portugal taking competition winners on hot laps.
June 28 British GP preview media day. Jet-ski feature with BBC, followed by sessions with Fleet St aboard a boat on Thames, then sponsorship appearance for Santander at an art gallery in London. Stay in London.

June 30 Simulator work at McLaren Technology Centre in Woking, FOTA Fans’ Forum appearance at MTC, charity appearance for the Make A Wish Foundation.

July 3 Driving the MP4-23 (his 2008 world championship-winning car) at Goodwood Festival of Speed.
July 4 PR appearance for Mercedes-Benz at Brooklands.

July 6 PR appearance for Santander in London. Q & A with university students.
July 7 PR appearance for Vodafone at Tower Bridge, then drive up to Silverstone for FIA press conference at 3pm. Arrive with minutes to spare. Then all the usual media work
.July 8 Practice for British Grand Prix. The debrief and engineering meetings.
July 9 Practice and qualifying for British Grand Prix, then PR appearance for Mobil 1 at Blenheim Palace.
July 10 British Grand Prix followed by media work.


The red is actual race weekends .

To me that says that driving as in racing is a very small part of their workload. When you think that that will be replicated depending on the country they are in AND they continue working during the off season AND even on the tests they do PR work.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
We've shown you that many drivers have been considered for and got a seat based on things other than their performance. If someone is chosen for a quality OTHER than racing skill, that quality has been deemed more important than racing skill, thus making racing skill NOT the primary element.

You've already agreed with us - why are you changing your mind for a 2nd time now? First you established that you think drivers are chosen based on their results - and outlined (with the quotes I supplied above) that you in fact mean good results, then you said that RBR chose mark because he doesn't get results that are the best, which would mean that teams choose drivers based on something other than having the best skills, and now you're back to saying that the best results are most important. Which is it?

You know what...I don't even want to know, because you don't make any sense.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
But as I've shown with your quotes, many times you have defined the term "best driver" as the one with the most driving prowess, skill, and likelihood to score points. So why now do you change your tune to what we have been saying all along, that the "best driver" is the one that fits all the needs of the team, even if that means not having the best scoring record?

Its funny that you bring up the young drivers tests as some of the teams use them solely as a revenue generating opportunity :lol: In addition, those tests are as much about testing their own development parts as they are to have a look at the kids. And the things they look at are far deeper than who puts in the best lap times.

I haven't changed my tune at all. I've said all along that driving ability is the main factor when considering a driver for a seat, not the ability to shake hands or appease the fans, as I believe you mentioned in one of your posts. Other factors may come into play but the initial consideration will be how well the driver could perform.

With regards to the Young Drivers, I don't recall ever saying it's about lap times. That's not the first time that you've attempted to put words into my mouth - what is it with you? I'm aware that there a number of things that take place but there's no denying drivers are being evaluated too.

And if driving ability was so immaterial then why would McLaren get rid of Heikki?

You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Johnston wrote:

The red is actual race weekends .

To me that says that driving as in racing is a very small part of their workload. When you think that that will be replicated depending on the country they are in AND they continue working during the off season AND even on the tests they do PR work.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

You could even say the driving is PART of the PR job. Its just playing a character. ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
ashley313 wrote:
So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

You could even say the driving is PART of the PR job. Its just playing a character. ;)[/quote]


Well this is true.

Not much difference between them and some ejit walking around with a sandwich board around their neck when you think of it.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 905
They have to do allot more PR study work than actually studying driving (Which the driving is a natural ability) Most of the time when you see them on TV it's not really them, it's just their PR mode kicking in, to actually be able to judge most of them properly is to meet them in person of work duties or in a normal conversation, as the PR image kicks in any time on TV at an F1 weekend or interview.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
All the links mentioned Merc paying for MSC's initial drive back in 1991, which you'd know if you read them through. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to take their word over yours. Why don't you provide some evidence of your claim?

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just genuinely misreading every time. You have NOT answered the question, which is about what the prime function of the job is. You keep bringing it back to hiring preferences, which are not the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand? For example, you think money is the main reason in hiring someone. I disagree, but even if money were the main reason someone was hired, it would not be the main function of their job. How can you not tell the difference?



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93894


Okay I'll take your question from a different tact. Taking out how a driver gets into F1 in the first place and look at it from a top team hiring drivers. Going back to the lines of the OP and "Mclaren Driver PR work.."

