F1 vs. IndyCar

[BSchneiderFan]

Here's a question: how much more physically demanding is Formula 1 than IndyCars? The latter has quite a few drivers in their early forties still performing to a high level, whereas in F1 in most cases you're done by your mid to late thirties. Any thoughts?

[Richard C]

I think the question of the differences with respect to physical demands is a good one. But I don't agree with the assertion or implication that as F1 drivers age that they are unable to maintain the required fitness level which then hasten their exit from F1.

If I was to speculate, and without any real evidence AND with not a lot of conviction on my part, maybe F1 rewards a level of risk taking that only the young who feel invincible are able to do on a regular basis. While Indycar car reward a more learned approach, especially on ovals, that allows those who have decided to not take risks they might have earlier to remain competitive?

Overall, the real question to ask is why racers seem to "age out" long before they really experience the physical limitations of aging. Plus, why does this happen at different ages depending upon the series (F1, Indycar, Prototypes, NASCAR)

Richard

[JABWOA]

Don't know about how much physical demands differ, with the exception of ovals obviously requiring a different technique. I would have said Indy due to the less techy nature. But F1 is far more mentally taxing with all the driver management during a race and the F1 community has put itself on a super high plateau of physical prowess even for the pay drivers.

[steve_r]

I think that there are other reasons why indycar offers longer careers to drivers than F1.

It seems to be a widespread belief that these latest generation of F1 cars are easier to drive than in the past. I'm not sure how this compares with indycar.

I'm pretty sure that if an F1 team was willing to employ an older driver, the right driver would still be competitive. If for example Mark Webber was still available today, I think both would still be pretty competitive. In fact if I were a team boss and money was not an issue, given the choice I would probably employ him over a lot of the current younger drivers out there today.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by steve_r

I think that there are other reasons why indycar offers longer careers to drivers than F1.

I believe this is so.

One is a domestic championship, whilst the other is international with all that that entails. Apart from the constant fitness training that F1 drivers have to undertake, they also have to put up with travelling constantly. Their race weekends usually commence on a Wednesday when they will have to conduct promotional work for their sponsors, plus their training and that's before they have spoken to their engineers.

And some of the drivers may have sponsor commitments, or those of the team, that require them to fly back to Europe when they are in other parts of the world. These things all put huge strains on the driver's wellbeing, plus the fact that it puts huge pressure on their personal lives.

[Razzzor]

Could lack of results come into it? Like Jenson, it's been a long time since his single championship, he could stick around another 5 years but it's unlikely he'll ever win another race with McLaren.

Massa - hasn't won a race in years. Won't ever win a title. Probably won't win a race again as Williams has dropped out of the top 3.

Perhaps some of these guys just decide after 15 years that there's more to life than peddling mid-field without much of a chance at winning.

Indycar, Nascar, they go much older but also have much higher odds at winning. With Rossi winning the Indy 500, there's only a few guys in Indycar that probably can't win (Chilton, Hawksworth) but heck even then you could get a fluke win on an oval or something. Ericsson in the Sauber doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning a race.

Also, sponsorship $$$ could come in it, perhaps the younger promising talent keeps bringing in cash pushing the older generation out (again who are probably not keen on chasing sponsors each year).

[10TENTHS]

Drivers used to be older in F1, Mansell won his championship very late in his career. Teams like to go for the young hotshots now. Button is more than capable of staying put for several more years if he wanted to. Indycar teams are far more conservative in their driver choices (although Montoya's deperature is imminent).

Nothing to do with not being handle the physicality of it, Watkins Glen and Iowa regularly place 5G+ on the Indycar drivers.

[BSchneiderFan]

So it comes down to the nebulous area of psychology. The travel of F1 - especially with a 21-race calendar - must take its toll. In connection with this, I really hope we do see Jenson Button back in 2018; all those triathlons mean he'll likely still be fit enough, even at 38. But something tells me we're seeing the last of him in Formula 1.

It will be interesting to see how much longer Montoya and Castroneves, both 41, have in IndyCars.

[chillibowl]

Maybe the physical fitness level, size zero body type requirement , is what makes it too difficult to maintain post 35ish?

At the least, must get to be a very boring life if you can't grab a sandwich when you are hungry!

[BSchneiderFan]

Well, Schumacher seemed easily fit enough into his 40s. I suppose it's about focus and commitment as much as anything else. If you're doing something for the 300th time, after 17 years, is it really as fresh any more?

[10TENTHS]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Maybe the physical fitness level, size zero body type requirement , is what makes it too difficult to maintain post 35ish

Fortunately other series have ballast rules that don't require you to starve yourself

Button cited the hectic schedule as a detriment to his home\family life so that is a good point, BSchneiderFan.

[BSchneiderFan]

I really would like to see the calendar cut back to around 18 races. I know there's so much pressure for new venues, and on existing races, but 21 races, March to November, is too much.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

I really would like to see the calendar cut back to around 18 races. I know there's so much pressure for new venues, and on existing races, but 21 races, March to November, is too much.

I'd have to agree, and I'm sure many would argue that a couple of Grand Prix could be off the calendar without damaging the sport at all...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by 10TENTHS

Fortunately other series have ballast rules that don't require you to starve yourself .

I am glad someone mentioned this! I don't think this is the answer, but it factors in somewhere.

Richard

[Richard C]

What hinders me the most about commenting upon this is that I just don't follow Indycar. But I will take another stab at this beyond my post above.

