Jackie Stewart F1 legends question (aka is F1 too safe)

[schick]

bhallg2k... mentions the influence of karting on todays crop of drivers, which IMO, is absolutely correct, to witness the intensity of a Senna attack was awe inspiring, relentless, ferocious, and highly skilled, whereas the Jimmy Clark, Stirling Moss, Fangio, era was very much a car related era, and reputations were "hard" earned, if you were a twat like Pastor or a Patrese you were sorted very quickly. Todays drivers IMO, are every bit as skilled if not better than the oldies, but the tracks have been made user friendly for obvious commercial reasons, and the cars could be loosely termed big karts with aero packages, but, to be a winner still requires consumate skill,and most of all courage. Nobody can question the courage of Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi, Vettel, in other words the #1's, the rest have there days.

[Stradivarius]

I'll disagree.

These guys in the unsafe era did not hold back from pushing to the limit.

Fear was nowhere near the factor you're thinking it was. Most of these guys turned to racing because they were looking to live life on the limit, not hold back. There was nothing else they could go to get their thrills other than to go racing.

I would also argue the inverse. It was more difficult to reach the highest level back then because if you were really conscious of the possibility that you could be killed in a race on any given race weekend, you were psychologically done. It's a lot harder to reach a high performance level when the risk is such that you can be killed in the blink of an eye...so even though you may think you are willing to push to the limit, subconsciously you are holding back so you can remain in the realm of the living. It was a sport for men, not children.

You speak of the psychological factor yourself. Whether you call this "fear" or "subconsciously holding back" is not really relevant to my argument. The point is that when drivers had to cope with this psychological factor, so did all their competitors. If a driver coped better with this than the other competitors, he would have an advantage. If the same driver had competed under today's conditions, he would loose that advantage and get beaten by drivers whose skills were more directed towards controlling the car on the limit without the influence of the psychological factor (which I still choose to call fear).

When speaking of how difficult it is to become the best at something, there are only two ways to measure this in an objective way that makes sense. One way is to look at the statistical probability of success, i.e. the number of drivers who reaches the top, divided by the totalt number of drivers (number of people who tries to reach the top as drivers). The other way to measure the difficulty is simply looking at the effort that had to be put in by the competitors to perform at the top level, f.eks. the amount of practice and so on. There is no doubt that today's drivers are superior to Moss and his likes in this respect.

I would wager perhaps 90% of the current grid would have been unable to compete in those eras of F1 simply because when you are whipping past trees and armco barriers in a car surrounded by petrol that can easily ignite upon shunt in excess of 180MPH, the prism in which you see the world changes quickly. Today's drivers do not have that daredevil factor the drivers decades ago had. They love racing yes, but they don't do it for the same reasons drivers back then did it.

How many of them would be willing to take part in the suicidal endurance races of that time period? Somehow I can't really fathom a lot of them willing to blast off into the Italian countryside at deadly speeds the way Stirling Moss did at the Mille Miglia? Nor could I see them even going near something like the Carrera Panamericana.

I agree with you, but this is a completely different matter. Today's drivers would of course struggle under the conditions of the old day's formula 1, since they have been chosen by the teams based on their skills under the current conditions. And in the same way Moss would struggle in modern formula 1 due to his lack of fitness. If dangers was a stronger element of formula 1, there would be other drivers that were chosen to race. There are a lot of daredevils now adays, so there is no reason to believe that the drivers' bravery wouldn't be related to the risk involved.

If driver A wins a series which involves a lot of risk and driver B wins a series which is very safe, I don't really think it makes sense to say that one driver is better than the other based on the qualities needed in each series. They both possess the qualities necessary to perform well at what they do, and there is no objective way of saying that one thing is more difficult than the other. It's like comparing triathlon with playing chess in terms of difficulty. But it would make sense to make a comparison based on objective criteria like success rate and dedication required.

[strad]

And in the same way Moss would struggle in modern formula 1 due to his lack of fitness.