Look at this list from the link in the OP

Quote:
Life in the fast lane: Lewis Hamilton's schedule

June 26 European Grand Prix at Valencia.

June 27 Vodafone sponsorship appearance at Estoril in Portugal taking competition winners on hot laps.
June 28 British GP preview media day. Jet-ski feature with BBC, followed by sessions with Fleet St aboard a boat on Thames, then sponsorship appearance for Santander at an art gallery in London. Stay in London.

June 30 Simulator work at McLaren Technology Centre in Woking, FOTA Fans’ Forum appearance at MTC, charity appearance for the Make A Wish Foundation.

July 3 Driving the MP4-23 (his 2008 world championship-winning car) at Goodwood Festival of Speed.
July 4 PR appearance for Mercedes-Benz at Brooklands.

July 6 PR appearance for Santander in London. Q & A with university students.
July 7 PR appearance for Vodafone at Tower Bridge, then drive up to Silverstone for FIA press conference at 3pm. Arrive with minutes to spare. Then all the usual media work
.July 8 Practice for British Grand Prix. The debrief and engineering meetings.
July 9 Practice and qualifying for British Grand Prix, then PR appearance for Mobil 1 at Blenheim Palace.
July 10 British Grand Prix followed by media work.


The red is actual race weekends .

To me that says that driving as in racing is a very small part of their workload. When you think that that will be replicated depending on the country they are in AND they continue working during the off season AND even on the tests they do PR work.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

I'll go for deliberately obtuse then. Using the above you may as well argue that sleeping in different hotels is a primary element of their job, sine they do enough of that over a year. The main function for these guys is to drive; everything else supports that. If they were no good at that, they would soon find themselves out of a job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
But as I've shown with your quotes, many times you have defined the term "best driver" as the one with the most driving prowess, skill, and likelihood to score points. So why now do you change your tune to what we have been saying all along, that the "best driver" is the one that fits all the needs of the team, even if that means not having the best scoring record?

Its funny that you bring up the young drivers tests as some of the teams use them solely as a revenue generating opportunity :lol: In addition, those tests are as much about testing their own development parts as they are to have a look at the kids. And the things they look at are far deeper than who puts in the best lap times.

I haven't changed my tune at all. I've said all along that driving ability is the main factor when considering a driver for a seat, not the ability to shake hands or appease the fans, as I believe you mentioned in one of your posts. Other factors may come into play but the initial consideration will be how well the driver could perform.

With regards to the Young Drivers, I don't recall ever saying it's about lap times. That's not the first time that you've attempted to put words into my mouth - what is it with you? I'm aware that there a number of things that take place but there's no denying drivers are being evaluated too.

And if driving ability was so immaterial then why would McLaren get rid of Heikki?

You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

Not true, I'm afraid. I've said drivers are evaluated primarily on driving skill, not money or PR ability, and cited examples where driving performance has had an impact on whether a driver remains with a team, thereby proving my point. You, on the other hand, have tried to claim that e.g. Massa's driving had absolutely no impact on Ferrari re-signing him this season, flying in the face of all the evidence, but clearly you think you know best.

Johnston's position is that money is the primary factor, which I refute and have already pointed out to you. It's funny how both of you choose to ignore when you have been called out on something, preferring to deflect the topic onto something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

My position at the start of this conversation:

Zoue wrote:
They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that, but if you want to get all literal then yes, they are paid to race and all the associated duties that may or not be required. Satisfied? Just like a salesperson who's primary job is to sell their product/services, but their job may also involve PR work, admin etc etc. It doesn't change the core purpose of their role. But make no mistake, the driver's primary function is to race, and that is what they are primarily paid to do. If they can't do that then it doesn't matter how good at PR they might be - they will be out of a job.

Nothing I've written since has changed from that, ergo I haven't changed my tune.

Now one of your opening statements:
ashley313 wrote:
If the racing were the primary element of the job, then drivers with huge dowries and little in the way of results wouldn't be in the sport. Whitmarsh wouldn't take the nationality of his drivers into consideration. Personal endorsement rights wouldn't be sticking points of contracts. Teams buy more than racing skills.

Nothing you have said since has proven any of this, despite your claims to the contrary. You are also attempting to link the first sentence with all the subsequent ones when in reality there is no connection between the two. E.g. Whitmarsh can, if he chooses, look at driver nationality while still ensuring that the driver he eventually selects is a good enough racer. Personal endorsement issues are irrelevant to the quality of driving; it's a contractual issue, so there is no connection there. And your last point, about teams buying more than racing skills, doesn't preclude the fact that racing skills will be the primary reason.