I think the short lived careers of F1 drivers has less to do about age eventually catching up than it is the continual search by the teams for the "next great thing". There is some reserved spots for those that all teams place a strong value upon. Hamilton, Alonso and Vettel for example (even if some today wonder if their time is past). And there is also a general desire to have an "experienced" driver. That is your classic journeyman driver. But if teams are not driven by pay drivers and even if they can select from the elite, they are also rolling the dice that someone new is going to be as quick or quicker than the current top of the heap. F1 has a gambling problem IMHO!

If you have lots of money like Red Bull and you have a junior team you can throw a lot of drivers against the wall to see what sticks. Max is the current best example. If seems to work, but also burns through money (and drivers)! Factor in the fact that world wide, F1 would be the #1 series that drivers would pick as their target. So the pool to pull from is effectively bottomless. Imagine what it would look like if some teams were not struggling (pay drivers and/or "safe" driver selection) and could operate like Red Bull!

In Indycar, I "suspect" that while it is a top tier series in the Americas and I believe actually providing great racing now (from what I hear), it struggles to survive and teams are operating on much smaller budgets than F1. While there may be exceptions, they just can't afford to gamble as much as F1 can on unproven drivers. When I say "unproven", I mean unproven in Indycar. So the likelihood of a top team picking someone like a Max is not very high... unless that person was effectively a pay driving bringing their own funding. So that should provide a longer life for experienced drivers. They are a known quantity and maybe even a known quantity from a sponsorship perspective as well. But they also have to deliver or they are gone. Such as the speculation that Montoya is gone soon.

I firmly believe that all things being equal, there seems to be an age related "peak" in a drivers performance. History seems to show drivers who once had something special loose something later in their career. I personally don't think it is all or even primarily driven by fitness levels (for sure it is much later in life). It is something mental and I would love for someone to really study that and provide real data vs. subjective opinions. My own subjective opinion is that many F1 drivers are retired (on their own terms or pushed out by the driver market) earlier than they need to be. I think there is also a bit of self fulfilling prophesy in that if a driver gets pushed out a top team for whatever reason, that it is hard to shine in a non-top team. For example, for all we know Alonso and Button are driving the wheels off the McLaren/Honda, but we can't help but to ask "Are they over the hill?" because we are trained to think that way.

Richard

[Razzzor]

Yes well although there's not way to prove it, I'm sure the Button and Alonso of 2010 would have gotten more out of that McLaren then their 2016 versions. The mention of Schumacher racing into his 40's; however he wasn't exactly the impressive anymore! One podium in three years and often outdone by Rosberg. Schumacher started to slow down in 2001/2002, so he raced 10 years after his peak.

Mansell was older, but drivers started in F1 at an older age back then anyway.

But yes the top teams do appear to be looking for that next great talent at the moment. I think Verstappen has sparked some of that recently, Vettel as well 5 years earlier. In fact, RBR/Toro Rosso is the main team to have sparked it off because they're often going through their young talent and dumping them if they don't do anything amazing.

I remember in the late 90s probably right up till about 2005, thinking F1 really likes to hang on to its older timers! Get some young guns in!

[10TENTHS]

Originally Posted by Razzzor

The mention of Schumacher racing into his 40's; however he wasn't exactly the impressive anymore!

Quick enough to get pole position at Monaco though.

[S griffin]

But also got involved in some very unnecessary accidents, a sign his reactions weren't what they were

I agree that with Indycars, the big thing is that they aren't travelling all over the world, just in North America, which is why their careers go on longer

[BSchneiderFan]

I know I always go back to this, but Bob Wollek had stood down from prototype/GT1 racing before his death on the grounds they were too quick for him. But then, he was in his mid-50s.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

I think it's going to depend on the individual too. The individual has total control over commitment, determination, to a large degree fitness levels, as well as natural measures such as reactions, personality (how they cope with stress, travel, can impact on all of the conscious measures too, such as determination and as a result fitness). Certain individuals have also made particularly shrewd career decisions that have kept them in the limelight for longer than may otherwise have been the case, some have done the opposite (Alonso!), and others have even had those decisions made for them (Raikkonen) - although this is also due to conservativism in driver choices made by big teams in both series'.

Is this the Frentzen effect in F1 for big teams? Is a midfield giant killer no longer assumed to be able to take it to the established names in established cars? I have made plenty of naïve comments about Nico Hulkenberg in my youth :P but a common response to him and seemingly most midfield giant killers appears to be "what if they're another Frentzen?" We won't know unless we try, but because of this doubt, are teams now less willing to try? The exception appears to me if a driver is very young and producing the goods (e.g. Verstappen). They are often assumed to be a driver who will improve into something spectacular. What's to say a driver in their mid 20s can't improve? The best examples on the grid are surely Ricciardo, who rarely was outstanding for a whole race in Toro Rosso (it seems quite ridiculous now, but I was one of many who felt Vergne deserved the Red Bull seat), but is now arguably the most complete driver on the grid, and Grosjean, who is now a very mature and well rounded driver who is more than capable of making the most of opportunities that present themselves - opportunities that only 4 years ago would have seen him and at least one other car involved in an accident.

Of course money is also going to play a role, and for the lucky driver that makes it big, this can result in a positive feedback spiral, whereas for many, by not making it, things can become much more difficult - a negative feedback spiral.

I appreciate I may have gone horribly off topic here, after all, the question is why Indycar drivers have longer careers, but I feel that this can explain why top teams in general are conservative in driver choice, even if that is totally irrelevant to the thread