Are modern F1 drivers as good a previous generations

[bauble]

When Mike Hawthorn won the French Grand Prix in 1958 he was close to lapping Fangio who was driving his last race in a Maserati. Mike, and Stirling, always had great respect for 'The Old Man', and Mike eased off so that he did not pass Juan before the chequered flag. He did not want to see him lapped in his last race.
What has this got to do with the present discussion?

Nothing really, but for me it illustrates the difference between the era's and tends to underline the pointlessness (although perfectly validity) of this thread.

Was the first man to run a mile in under four minutes any less a man than the current Olympic Champion (I Know they only run in metres these days)?

I would think few would disagree that the drivers of the fifty's were certainly brave men, while meaning no disrespect, not an adjective one would use for today's drivers.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by MarkG

Am I right in thinking you're of this playstation generation?

Don't confuse close lap-times with competitive (as in drivers being competitive), it is all relative to the cars of a period and the technology.

Send you're fave driver Vettel, up against Loeb at Pikes Peak, you might start to see there's more to a driver's capabilitiy than when driving playstation F1 cars.

I last heard a couple ''playstation drivers'' were kicked out of a certain series for being too quick. Vettel against Loeb at Pikes Peak, how would that determine how good Vettel is compared to F1 drivers in the past?

[chunder]

I often think of this type of thing when looking at one of my fave subjects the Land Speed Record

You look at Art Arfons, an old drag racer who bolted a J79 engine into a car he built himself from his own ideas and he eventually started pushing it close to 600mph! And paid the cost with a huge crash but escaped relatively unharmed. It was never put in a wind tunnel or anything, just how Art though it should look from his experience, and it worked just fine, Noble pretty much copied it in Thrust 2.

He did this on salt with Breedlove too on rubber tyres. They broke it back and forth over a few weeks was a staggering thing to happen.

Then you see the level of tech involved in Bloodhound or SSC, active suspension, CAD designed, shock and pressure tested, wind tunnel tested.

When Arfons first got his engine he rang up General Electric and asked for a manual, they said "you can't have that engine it's classified". It had had a bird strike so all Art did was remove the opposite blades to the damaged ones to balance it! Can you believe that! Then tied it between two trees and started it up in his back yard!

Comparing like for like is hard as you can see, but does this above all mean Art Arfons is better or braver than Andy Green? It might mean he was more nuts but certainly not braver, can you imagine being in SSC when it went supersonic, no-one really knew what was going to happen and the thing was falling to bits as it was going.

I think comparing F1 of now to past is relative, but I do think F1 was more of a test of driver ability in past, whereas now it is not as much or only that but a test of fitness and concentration. You could relax for periods even in the 90's in a GP and still get s result, but these days you are on it from lap one and that is very much different!

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chunder

I often think of this type of thing when looking at one of my fave subjects the Land Speed Record

You look at Art Arfons, an old drag racer who bolted a J79 engine into a car he built himself from his own ideas and he eventually started pushing it close to 600mph! And paid the cost with a huge crash but escaped relatively unharmed. It was never put in a wind tunnel or anything, just how Art though it should look from his experience, and it worked just fine, Noble pretty much copied it in Thrust 2.

He did this on salt with Breedlove too on rubber tyres. They broke it back and forth over a few weeks was a staggering thing to happen.

Then you see the level of tech involved in Bloodhound or SSC, active suspension, CAD designed, shock and pressure tested, wind tunnel tested.

When Arfons first got his engine he rang up General Electric and asked for a manual, they said "you can't have that engine it's classified". It had had a bird strike so all Art did was remove the opposite blades to the damaged ones to balance it! Can you believe that! Then tied it between two trees and started it up in his back yard!

Comparing like for like is hard as you can see, but does this above all mean Art Arfons is better or braver than Andy Green? It might mean he was more nuts but certainly not braver, can you imagine being in SSC when it went supersonic, no-one really knew what was going to happen and the thing was falling to bits as it was going.

I think comparing F1 of now to past is relative, but I do think F1 was more of a test of driver ability in past, whereas now it is not as much or only that but a test of fitness and concentration. You could relax for periods even in the 90's in a GP and still get s result, but these days you are on it from lap one and that is very much different!

Great post Chunder.

Reminds me of the world water speed record held by the Australian Ken Warby. He set 511 km/h in 1978 at Blowering Damn in a boat he built himself, to his own design, based on what he had learned as a hydroplane racer.
Nobody else has come close yet despite all the computer modeling and flash budgets that have been chasing the record!

Got to love it when the small enthusiast succeeds!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_speed_record

Found this too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcWPIvfXkj8

[leonidas]

I suppose it depends whether you think the level and breadth of technical skill is important in measuring greatness. I've always rated Jack Brabham very highly precisedly because he raised his own funds, built his own car, ran his own team and then drove it to a World Championship title. You have got to be a bit special to do that.

