Is racing in the genes?

[Graz]

Just something that came up on another thread that probably deserves a thread in its own right: history tends to prove racing is not necessarily in the genes. Sons of famous fathers who have raced have to date not generally been as good or succesful as their fathers. Nico Roberg looks like he might change this. What do others think of this generally?

[MrTTraces]

Marc Gene and his brother Jordi Gene both race so yes racing is in the genes.

[Rockmunky]

Ralf Schumacher.....

[BootsOntheSide]

I think the frequency of multiple drivers from one family all racing is due more to nurture than nature. When a relative races while you are growing up, you are exposed to it early, get to meet the right people, and your name inspires potential sponsorship and other support. You also get more allowances for poor performances for a while; people want to believe that you can keep the Schumacher/Andretti/Rosberg/Fittipaldi legacy going (this isn't aimed as a dig at any of those drivers, just a general observation). For example, John Button didn't race at a particularly high level, or in anything really resembling Formula One, but his support and enthusiasm rubbed off on his son. Indeed, Jenson and Jarno Trulli were both given motorsport-related names.

[Super Hans]

I agree with Boots. Sons of racing drivers are likely to have more opportunities to get involved in racing than the average Joe.

It always makes me wonder - Every child gets to try football in their youth, and therefore any child with a world-class natural talent is likely to reach the top. In motorsport, on the other hand, only a tiny fraction of children ever get to try it, so it's quite conceivable the the most naturally talented racing driver in the world has never actually turned a wheel in anger.

[Knowlesy]

Yep, people often say the greatest driver on earth is probably driving a milk float in Bombay. We just don't know it!

[ralf fan]

I think a lot of it is in the genes. The hand eye coordination, ability to learn tracks, bravery, instict for how fast a corner can be taken etc. All this is a waste without driving a car around in races for years before f1. As with anything in life IMO, it is a case of nature and nurture.

[Alex Hodgkinson]

We need some examples here. So, let's list some pretty sucessful racing drivers/riders who are from the same gene pool:

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

Michael Schumacher - Ralf Schumacher (well, he isn't a Rosset is he?!)

Graham Hill - Damon Hill

Manuel Fangio - Manuel Fangio III (nephew of the great man, won LOTS of stuff stateside)

Guy Edwards - Sean Edwards

Graziano Rossi - Valentino Rossi

Ron Haslam - Leon Haslam (plus all of Ron's brothers)

Marc Gene - Jordi Gene

Jack Brabham - David, Gary & Geoff Brabham

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

Now, some drivers who in no way could match their relations talent...

**enter here**

[f1manoz]

Having a father / uncle / even brother who races or participates in any type of sport opens that world up to the son / nephew etc and usually the protege is either pushed or is willing to give that sport a crack as well.

[jedrinck]

Originally Posted by MrTTraces

Marc Gene and his brother Jordi Gene both race so yes racing is in the genes.

Exactly! Well observed!

[davyboy]

There are many cases where family members have been very successful at motorsport, but there are probably just as many that haven't. There's probably an evens chance of it working out or not.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Yep, people often say the greatest driver on earth is probably driving a milk float in Bombay. We just don't know it!

*sing* 'They call him Sinji and he drives the fastest milk float in the east'.

[Bononi]

He's not Sinji... but Tin Sin Ji.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by MrTTraces

Marc Gene and his brother Jordi Gene both race so yes racing is in the genes.

Very good! I didn't get this initially. Very sharp my friend

[Graz]

Originally Posted by Alex Hodgkinson

We need some examples here. So, let's list some pretty sucessful racing drivers/riders who are from the same gene pool:

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

Michael Schumacher - Ralf Schumacher (well, he isn't a Rosset is he?!)

Graham Hill - Damon Hill

Manuel Fangio - Manuel Fangio III (nephew of the great man, won LOTS of stuff stateside)

Guy Edwards - Sean Edwards

Graziano Rossi - Valentino Rossi

Ron Haslam - Leon Haslam (plus all of Ron's brothers)

Marc Gene - Jordi Gene

Jack Brabham - David, Gary & Geoff Brabham

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

Now, some drivers who in no way could match their relations talent...

**enter here**

Just want to give my own opinions on your examples. Go easy on me, it's only 'IMO...'

