The booing of Vettel & is Vettel a great?

[Kempi]

I think the difference with Clark is he had a fully respected team mate, and was probably conisidered by his peers as the fastest.

Vettel doesn't have that.

If you look at the earlier "Webber vs Vettel" threads you should notice that quite a few thought Webber was a very quality teammate and very much a match to Vettel, if not coming out on top. The last three years sure have changed that conception. Now, does this mean Webber was crap or does this mean Webber is quality and Vettel is much better?

[50-SIX]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Actually Clark had Mike Spence, Peter Arundell and Trevor Taylor as team mates during the 1.5 litre era and none of them were in the same class as him nor most of his really talented opposition (Hill, Gurney, Brabham, McLaren, Ginther, Stewart, Surtees). In the three litre era 66/67 he drove a 2 litre Lotus 33 most of the 66 year and early 67. And the 49 was not that strong or reliable in that first year. He died less than a year after the 49's first GP.

I knew that one would bite me. From what I have seen of reviews and documentaries he did have mega respect from his rivals, to the point where they couldn't believe 'HE' had crashed.

Anyways that's not my main point. Main point is Vettel is doing a great job, and like it or not, and in many years from now, I have no doubt he will be renowned as a great by the masses uneducated in motor racing of years gone by, such as myself! They will simply see the hard fact of 4+ WDC's under his name.

[chunder]

Interesting to note that most people quote certain drivers when they talk about greats.

Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Prost, Senna.

Quite a few guys who won more than one title dont get mentioned as much, like Piquet, Lauda and Emerson and even Graham Hill to be fair. Mika gets mentioned and Alonso coz they are recent. What is it with with these few? I know little of Emersons time and Graham seemed a very hard working man who put a lot of time and effort into his racing to win races and titles, much like Lauda. In some ways these men are greats to me as they raced against maybe better cars and men yet still won the long game, racing against Ronnie, Hunt, Depailler, Ickx, Amon, Regga. Fabulous eras all.

Then for Niki to come back and win again is an astounding feat, and one he doesn't get anywhere near enough recognition for.

And even more that only won one are hardly mentioned like Hulme, Scheckter, Hawthorn. Moss gets far too much attention in my view, coz he is still an active man and has good people around him to keep that persona going. PLenty of very good drivers won titles, and plenty had good people against them and still won, Moss didnt and that says a lot still for me.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chunder

Interesting to note that most people quote certain drivers when they talk about greats.

Stewart, Clark, Fangio, Prost, Senna.

Quite a few guys who won more than one title dont get mentioned as much, like Piquet, Lauda and Emerson and even Graham Hill to be fair. Mika gets mentioned and Alonso coz they are recent. What is it with with these few? I know little of Emersons time and Graham seemed a very hard working man who put a lot of time and effort into his racing to win races and titles, much like Lauda. In some ways these men are greats to me as they raced against maybe better cars and men yet still won the long game, racing against Ronnie, Hunt, Depailler, Ickx, Amon, Regga. Fabulous eras all.

Then for Niki to come back and win again is an astounding feat, and one he doesn't get anywhere near enough recognition for.

And even more that only won one are hardly mentioned like Hulme, Scheckter, Hawthorn. Moss gets far too much attention in my view, coz he is still an active man and has good people around him to keep that persona going. PLenty of very good drivers won titles, and plenty had good people against them and still won, Moss didnt and that says a lot still for me.

In a sense you are answering the debate about what makes a great driver. The ones you mentioned won multiple titles, became household names beyond their own nations, known to everyday people and their fame transcended culture/national boundaries, was international, and they were names the wider world recognised and held in respect and some degree of awe. The people also had character qualities that transcended their own interests.
They were sporting people who were masters of their craft or profession but had a public perception and reception that elevated them to being more than just very good at what they did in the eyes of the general public.

Some of them died in the sport and became 'immortal' and connected with the sport across entire generations. Others worked tirelessly and did so after retirement in a way that perpetuated their reputation and historical achievement.
The second group Emerson, Lauda, Piquet, Hill (G) Brabham (?) won multiple titles but never had the persona that characterised them as great international public figures, Emerson and Hill being the closest but Lauda and Piquet? Lauda was the technocrat and maybe his personality isn't one to get recognition (too honest/ flawed/straight forward?) and Piquet while gifted never really had a great public persona as a person. Maybe who he was as a person didn't connect with the public (outside of Brazil) in the same way. Brabham is a hero to many Australians, always will be.

