|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
17 Nov 2005, 03:27 (Ref:1462878) | #1 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 730
|
Modern Era versus past Era
There have been a few discussions on who are the best drivers ever. I had a thought that could resolve this issue somewhat.
It should be possible to restore an old F1 car to original condition, (eg Williams FW06 from Thoroughbred GP), have new tyres manufactured to the original specifications of when the car ran in period, then stick some front running drivers of today in the car and time them on laps at circuits where the layout hasn't changed. Granted, there will be some differences, eg the track surface, but it would give an idea of how the drivers compared. I have absolutely no idea who would be quicker - the drivers from those days probably had more courage and experience with that type of car, but the modern drivers are probably fitter and may have the benefit of 25 years additional racing theory and knowledge. My best guess is that the times would be reasonably similar, but the modern driver would have smoother lines and the older driver would be hanging the tail out and be more on edge. |
||
__________________
"Centipede: An ant built to government specifications" |
17 Nov 2005, 03:47 (Ref:1462884) | #2 | |
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 234
|
Im afraid you wont find a current F1 driver who would take up the challenge as they dont have any balls. plus no, I think the older generation would actually be better as they spent their lives simply driving and having control over the entire car, no electronic or commercial nonsense.
drivers in the 60's and 70's raced as often as possible as the prize money was their living, where as today they are busy doing pr stuff between races. |
|
__________________
If you want to make a million pounds in motorsport start with ten million pounds |
17 Nov 2005, 06:01 (Ref:1462910) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,382
|
What track hasnt been changed ??
|
|
__________________
... without motorsport, what is sport? |
17 Nov 2005, 06:09 (Ref:1462912) | #4 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 730
|
I'm not a circuit historian, but I think at least Dijon & Brands Hatch GP,
|
||
__________________
"Centipede: An ant built to government specifications" |
17 Nov 2005, 06:58 (Ref:1462924) | #5 | |
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Brands has definitely changed.
Anyway - it's nothing to do witrh modern drivers having "no balls" as someone said above - they're driving cars that go faster than ever, afterall. But in the suggestion of driving an old car - well, unfamiliarity may work against them |
|
|
17 Nov 2005, 07:13 (Ref:1462929) | #6 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 730
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
__________________
"Centipede: An ant built to government specifications" |
17 Nov 2005, 07:58 (Ref:1462960) | #7 | ||
Registered User
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 16,661
|
Quote:
Dingle Dell is completely different and some other corners have been slightly reprofiled |
||
|
17 Nov 2005, 08:30 (Ref:1462969) | #8 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,382
|
Graham Hill corner has been reprofiled as well.. its much tighter these days ???
|
|
__________________
... without motorsport, what is sport? |
17 Nov 2005, 09:56 (Ref:1463023) | #9 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Being able to lap fast is only a small part of a driver's job these days. Could the drivers fom the past have coped with the tactical side of modern Formula One? We've no way of finding out, so instead this pathetic no balls' excuse is wheeled out - by peopel who presumably preferred it when there were concrete walls near to the tracks adn inferior safety crews, as the drivers were being braver by racing.
|
||
|
17 Nov 2005, 10:45 (Ref:1463054) | #10 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 527
|
Drivers from the mid eighties had to care for fuel, so they were quite tactical as well. I think the biggest difference would be physical condition, as the cornering speeds nowadays are much much higher and the neck muscles suffer more.
|
||
|
17 Nov 2005, 12:06 (Ref:1463112) | #11 | ||
Registered User
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 108
|
Why try and make a comparison? Just enjoy the drivers for what they were/are
|
||
|
17 Nov 2005, 12:52 (Ref:1463151) | #12 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,382
|
I wish they would make an F1 car race on only 50 litres of fuel for a race or something.. something that would help make radical steps in fuel economy that could be passed on to Joe Public.
|
|
__________________
... without motorsport, what is sport? |
17 Nov 2005, 13:35 (Ref:1463179) | #13 | ||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
Quote:
As boots says, a quick lap is only part of the drivers job and, in fact, has always only been a part. When comparing people like Senna and Prost we often point out that Senna was quicker in qualifying, but the result could be different come the race. You'd have to come up with a whole meetings-worth of sessions to try and replicate that. You also have to judge lap times and performances by the situations prevalent at the time; what were the track conditions when the times were set? Were the quickest guys under pressure or did they have it all under control (for example, no way would Mansell have recorded as quick a fastest lap in Monaco '92 if he hadn't had to pit, get new tyres, and chase after Senna)? Had their set-ups been compromised by lack of track time, or had the lap times been influenced by traffic? Then you have the problem of which track(s) to pick - you might choose one that suits one style over the other. Finally, you have to really judge great drivers in context. Chances are that any one of the top 4 or 5 snooker players now would beat Steve Davis at his peak, but are they greater? Probably not, because he helped raise the standard in the first place - he was the best of his era. Similarly, Fangio would never have been as fit as the current crop, but fitness wasn't so important then. We would be comparing them in a context which was not relevant to the drivers in former eras. Having said all that, I'd still like to see your idea tried! |
||||
|
18 Nov 2005, 09:55 (Ref:1463921) | #14 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,939
|
Andy, decent idea.
I reckon that a good/top driver is always gonna be a top driver whatever era they've driven in. I see no reason why within a certain number of laps in unfamiliar equipment they wouldn't be getting down to the sort of times a given car would ultimately be capable of. But i also agree with KRT, in that we sometimes get for whatever reason certain drivers who can focus incredibly well over a short period IE, Alliott, Trulli, etc but then aren't as proficient over a longer distance. How could we balance that out? |
||
__________________
"Double Kidney Guv'nah?" "No thanks George they're still wavin a white flag!" |
18 Nov 2005, 11:30 (Ref:1463996) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 11,304
|
Paddock, Graham Hill, Hawthorns and Dingle Dell have all changed in recent years as far as I can recall.