Now one of my follow up posts:
Zoue wrote:
I truly don't understand how anyone can believe that driving/racing skill is not the primary factor when considering an individual for a race seat. They are not looking for a personality, or else they'd hire a professional entertainer. The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic, which is an inevitable fact of life in virtually everything these days, and how prominent the economic factor is depends to a great extent on how financially secure the team is. But even with that, the teams will always get the best racing driver they an afford, not the one with the best personality.

To try and drag this back to the OT, which was about McLaren driver PR work, do you imagine for one second that McLaren would sign a driver unless they were confident he could deliver the results they wanted on track? Look what happened with Heikki - he underperformed so they fired him. Button and Hamilton kept winning races and getting the best out of the car so the team kept them on (or tried to in the case of Lewis), irrespective of the fact that both were Brits. McLaren exist to race and race to win. If their driver doesn't deliver then no amount of PR prowess or "personality" will tempt them to keep him.

Drivers do have to do other things and again that's driven by economics: there's no testing any more so if they only drove then they would effectively employ them for only 60 days per year, which is not the best return for their considerable outlay. So having signed them the teams try to get the best value out of them: that's just common business sense, but in no way indicates that the main reason for hiring them is so that they can put them in front of a camera or have them attend some function or other. No matter what other duties they have to perform in the course of their work they will always be incidental to the central duty of racing. I don't understand how that can even be in dispute :?

Again, nothing has changed. I acknowledged right from the beginning that drivers have other duties, but maintained that driving is the main point.

As for Johnston, he keeps claiming that money and sponsorship, not driving, are the primary elements when considering a driver, despite the fact that he agreed with me that Grosjean and Massa would be out of a seat if their performances didn't improve. Somewhat of a contradiction there but no surprise.

I did point out to you earlier that Johnston keeps saying that money is the prime factor but once again you ignored that, like anything which shows you have been wrong. At least you are consistent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

My position at the start of this conversation:

Zoue wrote:
They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that, but if you want to get all literal then yes, they are paid to race and all the associated duties that may or not be required. Satisfied? Just like a salesperson who's primary job is to sell their product/services, but their job may also involve PR work, admin etc etc. It doesn't change the core purpose of their role. But make no mistake, the driver's primary function is to race, and that is what they are primarily paid to do. If they can't do that then it doesn't matter how good at PR they might be - they will be out of a job.

Nothing I've written since has changed from that, ergo I haven't changed my tune.

Now one of your opening statements:
ashley313 wrote:
If the racing were the primary element of the job, then drivers with huge dowries and little in the way of results wouldn't be in the sport. Whitmarsh wouldn't take the nationality of his drivers into consideration. Personal endorsement rights wouldn't be sticking points of contracts. Teams buy more than racing skills.

Nothing you have said since has proven any of this, despite your claims to the contrary. You are also attempting to link the first sentence with all the subsequent ones when in reality there is no connection between the two. E.g. Whitmarsh can, if he chooses, look at driver nationality while still ensuring that the driver he eventually selects is a good enough racer. Personal endorsement issues are irrelevant to the quality of driving; it's a contractual issue, so there is no connection there. And your last point, about teams buying more than racing skills, doesn't preclude the fact that racing skills will be the primary reason.

Now one of my follow up posts:
Zoue wrote:
I truly don't understand how anyone can believe that driving/racing skill is not the primary factor when considering an individual for a race seat. They are not looking for a personality, or else they'd hire a professional entertainer. The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic, which is an inevitable fact of life in virtually everything these days, and how prominent the economic factor is depends to a great extent on how financially secure the team is. But even with that, the teams will always get the best racing driver they an afford, not the one with the best personality.

To try and drag this back to the OT, which was about McLaren driver PR work, do you imagine for one second that McLaren would sign a driver unless they were confident he could deliver the results they wanted on track? Look what happened with Heikki - he underperformed so they fired him. Button and Hamilton kept winning races and getting the best out of the car so the team kept them on (or tried to in the case of Lewis), irrespective of the fact that both were Brits. McLaren exist to race and race to win. If their driver doesn't deliver then no amount of PR prowess or "personality" will tempt them to keep him.