Lauda's public exposure in Rush may change this to a degree. We will see how much difference the film makes.
One title doesn't mean much to people outside the sport. An athlete who holds a world record or dominates his sport for a year or two doesn't achieve immortality except maybe in his local/national reputation. But across nations and cultures, no.
And even a generation or two can separate someone very quickly so Gurney (no title), Hulme, Surtees, Damon Hill, Villenueve, K Rosberg, P Hill, Rindt, Scheckter are known and remembered nationally but outside their own nations only the diehard enthusiasts remember really who they were. So great national figures but not international household names.

Vettel has won nearly his fourth title in as many years but I really cant remember any of them because F1 has become so bland and faceless/character-less over the last twenty years. Kimi and Alonso I recognise but Vettel.... no. Schumacher I recognise but do not revere. Hakkinen I do revere, J Villeneuve I do not. Mansell I respect, as I do Prost and Andretti. So it's very personal, not an automatic given at all.

Some of it depends on the nation we live in / grew up in.

Webber was at RBR with Coulthard and had his measure so when Vettel made the 'A' team Webber was his measuring stick. Vettel has gained reputation and Webber has lost some. Is this because the team has placed more value on Vettel and devalued Webber in some ways? How the team treats them places value on them.
How much of this is because of the drivers stature in the team is probably quite important. A driver who is highly regarded by a team will have a degree of public recognition that aligns with the teams perception/value. All of the 'greats' mentioned in that initial group with high public acknowledgement beyond the sport were valued highly by their teams / employers.
So we recognise that value and give it to them.
Senna knew how to get a team to work for him. That's why Prost got upset and left. So did Schumacher know how to get a team to work for him, and so does Vettel.
In the immediate context it is probably too soon to cast the long term shadow but what will we think of Vettel in ten years? Will he be like Fangio and Clark? or Schumacher and Alonso?

[garcon]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Actually Clark had Mike Spence, Peter Arundell and Trevor Taylor as team mates during the 1.5 litre era and none of them were in the same class as him ...

Nobody was in the same class as Clark, then or since.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by numbersix

The great 'great' debate goes on. There is only one solution: Beer! Last man standing takes the day. I'll start practicing tonight!

Definitely the most sensible post in the whole thread! . As we all know, if the thread develops into a 'who was/is the greatest' question, we will never all agree - and that's fine by me!

[MarkG]

For me, and maybe for other "older blokes", it is hard to revere the F1 drivers of the last 20 years or so. I can appreciate the likes of Vettel, who pore over data for hours on end, and work with engineers to maximize the car they are given, but it is appreciating a professionalism more than appreciating exciting driving. That's why I like drivers such as Kimi or Lewis. These two particularly, remind me of drivers of a more dangerous era.

Massive run-offs on tracks don't show us fans who has the "bottle" to drive at the limit, risking injury or worse. The "professional" driver will explore those track limits to see what they can get away with, not quite the same as testing the limits of somewhere like Eau Rouge in days gone by.

There were many more facets to being a good, very good, or great GP driver in days gone by. Yes the car has always been a key ingredient, this is motorsport not athletics, but today the car is far far too much the major factor in a driver's success or not. We have superb technology in bike racing too, and the machine is important, but one can easily tell the good from very good etc.

So no, I will never see Vettel as a great, nor sadly, Kimi or Lewis.

If Grand Prix racing was a series using dangerous circuits (all circuits are dangerous to bike racers) and the drivers drove difficult cars to the limit, we'd then properly see the best drivers.

[Greem]

In times past, drivers were known for one thing and one thing only: driving racing cars quickly.

Since the "modern era" of F1 started, we've had an increasing amount of PR and insights into the lives of the drivers. Nowadays we're there with them all the time, thanks to Twitter & Facebook.

The immediacy and availability of their every waking minute has destroyed the mystique that used to surround racing drivers.

That, for me, is why the pre-modern era drivers are lauded as greats, yet practically everyone since Senna isn't. We perceive that we know them nowadays; in Clark's day they were distant heroes who appeared in the newspapers and on screen from time to time. We collectively revered their actions, while not really caring about their personalities.

These days, having a good PR attitude seems almost as important as how well you drive. Unless, of course, you're Kimi.

[chunder]

Without wishing to turn this into Prost Senna Teratonga, I think you will find Alain knew perfectly well how to get a team on his side!! It's just Ayrton was so hard in his beliefs and so intesne he found that hard to deal with. It worked at Renault initially, forcing Arnoux to quit and certainly at McLaren initially with Niki and certainly afterwards until Senna came, then maybe he tried it but realised he is just going to have to equal Ayrton's workload and rely on race pace and experience, which he did to great effect. What I do believe there is that Dennis was under pressure from Honda who worshipped Senna?

I think this is maybe true of a few guys, certainly Jones was a clever man who maybe had talent but not skill, he certainly knew how to get a car and team working. As did Mario.