You're kidding right?
It was Moss who invented being in good shape..No smoking or drinking, plenty of rest...He was at the forefront of a fit racing driver.

[SeijaKessen]

You speak of the psychological factor yourself. Whether you call this "fear" or "subconsciously holding back" is not really relevant to my argument. The point is that when drivers had to cope with this psychological factor, so did all their competitors. If a driver coped better with this than the other competitors, he would have an advantage. If the same driver had competed under today's conditions, he would loose that advantage and get beaten by drivers whose skills were more directed towards controlling the car on the limit without the influence of the psychological factor (which I still choose to call fear).

You said , "When Stirling Moss was driving, he might have been held back a little bit by fear. But that was also the case for his competitors who had to face the same fear, so it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now."

You're the one who argued these guys were held by back fear.

I told you most drivers of Stirling's day chose to race because they wanted the thrill and the risk.

You also said it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now.

I stated that getting to the top level was more difficult because of the risk involved, and anyone who dwelled on the risk was never going to last.

When speaking of how difficult it is to become the best at something, there are only two ways to measure this in an objective way that makes sense. One way is to look at the statistical probability of success, i.e. the number of drivers who reaches the top, divided by the totalt number of drivers (number of people who tries to reach the top as drivers). The other way to measure the difficulty is simply looking at the effort that had to be put in by the competitors to perform at the top level, f.eks. the amount of practice and so on. There is no doubt that today's drivers are superior to Moss and his likes in this respect.

You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

[strad]

You said , "When Stirling Moss was driving, he might have been held back a little bit by fear. But that was also the case for his competitors who had to face the same fear, so it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now."

You're the one who argued these guys were held by back fear.

I told you most drivers of Stirling's day chose to race because they wanted the thrill and the risk.

You also said it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now.

I stated that getting to the top level was more difficult because of the risk involved, and anyone who dwelled on the risk was never going to last.




You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

.
Can't argue with any of that..People look at Gonzales or Fangio and think they were fat, they did carry a little extra avoirdupois, they needed it. You darn sure wouldn't have wanted any of them to grab hold of you,,,they were strong and darn sure didn't wilt like so many of today's pamper boy toys with their cool suits..it took shear strength to manhandle those cars without power steering.
I also concur about the thrill seeking aspect. I have heard many times from many drivers that danger be damned they would have paid to be able to race. Many were back from or had survived the War and needed to filled an adrenaline deficit.

[Richard]

You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

That's a product of the racing format. Nowadays each series has a full season so drivers don't have the free time to hop from one format to another. If Moss or Fangio was in this generation they'd only race in F1, or whatever format best suited them.

[strad]

You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

That's a product of the racing format. Nowadays each series has a full season so drivers don't have the free time to hop from one format to another. If Moss or Fangio was in this generation they'd only race in F1, or whatever format best suited them.

Well I think in large part it has to do with those contract clauses that say you can't do anything where you might get hurt and not be able to fulfill your F1 contract. Some have said they would like it others are on record as not liking the idea. Also a large factor back then was money. F1 didn't pay squat, I remember being upset as much as Phil that Enzo would not pay Hill more than $10,000 a year when Hill wanted a raise after winning the championship, so they had to race in the Tasman, at Indy or Le Mans even the Carnival of Speed in the Bahamas to supplement their income, AND to fill that need for speed.

[SeijaKessen]

You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

That's a product of the racing format. Nowadays each series has a full season so drivers don't have the free time to hop from one format to another. If Moss or Fangio was in this generation they'd only race in F1, or whatever format best suited them.

Well, unless their contract stipulated it, I'm not so sure Moss or Fangio would have only raced in F1 today.

Keep in mind, Moss was the guy who drove a year, or two year old F1 car just because he got pleasure out of beating guys racing with the newest cars in his older car. Obviously you can't do that today, but this is a guy who loved racing and winning more than anything. For some guys the thrill/joy of winning means more than all the money in the world.