In fairness, Ralf is no Michael and would he have got there if he was called anything other than Ralf Schumacher?

Graham and Damon - G was way better than D surely?

Fangio 1 & 2 - no comparison. 2 was a good IMSA driver at best in the best car at the time

The Edwards and Gene's - none of them were world beaters to begin with

The Rossi's - Agreed (see? I am fair!!)

Not sure if Leon is as good as Ron. Leon will have to go to MotoGP and see how it goes from there. Ron didn't win in bike GP but had a really strong year in 87 ish when on a proper Honda. Jury out on Leo but there is still time.

Brabhams - again, no comparision IMO. Geoff dominated IMSA for a couple of seasons, again in the best car. Gary won the F3 season in possibly a year bereft of great talent? David - a good sportscar driver. Jack - 3 times F1 world champion...

Agreed Ralf is no Rosset but he's no Michael Schumacher either is he? He is no better though than any other J.O urneyman who has been and gone. This is the point I'm trying to get at.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by davyboy

There are many cases where family members have been very successful at motorsport, but there are probably just as many that haven't. There's probably an evens chance of it working out or not.

I wouldn't quite agree. If a father or sibling has been involved, yes there is more chance another family member will get involved. Narrow it down to successful fathers/siblings, less than evens have been at least or more succsessful? Come on guys, some examples (let's be having you as a great chef once said) - this is my first thread and I'm excited about it. let's make it last and I'm perfectly willing to eat humble pie!

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Graz

Agreed Ralf is no Rosset but he's no Michael Schumacher either is he? He is no better though than any other J.O urneyman who has been and gone. This is the point I'm trying to get at.

Of course Ralf is not as good as Michael, but taking motorsport as a whole, it still takes an exceptional talent to reach F1 and win Grands Prix.

Arguing that motorsport isn't in the genes because one multiple Grand Prix winner isn't as good as his multiple Grand Prix winning older brother is rather odd. Surely the fact that two brothers reached the pinnacle of the sport is more of an argument for the other side?

[Bononi]

Certainly there are something in the genes that are in common, maybe the attraction for speed or something like that, but the talent is unique and not inheritable by the genes. But no doubt that the environment is the most responsible for families members to have the same goals and preferences.

[Graz]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Of course Ralf is not as good as Michael, but taking motorsport as a whole, it still takes an exceptional talent to reach F1 and win Grands Prix.

Arguing that motorsport isn't in the genes because one multiple Grand Prix winner isn't as good as his multiple Grand Prix winning older brother is rather odd. Surely the fact that two brothers reached the pinnacle of the sport is more of an argument for the other side?

Agreed but Micheal won 90, odd GP's some of which in a car not worthy of winning. Ralf won, what, single digit GP wins in a car that could have won the championship? You could argue that the early 2000's Williams was a world beater. Again, I want to look at this in perspective vis a vis fathers/siblings...using your example of Ralf, would he have got to F1 if his second name was other than Schumacher? What had he achieved before F1 worthy of a F1 drive over other junior championship winners? There are drivers who never got achieve their full potential (right through the ages) purely on financial grounds but would have murdered the Ralf Scumacher types.

Also in this day and age it doesn't take exceptional talent to reach F1 - Lavaggi, Rosset, Gounon, Raphanel, Ito, Nakano etc. etc. were not exceptional talents but had a bundle of cash - a good substute to a strong surname.

[Born Racer]

With no disrespect meant to anyone, I can't believe it's even in question. Of course it must be in the genes. The sheer number of father/sons or brothers in top-flight racing is enough to show that.

Sons of famous fathers who have raced have to date not generally been as good or succesful as their fathers.

But there are still many who have got as far as the top level. Gary Brabham for instance might not be as good as Jack, but he's still pretty damn good in comparison to the average Joe Bloggs who would be hopelessly off the pace in an F1 car.

[Born Racer]

I think the frequency of multiple drivers from one family all racing is due more to nurture than nature.

Nurture gets the son/brother/pet dog of the famous driver as far as top-level motorsport, but there must be something extra that makes them not anywhere near as slow as the average person on the street would be if they had hypothetically followed the same career path (and I believe the average person on the street would be slow in comparison).

Incidentally, all the dogs who've got that far were rubbish and should never have been given sponsorship just because they had novelty value.