Andretti for me could have won more, anyone who could win anywhere surely must have the talent to do more, maybe he was too faithful to Lotus?

I also agree with several posters that the current era is so bland and manipulated it is hard to assess greatness. Which is why people gravitate towards Lewis and Alonso, as they LOOK like they are doing more with daring passes and push on oversteer driving.

Much like a Depailler or Peterson in their day in fact, but back then there weren't enough races and cars all handled so badly anyway you could almost get away with being a loon, until Prost came along and proved that smooth is always quick again as Stewart did before him. And Clark.

[david5]

Originally Posted by davyboy

One person is saying he's not a great because he's an automaton - nothing more than an extension of Newey's machine... and you're saying he's not a great because he's not an automaton i.e. doesn't follow orders to the letter

I'm only giving my opinion, as in my first post in this thread, so what someone else thinks he is doesn't really bother me. If you think loyalty equals automation so be it.

[Paradise City]

Clark had an unquenchable appetite for a challenge. He risked death in F1, he risked death competing in every series under the sun and all motorsport was fairly iffy safety wise back then. He competed at Indy. That's why Vettel isn't a patch on Clark.

That's why there may never be a great again, the sport itself doesn't allow it. The sport is too much of a business, too technology intensive, the human element too tightly controlled.

[nicanary]

Originally Posted by Greem

In times past, drivers were known for one thing and one thing only: driving racing cars quickly.

Since the "modern era" of F1 started, we've had an increasing amount of PR and insights into the lives of the drivers. Nowadays we're there with them all the time, thanks to Twitter & Facebook.

The immediacy and availability of their every waking minute has destroyed the mystique that used to surround racing drivers.

That, for me, is why the pre-modern era drivers are lauded as greats, yet practically everyone since Senna isn't. We perceive that we know them nowadays; in Clark's day they were distant heroes who appeared in the newspapers and on screen from time to time. We collectively revered their actions, while not really caring about their personalities.

These days, having a good PR attitude seems almost as important as how well you drive. Unless, of course, you're Kimi.

+1

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by MarkG

For me, and maybe for other "older blokes", it is hard to revere the F1 drivers of the last 20 years or so. I can appreciate the likes of Vettel, who pore over data for hours on end, and work with engineers to maximize the car they are given, but it is appreciating a professionalism more than appreciating exciting driving. That's why I like drivers such as Kimi or Lewis. These two particularly, remind me of drivers of a more dangerous era.

Massive run-offs on tracks don't show us fans who has the "bottle" to drive at the limit, risking injury or worse. The "professional" driver will explore those track limits to see what they can get away with, not quite the same as testing the limits of somewhere like Eau Rouge in days gone by.

There were many more facets to being a good, very good, or great GP driver in days gone by. Yes the car has always been a key ingredient, this is motorsport not athletics, but today the car is far far too much the major factor in a driver's success or not. We have superb technology in bike racing too, and the machine is important, but one can easily tell the good from very good etc.

So no, I will never see Vettel as a great, nor sadly, Kimi or Lewis.

If Grand Prix racing was a series using dangerous circuits (all circuits are dangerous to bike racers) and the drivers drove difficult cars to the limit, we'd then properly see the best drivers.

I do understand this view to a certain extent, but at the small time feel it's unfair on the modern day drivers because of something beyond their control, namely, how F1 has evolved.

Are we saying that, had Senna been born 30 years later, he, dispite no doubt being blessed with the same amount of talent, wouldn't be "great" anymore?

We live in a different era, lots of people come up with the bigger run off argument, is that really a sign that drivers of today don't have big balls anymore? I don't think it is, but at least they, hopefully, will live longer should the worse happen.

Back in Senna's day (and obviously, many other drivers), they had a steering wheel and a gearstick, not much else. Today's drivers have to deal with 40-50 buttons, sub menu's etc etc, all the while driving at faster speeds than "yesteryear".

I have no doubt that, drivers of yesteryear could deal with todays cars, much the same as todays drivers could handle of yesteryear.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Clark had an unquenchable appetite for a challenge. He risked death in F1, he risked death competing in every series under the sun and all motorsport was fairly iffy safety wise back then. He competed at Indy. That's why Vettel isn't a patch on Clark.

So the reason why Vettel isn't a patch on Clark is because he exists in an era when [thankfully] death behind the wheel of a racing car isn't a common occurrence

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by davyboy

So the reason why Vettel isn't a patch on Clark is because he exists in an era when [thankfully] death behind the wheel of a racing car isn't a common occurrence

So? My analysis nevertheless stands.