[SeijaKessen]

.
Can't argue with any of that..People look at Gonzales or Fangio and think they were fat, they did carry a little extra avoirdupois, they needed it. You darn sure wouldn't have wanted any of them to grab hold of you,,,they were strong and darn sure didn't wilt like so many of today's pamper boy toys with their cool suits..it took shear strength to manhandle those cars without power steering.
I also concur about the thrill seeking aspect. I have heard many times from many drivers that danger be damned they would have paid to be able to race. Many were back from or had survived the War and needed to filled an adrenaline deficit.

Agreed.

It's becoming forgotten nowadays, just how much physical effort was required to drive race cars back then. There seems to be this assumption that the cars were easy to throw around in the same manner they are today, when it was extremely difficult to handle those cars.

[Stradivarius]

You speak of the psychological factor yourself. Whether you call this "fear" or "subconsciously holding back" is not really relevant to my argument. The point is that when drivers had to cope with this psychological factor, so did all their competitors. If a driver coped better with this than the other competitors, he would have an advantage. If the same driver had competed under today's conditions, he would loose that advantage and get beaten by drivers whose skills were more directed towards controlling the car on the limit without the influence of the psychological factor (which I still choose to call fear).

You said , "When Stirling Moss was driving, he might have been held back a little bit by fear. But that was also the case for his competitors who had to face the same fear, so it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now."

You're the one who argued these guys were held by back fear.

I was refering to Moss's own statement which was quoted here earlier: "To race a car through a turn at maximum speed, is difficult", but to race a car at maximum speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other - Ah, that's an achievement." The only reason I can think of that would make it more of an achivement to race a car at maximym speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other, is that the driver in addition to control the car, needs to control his fear, i.e. cope with the knowledge that if he makes a mistake, his life might end there and and then. You have actually written pretty much the same thing: "It's a lot harder to reach a high performance level when the risk is such that you can be killed in the blink of an eye."

The problem with this statement is that "a high performance level" is a relatice term. Racing is all about going quicker than your current opponents. That means if a brick wall makes it more difficult for you to go quick, it should also make it more difficult for your opponents to go quick. Thus, the brick wall won't make it more difficult for you to go faster than your oponents. This is really quite simple. In the same way, it isn't more difficult for an athlete to win a 3 000 m hurdles race, than to win an 800 m race. Of course, you get more tired by running 3 km rather than 800 m. And it requires some extra effort to jump the hurdles. But the difficulty is decided by what you have to do in order to win and that is entirely dependant on how your opponents perform. Since your opponents have to jump the same hurdles as you do, the hurdles don't make it any more difficult to perform at a high level.

The same argument also makes it pointless to discuss how easy or difficult the cars were to drive compared to now. Of course, the cars nowadays are behaving much better and everything is optimized in order to allow the driver to control it with the least ammount of effort. But this doesn't matter as long as you are competing against other drivers with similar equipment. If power-steering makes it easier for the driver to go quick, it also makes it easier for his opponents to go quick, and hence, it doesn't make it easier to win. With that being said, there is no doubt that the fitness level of f1-drivers today is higher than it was in the earlier years.

I told you most drivers of Stirling's day chose to race because they wanted the thrill and the risk.

You also said it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now.

I stated that getting to the top level was more difficult because of the risk involved, and anyone who dwelled on the risk was never going to last.

Applying simple logic, wouldn't that mean that it was easier for those who didn't swell on the risk? I mean, the number of competitors they had to beat was massively reduced by the fact that anyone who dwelled on the risk wasn't going to last.

You are aware that many of the drivers like Stirling were great across multiple race disciplines? Their skill went beyond F1/open-wheel racing. I can't say the same for anyone on the grid right now.

This would actually indicate that the absolute performance level was lower. Normally, the specialist is better than the non-specialized contender. If you look at the best triathletes, you will see that generally they run slower than the best marathon athletes, they bicycle slower than the best cyclists, and they swim slower than the best swimmers. If you are the best across multiple disciplines, it indicates that either there are no real specialists, or that the level of the specialists is low.