Compare it to today. The car is often built with strictly limited testing and limited driver input. Quite a lot of the test driving is done by others. Drivers have coaches, PAs and agents who tell then where to go and what to say. Outside GPs most of their time is spent doing PR rather than competing in other formulas. Its still hard to get to the top but the skill base required is a lot more limited in breadth.

My view? The nature of the sport means that its actually quite hard to be 'great' today.

[chunder]

I still think one can be great though.

If you do a few things like winning titles in different cars, winning in a poor car, being the one guy everyone looks for like Alonso or Hamilton, then you are great.

This is a good era for drivers, when you look back at the late 90's and you only really had Schuey and Mika, yet guys like DC, Irvine! Frentzen and Hill were able to win races and titles it does make the modern era a little more full with talent. Tose guys were hopelss in other cars which proved their titles/wins were due to right place right time.

I think a Button of now would have won for McLaren back then as would a Kubica, Heidfeld or even Massa. but to win it all showed that Schuey was a class above everyone, as Doohan and Rossi were in bikes at the time. It took a Newey McLaren and a dedicated and very motivated Mika to beat them.

Although I think Seb's accolades are slightly dumbed by driving THAT car, until someone else is in it and Newey is still there it is tough to know, it never won much with DC and Webber before and as soon as Seb was there bang its a title winner almost, so though I am not a fan, the kid is clearly doing something right.

But for me, like many until he is tested, either by moving or being in a slower car I wont be calling him great.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by chunder

I still think one can be great though.

Anyone who consistently dominates their peers for a length of time at the top level of their sport is a great. It doesn't matter whether it was 80 years ago 40 years ago, today or 40 years from now.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Anyone who consistently dominates their peers for a length of time at the top level of their sport is a great. It doesn't matter whether it was 80 years ago 40 years ago, today or 40 years from now.

Bingo! Well done Sir!

[MarkG]

Re: the thread title, I would think most good modern F1 drivers are as capable as the good ones of earlier generations in terms of controlling a car, but I also suspect only a few would be able to put their lives on the line like earlier drivers did, and thus eke out the maximum from the car.
Having said that, I do wonder if the best modern drivers are actually to be found in other categories, not F1. For example, top rally drivers and Le Mans drivers, or, particularly, cross discipline drivers such as Sebastian Loeb, who I consider the best driver in motorsport full stop. (Drivers of an earlier era who raced all sorts successfully, like Mario Andretti have my respect as much as Clark, Stewart & Senna do.)
I do respect that current F1 drivers are masters of their trade, and are way beyond the average Jo in ability, but I don't believe that current F1 cars demand as much from current drivers as F1 cars once did. The modern F1 car itself is a much bigger part of the car/driver success equation than once was the case, and teams now play a massive part too, with strategy calls, super-fast pit-stops, in-car communication, zillions of sensors monitored at the track and across the world in the headquarters.

Unless all the drivers are put in non-downforce cars that are tricky and unreliable to drive and requiring some mechanical sympathy etc and raced on the old Nurburgring and such places, we can all just have our own personal view, or debate on forums with, generally, as much futility as football supporters on their forums

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by chunder

This is a good era for drivers, when you look back at the late 90's and you only really had Schuey and Mika, yet guys like DC, Irvine! Frentzen and Hill were able to win races and titles it does make the modern era a little more full with talent. Tose guys were hopelss in other cars which proved their titles/wins were due to right place right time.

I think Hill and Irvine are underrated. At his best, Damon could take the fight to Schumacher, and Irvine ran Häkkinen damned close for the title in 1999.

[numbersix]

Several million years ago my local soccer team were arguing with the rugby team about who would be best if they swapped games.

So the rugby team selected 11 players, played soccer, and lost 8-4. A big loss but not exactly a whitewash.

When they played at rugby, the latter lent the soccer lads a few players to make up the numbers and won 140 points to nil with most of the soccer lads leaving the pitch naked because their kit was ripped off their backs.

In the same way, I suspect that if today's F1 boyos raced against the old guys (in their prime) in today's cars, they would beat the old boys very easily, but I don't think it would be a thrashing.

But do the swap, and get today's lads to race in the death-trap monsters of days gone by, I think they would be thrashed, if for no other reason than a 20% chance of being incinerated to death takes some getting used to.

[Knowlesy]

On the grid today alone there are four drivers guaranteed to go down as greats: Vettel, Raikkonen, Hamilton and Alonso. So of course they are as good as the best of previous generations.

As impressive though? Not really. But that is because the sport has changed. Worse still, the modern driver tends to be fundamentally unlikeable and personality contributes to greatness too imo.