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

[SeijaKessen]

I don't think a modern F1 car could run flat out around the old Ring cause it couldn't live thru the bumps and the jumps.
And the drivers have said they don't have the balls to have raced in the old days.
In my opinion, not one of todays drivers would drive if they knew they had a 20% chance of dying. They all grew up in an era of being frightened of life let alone dying.

Pretty much my thoughts as well.

Kind of hard to have balls when everything is calculated out in advance for you.

[strad]

Well I had a lengthy response,,But I dare not post it because Richard et al will down vote me for being a cold uncaring bastard because they don't understand and disagree. Proof of the silliness of that system.

[SeijaKessen]

Well I had a lengthy response,,But I dare not post it because Richard et al will down vote me for being a cold uncaring bastard because they don't understand and disagree. Proof of the silliness of that system.

I'd like to hear it at least!

Don't let him stop you.

[strad]

It's not worth it and besides..Most of the cats on here have lived in this cotton packed, ultra safe world so completely that they can't fathom any other way.
Cats like that guy with his Rocky the Flying Squirrel suit must totally mystify them. A willingness to face death for fun is beyond them.
It all started one day when someone said..."If we can save one life it will be worth it."
I hate to burst their bubble, but sometimes it's not.

[Nando]

It's not worth it and besides..Most of the cats on here have lived in this cotton packed, ultra safe world so completely that they can't fathom any other way.

I bet you are one of these "cats". there´s no other explanation for your posts.

People do basejumping knowing that if something isn´t packed right, they will die.
People do racing.. regardless.

Or will you try and convince me that racing driver´s carry a special "fear-gene" that´s been developed since the safety in Motorsport has increased?......

[strad]

It's not worth it and besides..Most of the cats on here have lived in this cotton packed, ultra safe world so completely that they can't fathom any other way.

I bet you are one of these "cats". there´s no other explanation for your posts.

People do basejumping knowing that if something isn´t packed right, they will die.
People do racing.. regardless.

Or will you try and convince me that racing driver´s carry a special "fear-gene" that´s been developed since the safety in Motorsport has increased?......

I don't understand what you mean, but I'm not out to convince anybody of anything or argue with anybody.
I am still entitled to my opinion even if it's not popular.
I think that when people grow up in a certain type of environment, that they can't picture another way.
The same as I couldn't really understand my grandfathers world, youngsters today can't picture a time when safety wasn't of primary importance.

[Richard]

The difference is that base jumping is ONLY possible with a very high probability that accident is highly likely to be fatal. You can say the same for paragliding or mountaineering. There's no safe option, the risk is unavoidable. Motorsport was in that situation 50 years ago.

However, nowadays fatalities in motorsport are largely avoidable. So my reaction to a fatality in the 60's would be "there's no other option", but in 2012 I'd think "that was unnecessary".

I think that underlines the change with Senna's death. It was realisation that we had the technology to run F1 races without people getting killed.

To me, "unnecessary" is the key.

[strad]

Richard, And you see no dramatic change in the make up of the sport? No drastic change in philosophy?
I say that the search for safety has done both. I say it emasculated the sport.
I would guess certain advancements in safety are both inevitable ad desireable, but when even the likes of Jackie Stewart and Niki Lauda agree that it has gone too fa,r I fee I'ml in good company.
BUT...there is No arguement here.
People are free to believe what they wish, and isn't that wonderful.

[timbo]

In my opinion, not one of todays drivers would drive if they knew they had a 20% chance of dying.

Nobody ever raced with a 20% chance of dying.

[Nando]

I don't understand what you mean, but I'm not out to convince anybody of anything or argue with anybody.
I am still entitled to my opinion even if it's not popular.
I think that when people grow up in a certain type of environment, that they can't picture another way.
The same as I couldn't really understand my grandfathers world, youngsters today can't picture a time when safety wasn't of primary importance.

That´s also false. People grow up in nice societies in a calm area then gets called in for war and to kill people.
It has nothing to do with fear of dying or where you grew up. Either you cut it or you don´t.
That goes for every human activity on earth containing life-threatening situations or situations where you know that if something goes wrong the end result is death.

The only thing that has changed since back then has been the perception of how safe the sport is.
Not the mental state of drivers. Which btw, has always been as good as fighter pilots.

[xpensive]

Take a look at the starting grid of Monaco's GP of 1970 when Ronnie made his debut, everybody knew the risks then.

[Richard]

Strad - I agree with you, it is a much more mature & professional sport, along some unwelcome side effects. We see the same in all sports as they get codified and become more professional. We can also see the same happening in all aspects of life from commerce to the arts.

t I see this as the inevitable evolution from child to reckless teenager to mature middle age. We can't hold it back. Where we could find reckless endeavour in F1 in the 60's we now need to look to base jumping.

[SeijaKessen]

Take a look at the starting grid of Monaco's GP of 1970 when Ronnie made his debut, everybody knew the risks then.

If the deaths of Alberto Ascari, Wolfgang Von Trips, and Jimmy Clark did nothing to deter people, it's safe to say nothing ever would have.

If you know what the risks are beforehand, that's all that matters. Whatever happens afterwards is on you.

It doesn't make it less tragic when someone is killed, but at the same time they knew what the stakes were.

Take Senna...he had a few large crashes before Imola, and nothing stopped him. People forget about that huge shunt he had at Paul Ricard in 1985 when he went off at I think 200MPH at the end of the Mistral Straight. It didn't stop him. He was well aware of the dangers well before Ratzenberger's death.

[strad]

Nobody ever raced with a 20% chance of dying.

Really???
at least 11 I can think of in the 60s an 10 off the top of my head in the 70s
What percentage do you figure that is?
Stewart and others have figured it as high as 25%
Back then they rode with death on their shoulder.

[Pierce89]

I don't think a modern F1 car could run flat out around the old Ring cause it couldn't live thru the bumps and the jumps.
And the drivers have said they don't have the balls to have raced in the old days.
In my opinion, not one of todays drivers would drive if they knew they had a 20% chance of dying. They all grew up in an era of being frightened of life let alone dying.

Strad, you know I normally agree with you, but I think Alonso or Hamilton would've strapped into any F1 cockpit, on any grid, in any year. The true racers(i.e. Shumi, Alonso, Webber Hamilton, raikkonen) all have what it takes to do it in any era.