Drivers do have to do other things and again that's driven by economics: there's no testing any more so if they only drove then they would effectively employ them for only 60 days per year, which is not the best return for their considerable outlay. So having signed them the teams try to get the best value out of them: that's just common business sense, but in no way indicates that the main reason for hiring them is so that they can put them in front of a camera or have them attend some function or other. No matter what other duties they have to perform in the course of their work they will always be incidental to the central duty of racing. I don't understand how that can even be in dispute :?

Again, nothing has changed. I acknowledged right from the beginning that drivers have other duties, but maintained that driving is the main point.

As for Johnston, he keeps claiming that money and sponsorship, not driving, are the primary elements when considering a driver, despite the fact that he agreed with me that Grosjean and Massa would be out of a seat if their performances didn't improve. Somewhat of a contradiction there but no surprise.

I did point out to you earlier that Johnston keeps saying that money is the prime factor but once again you ignored that, like anything which shows you have been wrong. At least you are consistent.


Did I ?

I can't remember if it was thread. Pretty sure it was but just incase.

Ro Go is managed by a company that is owned by GENII. Coincidently the same company that owns the team he currently races for. Boullier is also a part of a "Task Force" to get the French GP back (Not sure if that is part of his GENII business or extra curricular) . To get this they want support from the French people so they can spend the public money without too much complaint. To get the support they decided the best way was to have a French driver succeeding in F1.

Now Ro Go I believe is Swiss or something but flies under a French flag on race day.

Now you tell me would Ro Go be in the seat if he was managed by someone else and wasn't flying under a French flag? I don't think so TBH .

As for Massa I don't think I commented.

As for the money I have used that as one example (Well many examples) Because that is probably the most likely cause of drivers getting hired over talent.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
ashley313 wrote:
We've shown you that many drivers have been considered for and got a seat based on things other than their performance. If someone is chosen for a quality OTHER than racing skill, that quality has been deemed more important than racing skill, thus making racing skill NOT the primary element.

What utter garbage. Have you never heard of secondary considerations? Or tie-breakers? You have a very odd view of the world.

You're trying to buy a car, and have very specific criteria in mind for what you want. You've eventually narrowed it down to two models. Same price, similar performance etc, and you're torn between the two. Then dealer A throws in free servicing for a year so you decide to go with him. Does that make the servicing more important than the car? Or does it just make that deal slightly sweeter?

Your posts make no sense at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
As for Johnston, he keeps claiming that money and sponsorship, not driving, are the primary elements when considering a driver, despite the fact that he agreed with me that Grosjean and Massa would be out of a seat if their performances didn't improve. Somewhat of a contradiction there but no surprise.

I did point out to you earlier that Johnston keeps saying that money is the prime factor but once again you ignored that, like anything which shows you have been wrong. At least you are consistent.


Did I ?

I can't remember if it was thread. Pretty sure it was but just incase.

Ro Go is managed by a company that is owned by GENII. Coincidently the same company that owns the team he currently races for. Boullier is also a part of a "Task Force" to get the French GP back (Not sure if that is part of his GENII business or extra curricular) . To get this they want support from the French people so they can spend the public money without too much complaint. To get the support they decided the best way was to have a French driver succeeding in F1.

Now Ro Go I believe is Swiss or something but flies under a French flag on race day.

Now you tell me would Ro Go be in the seat if he was managed by someone else and wasn't flying under a French flag? I don't think so TBH .

As for Massa I don't think I commented.

As for the money I have used that as one example (Well many examples) Because that is probably the most likely cause of drivers getting hired over talent.

Yes, you did.

Small reminder:
Zoue wrote:
Ferrari looked like they might evict Massa until he turned his results around towards the end of his season. Grosjean's future is hanging in the balance because of his crash-happy performances on track. If the teams didn't believe they could get the right results then both would be out of their seats. Or do you disagree?

and your reply:
Johnston wrote:
Of Course both would be out of their seats but neither bring a big lot else to the plate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Well there you go my mistake.

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the paper .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week stores duty, 1 day welding.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class welder who is dyslexic and can't read Stock No.s Or the Satisfactory welder with loads of stores experience?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Well there you go my mistake.

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the paper .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week stores duty, 1 day welding.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class welder who is dyslexic and can't read Stock No.s Or the Satisfactory welder with loads of stores experience?

and the relevance of that is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
and the relevance of that is?



Good things come to those who wait ;)

And answer.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
and the relevance of that is?



Good things come to those who wait ;)

And answer.

I'm hoping the final comment is tongue in cheek as it took me god knows how many requests before you answered my question.