[SeijaKessen]

I was refering to Moss's own statement which was quoted here earlier: "To race a car through a turn at maximum speed, is difficult", but to race a car at maximum speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other - Ah, that's an achievement." The only reason I can think of that would make it more of an achivement to race a car at maximym speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other, is that the driver in addition to control the car, needs to control his fear, i.e. cope with the knowledge that if he makes a mistake, his life might end there and and then. You have actually written pretty much the same thing: "It's a lot harder to reach a high performance level when the risk is such that you can be killed in the blink of an eye."

That assumes the driver has any fear. You're working under this assumption every driver raced with fear, which most of them did not.

Try and understand that if fear was a concern for someone looking to go into racing as a profession in 1950, they were probably never going to make it to a high level.

My statement regarding it being harder to reach a high performance level deals with modern drivers who are not exposed to any sort of risk. The guys who reached high performance levels back then had no fear. People who had fear were not going to make it to Formula 1.

The problem with this statement is that "a high performance level" is a relatice term. Racing is all about going quicker than your current opponents. That means if a brick wall makes it more difficult for you to go quick, it should also make it more difficult for your opponents to go quick. Thus, the brick wall won't make it more difficult for you to go faster than your oponents. This is really quite simple. In the same way, it isn't more difficult for an athlete to win a 3 000 m hurdles race, than to win an 800 m race. Of course, you get more tired by running 3 km rather than 800 m. And it requires some extra effort to jump the hurdles. But the difficulty is decided by what you have to do in order to win and that is entirely dependant on how your opponents perform. Since your opponents have to jump the same hurdles as you do, the hurdles don't make it any more difficult to perform at a high level.

I'm sorry, but this paragraph makes no sense.

Racing is about going consistently quicker than your opponent as opposed to just going quicker.

A brick wall being near the track in a corner may cause you to be slower through the corner than your opponent. Just because it makes it more difficult for you to go quick, does not mean it will make it more difficult for someone else to go quicker than you. Just as if, the brick wall may be more difficult for your opponent, it may not be as difficult for you to go quick.

You also overlook the fact that the great drivers...when people are coming off the throttle in certain areas, they are pushing the throttle all the way down.

What is difficult to one person, is not necessarily difficult to another. Damon Hill for example said he would lift slightly on the throttle when going through the Tamburello at Imola whereas Senna did not lift at all; he kept his foot planted.

The same argument also makes it pointless to discuss how easy or difficult the cars were to drive compared to now. Of course, the cars nowadays are behaving much better and everything is optimized in order to allow the driver to control it with the least ammount of effort. But this doesn't matter as long as you are competing against other drivers with similar equipment. If power-steering makes it easier for the driver to go quick, it also makes it easier for his opponents to go quick, and hence, it doesn't make it easier to win. With that being said, there is no doubt that the fitness level of f1-drivers today is higher than it was in the earlier years.

The fitness factor is a BOGUS argument.

If you gave every driver then the knowledge that exists now regarding training regimens, they would have had the same level of fitness drivers today have.

See it's like this.

Everyone touting the modern drivers all being better all say, "Well, ya know if they grew up when the Clarks and Fangios of the world did, then they would have had all those skill sets, and thought processes." Yet it's ok to throw it out there perpetually about the fitness and everything else under the sun.

How about this.

We leave everyone in the era they grew up in.

A friend of mine saw Stirling Moss and Juan Fangio race in person. He said the really unfortunate thing about people nowadays, is they have little to no appreciation for how great these guys were. They would rather spend their time bringing them down to a level of a midfield driver, or try to make it look as if they could not compete beyond their era.

This would actually indicate that the absolute performance level was lower. Normally, the specialist is better than the non-specialized contender. If you look at the best triathletes, you will see that generally they run slower than the best marathon athletes, they bicycle slower than the best cyclists, and they swim slower than the best swimmers. If you are the best across multiple disciplines, it indicates that either there are no real specialists, or that the level of the specialists is low.