[orrmate]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

It always makes me wonder - Every child gets to try football in their youth, and therefore any child with a world-class natural talent is likely to reach the top. In motorsport, on the other hand, only a tiny fraction of children ever get to try it, so it's quite conceivable the the most naturally talented racing driver in the world has never actually turned a wheel in anger.

Thats a good point, and I'm experiencing the frustration of it first hand. It isn't just the money issue, the even bigger problem is family approval. If your family don't back you in your efforts, or believe or understand what you are trying to do, like mine, you've simply got no chance until you leave home. My biggest barrier isn't money, its the fact that I've got no way of actually getting to the races until I get my drivers licence, then get the car, before I can even voulenteer at a race team or start racing itself. I don't think this makes it impossible by any means, I still honestly believe that I have what it takes make it to F1 one day, it just means alot of sacrifice and hard work, and you have to just try to keep your head up. Very few people have the mindset to stick with it I think, if they don't have that guidance and support from their family, especially during their teenage years.

So no, I wouldn't say its in the genes. But I'd say that having a family who are experienced with motor racing and want you to succeed is a huge help.

[Born Racer]

Agreed Ralf is no Rosset but he's no Michael Schumacher either is he? He is no better though than any other J.O urneyman who has been and gone. This is the point I'm trying to get at.

But I imagine Ralf is still verytalented compared to "the man on the street"/Joe Bloggs.

Also in this day and age it doesn't take exceptional talent to reach F1 - Lavaggi, Rosset, Gounon, Raphanel, Ito, Nakano etc. etc. were not exceptional talents but had a bundle of cash - a good substute to a strong surname.

They are still quite exceptional compared to the aforementioned Mr Bloggs though.

but the talent is unique and not inheritable by the genes.

I'm not sure what you're reaching this conclusion based on. I would say that talent is not a single aspect- it is a combination of an astronomical number of things that make up innate skills at something. And history strongly suggests that where there has been a successful driver, his family members are sometimes blessed with a decent number of these 'things' that make up a certain percentage of the original successful driver's talent.

Surely the fact that two brothers reached the pinnacle of the sport is more of an argument for the other side?

I guess it might be. If there were some hypothetical talentometer that could be used to work out a range of skills that make up racing/driving talent, then a statistician may be able to work out the average number of people in the world with a potential degree of talent, and then look at instances of racing dynasties or at least father/son, brother/brother situations in professional motorsport, and work out if that proves that there's a large amount of nature at work.

But I don't know if you could work it out and it hurts my head at 3am to think about it! Besides, I think working out what constitutes talent would be the hardest bit of that. I suppose a key criterion would be pure speed. People generally accept that racecraft can be learned to a certain extent, but no amount of practice will ever make the average Joe Bloggs able to once pull off as quick a lap time as Michael Schumacher can.

My concluding point for now shall be, yes, nurture gets them into motorsport, but many of these lesser talented family members who get to a high level in motorsport clearly demonstrate that they still have a huge amount of natural talent. And for me, I'm pretty damn convinced that there's enough of these examples about to demonstrate that talent, or a combination of aspects that might be said to make up talent, is inheritable.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Graz

I wouldn't quite agree. If a father or sibling has been involved, yes there is more chance another family member will get involved. Narrow it down to successful fathers/siblings, less than evens have been at least or more succsessful? Come on guys, some examples (let's be having you as a great chef once said) - this is my first thread and I'm excited about it. let's make it last and I'm perfectly willing to eat humble pie!

OK... let me rephrase my point in another way because maybe I wasn't clear first time around. How many successful drivers out there have had no other family become involved in the sport ? Lots. Are they all only children ? I doubt it. Have they all had no offspring ? Unlikely.

So it would seem there are many situations where family members of successful drivers have not gotten involved in the sport at all, which means they've not been successful. Could they have been successful if they had been involved ? We don't really know.

[EERO]

Crikey, have we forgotten the Andrretti's, the Stucks? The Ascari's?

How about Villeneuves, pere et fils?

Mark and David Donahue.

The Speraficos (Sperifici?)

Petty's
Unsers.
Waltrips

The real question is whehter it is genetic or whether kids spend so much time at the track and race driverss, being a competitive bunch, are encouraged to race if they show any interest.

But skill?

It's genetic.