But I'll give it a shot.

I'm assuming you are not concerned with the (illegal) discriminatory factor when considering one candidate's dyslexia?

the information you have provided isn't enough to provide the answers to your questions. For instance, are you looking for a welder with stores experience, or vice versa? Which part of the job is more demanding and requires more expertise? What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view? What assistance will be provided for the potential applicant's dyslexia? Etc etc.

I know you've weighted this (highly improbable) job advert to make out that time spent on one aspect means that that particular aspect is more important, but that's not always the case. Let me give you a counter argument:

I need a salesman for my company, to develop new business for the company. He/she will be spending most of the time initially on the telephone trying to drum up business and make appointments and sales, with a further chunk of the day involved in the inevitable admin and computer skills to record all his/her interactions. On average the day breaks down into 55% phone calls, 35% admin / computer work and 10% visiting clients. Now what would you consider the prime factor of the job, and should I be looking for a telephonist, administrator or salesperson?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Zoue wrote:
I'm hoping the final comment is tongue in cheek as it took me god knows how many requests before you answered my question.

But I'll give it a shot.

I'm assuming you are not concerned with the (illegal) discriminatory factor when considering one candidate's dyslexia?

the information you have provided isn't enough to provide the answers to your questions. For instance, are you looking for a welder with stores experience, or vice versa? Which part of the job is more demanding and requires more expertise? What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view? What assistance will be provided for the potential applicant's dyslexia? Etc etc.

I know you've weighted this (highly improbable) job advert to make out that time spent on one aspect means that that particular aspect is more important, but that's not always the case. Let me give you a counter argument:

I need a salesman for my company, to develop new business for the company. He/she will be spending most of the time initially on the telephone trying to drum up business and make appointments and sales, with a further chunk of the day involved in the inevitable admin and computer skills to record all his/her interactions. On average the day breaks down into 55% phone calls, 35% admin / computer work and 10% visiting clients. Now what would you consider the prime factor of the job, and should I be looking for a telephonist, administrator or salesperson?


One it's not illegal. It's not discrimination.

But no you haven't answered the questions.

It's easy, the options are

Part a) Which is the primary factor?

Welding 1 day a week

Or

Stores 4 days a week

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part b) Who gets the job?

The guy who is better at stores and a satisfactory welder for the job.

OR

The guy who is a better welder but totally useless at stores.


----------------------------------------------------------

As for Welding and

Quote:
What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There is only one type of good weld. Whether it's in view or not. A peaky looking weld is a peaky weld. However a good looking one doesn't always stick. You need both to do a good weld.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 8435
Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I'm hoping the final comment is tongue in cheek as it took me god knows how many requests before you answered my question.

But I'll give it a shot.

I'm assuming you are not concerned with the (illegal) discriminatory factor when considering one candidate's dyslexia?

the information you have provided isn't enough to provide the answers to your questions. For instance, are you looking for a welder with stores experience, or vice versa? Which part of the job is more demanding and requires more expertise? What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view? What assistance will be provided for the potential applicant's dyslexia? Etc etc.

I know you've weighted this (highly improbable) job advert to make out that time spent on one aspect means that that particular aspect is more important, but that's not always the case. Let me give you a counter argument:

I need a salesman for my company, to develop new business for the company. He/she will be spending most of the time initially on the telephone trying to drum up business and make appointments and sales, with a further chunk of the day involved in the inevitable admin and computer skills to record all his/her interactions. On average the day breaks down into 55% phone calls, 35% admin / computer work and 10% visiting clients. Now what would you consider the prime factor of the job, and should I be looking for a telephonist, administrator or salesperson?


One it's not illegal. It's not discrimination.

But no you haven't answered the questions.

It's easy, the options are

Part a) Which is the primary factor?

Welding 1 day a week

Or

Stores 4 days a week

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part b) Who gets the job?

The guy who is better at stores and a satisfactory welder for the job.

OR

The guy who is a better welder but totally useless at stores.


----------------------------------------------------------

As for Welding and

Quote:
What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

There is only one type of good weld. Whether it's in view or not. A peaky looking weld is a peaky weld. However a good looking one doesn't always stick. You need both to do a good weld.

notice you made no attempt to answer mine...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Thats because I am still waiting on your good self answering mine.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ACC1988, Amon, AndyM77, Blinky McSquinty, carlisimo, Guia, Herb, inky38, Jezza13, mikeyg123, P-F1 Mod, RunningMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group