I believe Hawthorns was re-profiled slightly. |
||
|
18 Nov 2005, 11:40 (Ref:1464011) | #16 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 489
|
Bring them back to Mosport. No significant changes other than resurfacing.
I think a top driver would do well in any car. |
||
|
18 Nov 2005, 11:57 (Ref:1464022) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,000
|
Ther are so many issues that an ideal like this is really unworkable, and can only be done on a theoretical level. Even if a track which is unchanged from 40 yers ago does exist, one circuit is too narrow a domain for testing driver abilities, especially as overtaking, fuel strategy etc. would not come into play. We don't know whether Michael Schumacher would have put so much effort into fitness if he only required the lower levels of the past, or whether Fangio could have adjusted his regime to be in shape to drive today's cars with their high G-Forces. Maybe Clark's speed and smoothness would have been cancelled out by driver aids, maybe his tactical skill would not be up to scratch? Comparisons across generations will always be ambiguous and vague.
|
||
|
19 Nov 2005, 10:48 (Ref:1464831) | #18 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,226
|
Yes, Boots, you and KRT are quite right, but it's always fun to discuss this sort of issue. I've enjoyed watching, and reading about, motor racing for over 40 years, so I just have to pick up on the following:-
Quote:
|
|||
|
20 Nov 2005, 17:53 (Ref:1465746) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
I do think there is an intimidation issue. The recognition that the cars, tracks, and safety crews were not near the standard of today had to play a part, and yet, there were some pretty crazy things done then (four abreast blasting past the pits at Monza).
Also, somehow I don't think the drivers of yester-year could have gotten by being completely unfit. The GPs were significantly longer distance-wise, and if Trois Freres at Rouen was any indication, there WERE plenty of high-speed, on-the-limit corners to deal with. Car adjustments back then were not what they are now. Now, a driver will hold back somewhat if the car isn't behaving in his/her comfort zone until the next pit stop. Back then, the driver had to adapt, deal with it, and drive through it, because there weren't many adjustments that could be done and often the cars could go the race distance without a stop. BTW, even in the 50s, there were places on certain tracks (Reims, Spa, Monza, Pescara) where the the cars neared, or even slightly exceeded, 200 mph. As for tactics and driver skill, I would point out the events of the 1957 German Grand Prix. Fangio was in a 1954 Maserati 250F up against three of the new-for-1957 Scuderia-Ferraris. In addition, Fangio would have to make a pit stop for tires, unlike his rivals. In the first half of the race, Fangio built up a 28 second lead. He then pitted. Service took 56 seconds and the car was stationary for a minute or so. The official deficit that Fangio had to make up right after the stop was 45 seconds. He then proceeded to run his out lap slow, on purpose. This lulled the Ferrari team principals into false confidence, and they told thir drivers that Fangio had a problem and would not pose a threat. After his out lap though, Fangio went to a whole nother level. He started reeling in the top three hand over fist. There were a few times where he made up 17 seconds a lap on the Ferraris. Fangio broke the track record, and beat his own pole time by 8 seconds. He went into the last lap just behind his rivals, and came out winning by 3 seconds. There is a reason he was known as the "Maestro". He earned the title "Ringmeister" after that race. After that GP, he said he would never drive like that again, which is no small thing, and understandable considering the commitment of running on the limit on the Nordschleife. Those comments were echoed by Brian Redman after an F2 race at the "Ring" in 1968 when he came back from 12th to finish in the top 5 (Enzo Ferrari offered him an F1 seat for 1969 after that performance, which Redman turned down.). |
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
20 Nov 2005, 19:24 (Ref:1465808) | #20 | |||||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Quote:
Having said that, I think there was a slightly different approach in the past. I believe Moss has said that he always left himself a margin because the consequencies of an off were so serious. Fangio's '57 German GP drive, to which you refer, was his greatest drive because it was one of the few occasions where he really had to let rip - and on one of the most daunting circuits in the world. In one sense, modern drivers have it easier because the risks are far less, but because of that they probably spend a higher percentage of their races on the absolute limit. Quote:
Quote:
Funnily enough, I've always thought of Fangio's win at the Nurburgring as one of driver quality triumphing over a strategy that went wrong. He planned the stop and started on half-tanks and the idea was for him not to rejoin quite that far behind! However, the stop was atrocious and put him much further down than intended. Whether his opening lap was deliberately slow to lull Ferrari into a false sense of security or not I'm not sure, but there's no doubt that in the laps that followed Fangio put in one of the all-time great comeback drives. Nevertheless, I agree with you that top drivers in the 1950s could think tactically. I reckon Moss' non-stop wins in the 1958 Argentine and 1959 Italian GPs are probably good examples. |
|||||
|
21 Nov 2005, 03:31 (Ref:1466099) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,892
|
Just FYI, I picked up the 1957 German GP story from an installment of "Rob's Notebook" (referring to the late Rob Walker) in Road & Track, which did include the bit about the ploy to lull the Ferrari principals.
|
||
__________________
The only certainty is that nothing is certain. |
21 Nov 2005, 13:28 (Ref:1466492) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,814
|
Fair enough, thanks for the reference.
|
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Modern 935 | Edmonton | Sportscar & GT Racing | 25 | 3 Feb 2004 22:45 |
GP2 on a modern PC? | MichaelH | Virtual Racers | 12 | 29 May 2003 06:37 |