Really?

You assume too much that car racing is the equivalent of pure athletic endeavors.

There's a reason the greats were great at everything they did.

[strad]

SeijaKessen, you should just drop it. Guys like him aren't here for a real discussion or dialog, they are only in it for the arguing. IF you and others were to be all about how great today's drivers are, he'd be on about how great Nuvolari was...Just wants the arguement and definitely doesn't want to reach any resolution on it.

[SeijaKessen]

SeijaKessen, you should just drop it. Guys like him aren't here for a real discussion or dialog, they are only in it for the arguing. IF you and others were to be all about how great today's drivers are, he'd be on about how great Nuvolari was...Just wants the arguement and definitely doesn't want to reach any resolution on it.

I agree.

His whole post has nothing to do with making any real points other than taking an opposite opinion. Actually each post has become more convoluted and indecipherable as he takes on lunatic positions.

[schick]

Semantics pure semantics, I'm old enough to have seen Moss drive, and believe me he was bloody impressive, especially at Longford Tasmania, F1 drivers of today would flatly refuse to race (I don't blame them). Without doubt the most impressive spectacle I have witnessed was Jochen Rindt across the causeway at Warwick Farm, NSW, unbelievable!, everyone else including Stewart (BRM), Clarke, Brabham were lifting....not Jochen... he won the race. I met Fangio in Melbourne at a corporate function, a most unlikely looking F1 driver, they didn't call him the "Pampus Bull" for nothing. I have been an avid F1 fan for more years than I care to remember, but IMO, Ayrton had it all.

[Stradivarius]

Just to make it clear: I consider fear as a continuous variable. It is not something you either have or don't have, it is something that everyone has, but in different degrees. The lowest of these degrees would be zero, and for the sake of the argument, there could very well be some drivers who didn't experience fear at all. But when Moss points out that it was a difference dependant on whether or not there was a brick wall on the side of the track, it seems obvious to me that the degree of fear wasn't 0 for for all the drivers, because then the brick wall wouldn't have made any difference.

Another point where I feel that I am being misinterpreted, is that I am not trying to take anything away from the old drivers. Of course, driving in formula 1 in the 50s until the early 70s required more courage than is necessary today. And I understand very well that this makes them more admirable to many people. The only thing I am trying to point out is that this doesn't mean it is easier to become a champion today than it was before. In order to win a competition, you have to beat your opponents, and adding a brick wall next to the track will of course make some drivers lift off, but it won't make it more difficult to win all together. For those who lifts off it will of course be more difficult. But for those who don't lift off, it will be equally easier. They will gain exactly the same ammount of time that the others loose.

If you get a stop & go penalty in the race, it will make it more difficult for you to win. But if everyone gets a stop & go penalty, it won't. Is it more difficult to win a race when it's raining compared to when it's dry? No, it isn't. Racing in the wet will make different demands from the driver and some drivers may be relatively stronger in the wet, while others may be relatively weaker in the wet. But that doesn't change the difficulty level. Only one driver can win in both cases. In order to win you have to be the fastest one, no matter the conditions.

What is more difficult: To win at Silverstone, or to win at Monaco? To win a poker tournament, or a chess tournament? To win a marathon or to win a decathlon? To win a gokart race or to win a golf competition? To win an f1 race with brick walls next to the track, or to win an f1 race without any brick walls next to the track? It's obviously not possible to give any answers to these questions that makes sense. It all comes down to the level of your opponents. If we speak of world championships, one could argue that everything is equally difficult. You'll have to be the best in the world in order to win no matter what the competition is.

Now, what is most impressive? That is a totally different storry. You could well argue that it is more impressive to win at Monaco than to win at Silverstone, because of the walls close to the track. This comes down to subjective judgement. But then, there will also be those who thinks it is more impressive to win at Silverstone than to win at Monaco, for example due to the higher speeds, and no one could say they are wrong. It's simply a matter of opinion and nothing else. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being more impressed by Stirling Moss than by Fernando Alonso.