Would Hamilton be able to still win so many races if he is in a Force India car?

he will look like David Coulthard.mayb he will go 1 better than him.but will be smilar to him.

trying to think that Force India is an McLaren ..and causing more accidents..
we may more often would have seen only 10 -12 cars finishing..maybe less too..

but still he will be on podium now and then.and also have many fastest lap...condition-cutting corner be legalised.

unfortunately yes, its mostly about the aerodynamics

No he would not, a good driver needs to be in a good car and team

No Hamilton would not be able to win races in a Force India. Although currently the cars r as close as ever, there is still deficits in performance between cars. There is nothing wrong with this, it is part of the sport. If u want to watch pretty much equal cars go & watch A1GP. F1 is about competition between teams, not solely drivers.

What u have to do is judge each driver is performance against his team mate. This gives u an idea of his capabilities. In some cases drivers can be favoured by teams, but nowadays they will always get equal machinery & engineers to their disposal.

However, in a Force India Lewis Hamilton would outperform Sutil & Fissichella. He would probably rack up a few points. Who knows, in a wet race he may go even further than that. Many Hamilton haters use the excuse that Hamilton has had a seat in a top car from the off. True, but judge his performance against Alonso last year & u see he is an extreme talent.

IMO its a combination of both. you could have a fantastic car, but stick a mediocre driver in it and it wo not get brilliant results. If Lewis was in a Force India he would not be leading the championship now as the team do not yet have a winning car. McLaren and Lewis = winning formula because it is a great car and IMO he is a great driver.

Its a 50/50 split.
The best example l can give is Schumacher in the piss poor '96 Ferrari. He dragged it to 3 wins and 5 poles when it had no place being anywhere.

A good car is flattered by a good driver and vice versa.

.

You're only as good as the equipment you're given, which makes me unassailable unless you're wearing crampons. :)

.

The car is way more important than the driver.

Look at Alonso, he won no races in the Minardi but won a stack in the competitive Renault & McLaren.

I'd say the overal performance is 80% from the car & 20% from the driver. Having said that, u need a decent driver to maximise on the car is potential & not make dumb mistakes.

In the wet it evens things out a bit as u can not use the car is full potential, the power for example But even in the wet it is still something like 70% the car doing the work.

The correct answer would be: is a balance between a good performance car & a good driver that can handle the car. Unfortunately it is not like that in reality. There is a couple of F1 champions that purely won it because their car was the fastest in that season. Senna was one of the few that could be a threat on the race track no matter what he was driving, the same goes to Schumi. In some circumstances this theory of well balanced between car & driver is evident on wet tracks, then skill is the essence. If u r placed 5th or further back & still win the Monaco Grand Prix then l would say it was the skill of the driver because speed is not a big factor there.

well he had to get into formula one without a fabulous car
so yes, definetley.
hes quick-minded and has talent.
hes worked hard for where he is, and truly deserves it.

no is all about the car.. would michel shumocker won in a williams car.no.

aerodynamic is the key for good grip ad a fast car but if you do not know how to set up the car and drive it is worthless

the car plays a huge role in the driver is overall performance. if a car is capbale of winning then the driver should do well, if it is not - then expect nothing. the drivers themselves do have some input but in the end it comes down to the car.