Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
SeijaKessen wrote:But, it's about the thrill with living life on the limit. No different than people who skydive, base jump, or anything else. There is a thrill that comes from pushing to the limit of life and death that safe sports cannot provide.
Keep in mind though, he comes from a different era where danger in motor racing was perfectly acceptable.
The thrill you are talking about is from the sportsman's point of view and not from the spectators. In no sport will a spectator enjoy watching the sportsperson lose life or limb.
I agree with Moss. Danger was a part of Formula 1 that attracted the spectators and the drivers to the sport. In the 50s and 60s you had to have balls to drive the cars, not sponsors with big bank accounts.
@vikram_d: If you don't like the fact that in a sport there is a chance to die, you are free to watch other things. The fans of a sport love it as it is, not as they would want it to be.
"...and there, very much in flames, is Jacques Laffite's Ligier. That's obviously a turbo blaze, and of course, Laffite will be able to see that conflagration in his mirrors... he is coolly parking the car somewhere safe."Murray Walker, San Marino 1985
Upon brief reflection, I suppose there's (maybe) a sane way to view this in context.
Advances in F1 safety have surpassed and outlasted advances in F1 performance, and that's a great thing and the equation should never, ever be even remotely skewed to performance over safety. However, F1 could probably stand for the performance side to advance a bit as well. Such is the level of safety these days.
stefan_ wrote:I agree with Moss. Danger was a part of Formula 1 that attracted the spectators and the drivers to the sport. In the 50s and 60s you had to have balls to drive the cars, not sponsors with big bank accounts.
@vikram_d: If you don't like the fact that in a sport there is a chance to die, you are free to watch other things. The fans of a sport love it as it is, not as they would want it to be.
I take it you enjoyed watching Ayrton Senna die? I know i did not.
That being said there is definitely a risk even today in motorsports, but it is not that risk that makes F1 fun. It is the racing.
It's not that people like to see other people die, I don't understand why you take it like that. You enjoy it because it's risky, it's thrilling and dangerous, and there are people brave enough to do it.
"...and there, very much in flames, is Jacques Laffite's Ligier. That's obviously a turbo blaze, and of course, Laffite will be able to see that conflagration in his mirrors... he is coolly parking the car somewhere safe."Murray Walker, San Marino 1985
I think he's trying the say that the cars are not fast enough, instead of the safety being too good. I'd think that safer cars allows Maldonado to stay alive and keep on taking risks
Sir Stirling Moss thinks it is “a shame” that Formula One is so safe today.
“The concept, the whole idea, has changed,” the British legend, who started winning grands prix in the middle of the 50s, said on Austrian Servus TV.
“That’s a shame, because we had fun risking life and limb and that’s gone now, really,” added Moss, 82.
Moss admits that the danger was a key factor in his enjoyment of racing.
“In my opinion, if you don’t want to take risks, play tennis,” he added.
=D>
Not always wise to take any view on attributable comments reported by our headline excitable media, particularly when the context cannot always be clear. However, in my view I don't believe that Stirling would actually be encouraging a return to the risk to life of bygone F1 periods. For example, if you competed continuously in the Formula 1 series from 1968 to 1973 you stood a 2-in-3 chance of dying (Jackie Stewart's view)! So is Mr Moss really saying that he would like to see a return to the period where each driver had a 66% chance of dying in every race competed in?? Enthralling tele-visual??? Somehow I don't think so!
Last edited by sAx on 20 Jul 2012, 16:11, edited 1 time in total.
Among others, let's ask Ayrton Senna, Mike Hawthorne, Gilles Villeneuve, Jochen Rindt, and Alberto Ascari how they feel on the subject.
I may be wrong, but I think it was Ron Dennis who said, had Ayrton known what was going to happen to him, it was unlikely he would have done anything differently.
Mr Dennis also said most recently in Montreal following a win for his team and on the subject of lifelong learning, ".. rather morbidly I believe that the last thing you learn is how to die"! That being Ron's view, I believe that if Senna was aware that this was his final opportunity to learn, he would have opted out of learning to die, as the conversation he held in car with Prost working for French TV seems to suggest, when he formed to line-up on that fatal day.
Humanity spends all of it's time trying to figure out how to stay alive for longer, so it's only natural that the "dangerous things" become less dangerous over time.
I think that we're generally more conscious of the decisions that we make these days, and that ultimately results in everything becoming safer. If that means that in-turn it becomes less exciting, then I guess that's something we will have to live to accept.
The world is moving on, and there is no reason why something like F1 can't move on with it. I think Sir Stirling Moss is correct in his summation, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Innovation in other areas can be just as exciting, it doesn't always have to be about near-death experiences.
Among others, let's ask Ayrton Senna, Mike Hawthorne, Gilles Villeneuve, Jochen Rindt, and Alberto Ascari how they feel on the subject.
They did. You cannot use these people to say that MOSS is wrong for saying it... the day before senna died what happened? that in my mind is kinda asking all the drivers... do you think f1 is safe enough to drive? if you dont think so, don't race, they did... with unfortunate consequences for senna.
I think there should be a certain element of "on the limit"
I don't agree with huge run off areas that look like car parks, drivers should be punished for their mistakes although not with death, advances in carbon fibre safety tubs means that if they bin it on most modern circuits they will walk away and being forgiven for running wide or pushing your luck on the brakes is just a stupid idea.
Note we've also seen footballers in recent years almost dying on the pitch, so things can happen in any sport.
I've always found it interested that Jacques Villeneuve - who's father died racing in F1 - is all for maintaining the danger aspect.
Not that I agree with it for one second. I think your race being punished for running wide (e.g. gravel traps) is good and doesn't seem especially dangerous; but overall safety in F1 is thoroughly positive.
EDIT: Oh, and I loved the "drivers'" opinions - but even more so the presenters'/commentators'!
Among others, let's ask Ayrton Senna, Mike Hawthorne, Gilles Villeneuve, Jochen Rindt, and Alberto Ascari how they feel on the subject.
They did. You cannot use these people to say that MOSS is wrong for saying it... the day before senna died what happened? that in my mind is kinda asking all the drivers... do you think f1 is safe enough to drive? if you dont think so, don't race, they did... with unfortunate consequences for senna.
They know the score, and they love it!
Sure, I can. They're dead. They have absolutely nothing to say about it.
Moss, on the other hand, is a hypocrite. If F1 is much more fun when risking life and limb, why did he retire from racing after an accident put him in a coma for a month? I imagine it's because much like death, comas aren't fun.
Stirling Moss just needs to shut up and be thankful he's old.
Moss is totally correct. The FIA and Charlie Whiting are taking very much a pro active approach to safety and in some areas they have taken unnecessary steps that are a detriment to the spectacle of the sport.
The safety car is over used. It stays out 3 laps longer than necessary after an incident has been cleared. In the wet the situation becomes farcical. It comes out when the track has standing water these days, effectively making running on wets pointless. Instead we are treated to looking at two grumpy middle aged men sliding around inside a Mercedes v8 for 20 minutes. So really we get robbed of seeing who can handle a formula 1 car in those conditions. it is the pinnacle of Motorsport after all.
Current f1 drivers take more risks because they feel there is no danger. And this itself is a danger. F1 drivers these days have little respect for their fellow racers. They trip over each other all the time, not so long ago collisions took place far less often because of the real fear of injuring or killing someone. Everyone was in it together and thus nearly every driver had tremendous respect for each other.