[MarkG]

It is impossible to know if there has been a Senna equal in F1 for many years now, not just a Senna, but many of the other considered "greats". Maybe Kimi could be considered as such, raw speed took him from Formula Renault to F1 and he demonstrated he deserved to make that jump.Modern cars dumb down ultimate driving skill in my view.
Drivers haven't had to deal with fear limiting their committment, mechanical sympathy, botched gearchanges under pressure from a car up their a**e because minimum downforce allowed closer racing. Engineers' data and graphs tell the modern driver why someone is a tenth quicker. In earlier days a driver had to be right with another driver and only at that moment did he know in his heart if he had the skill/bottle to stick with the quick driver.
Mention is made of drivers having to deal with lots of steering-wheel buttons etc , erm, sorry, that just doesn't mean a thing to me. Drivers also are told by engineers on radio which section of track they can go faster. This is playstation F1, where a driver has to have great fitness, and the ability to consume engineers' data, and let the downforce ability of the car determine their braking points and cornering speeds. Corner throttle control is purely when can a driver get back on the gas, because only downforce determines that. I think only Monaco makes a driver have to use more inate skills.

I love F1 still, but I would love it more if it was less scientific.
Having said that, F1 was once my favourite type of motorsport, it isn't any longer. I prefer to see drivers drive.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by MarkG

I prefer to see drivers drive.

I prefer to see them live.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by garcon

I prefer to see them live.

That's a bit dramatic isn't it?

[garcon]

I just don't get the romantic nostalgia for an era when drivers took their lives in their hands every time they got in the car. There was nothing romantic about the death rate, or the families and friends left by drivers who needlessly died too young.

Reading some comments you'd almost think people actually regret the fact it's safer now. Almost as if the greater chance of death made it more exciting. I can only imagine that could be the view of somebody disconnected from the reality, who only ever watched on screen (historic film or live).

It's also an irrelevance in the context of defining 'great' drivers. Just because today's drivers thankfully don't have to take such terrible risks doesn't mean they wouldn't have done if they'd been racing 50 years ago.

That's why I'm a fan of historic racing today rather than the history of racing. I love the cars, I love seeing them race, but I'm grateful for today's safety standards.

[Paradise City]

Dancing with death is an extreme experience and that has exerted a romantic pull on people. No man is compelled to compete, all have done it of their own volition.

All that said, I want every driver to come home as safe as houses, unhurt and live until they are elderly among their family. As has been alluded to families don't really sign up to follys that their relatives embrace.

So, while I marvel at an era where they fought death as much as their competitors, I don't recommend it today and would never abandon the quest for safety. The quest for safety has come with a price though in that the sport has become more santised. It's a price that's worth paying and more but a price there has been nevertheless. To discuss this, is interesting for me.

[MarkG]

To imply that I want the dicing-with-death of yore is a bit unfair to say the least. That element in days gone by was certainly something drivers had to deal with, or they wouldn't have raced, but that's not to say it's necessary nowadays to see a driver tested. I quoted Monaco as an example where a driver has to use more inate skills, and errors are punished, and thankfully, with today's safety requirements, not punished by serious injury, just a bent car.

I am all for safety, but there must be a way to make drivers more a part of the car/driver package in F1 than they are currently, and errors that lead to off track excursions into acres of tarmac should incur some sort of time penalty on top of induced time loss, so that drivers have to balance committment with penalty (safely).

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

So? My analysis nevertheless stands.

It doesn't. Anyone who suggests that it was better or more worthy back then because more people died while doing it is... well I don't want to get a reprimand for what ought to be inserted there... but use your imagination. Jim Clark was already 'a great' when he left us but his death deprived us of potentially his greatest years. It deprived his loved ones of infinitely more. There was nothing romantic about that or any of the other tragic losses down through the years. The BEST THING that's EVER happened in motor racing is that it has become safer.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by davyboy

It doesn't. Anyone who suggests that it was better or more worthy back then because more people died while doing it is... well I don't want to get a reprimand for what ought to be inserted there... but use your imagination. Jim Clark was already 'a great' when he left us but his death deprived us of potentially his greatest years. It deprived his loved ones of infinitely more. There was nothing romantic about that or any of the other tragic losses down through the years. The BEST THING that's EVER happened in motor racing is that it has become safer.

My analysis does stand. Risking death is a higher standard quite clearly.

One might see the romantic aspect of the era of Henry VIII for example. Admire the heroism of that era or whatnot. It doesn't follow from that, that one wishes the bloodiness of that era to return to this era. That mirrors my attitude to F1. I marvel how they tackled death but I don't want to see that era return.

[chunder]

Again

It is rather interesting to see people polarising over certain drivers again but again largely natural

Perhaps the reason why safety is better now was because some drivers took extraordinary risks. Ayrton certainly did, putting his and others people life at risk to prove a point, something which though he is undoubtedly great, I can never bracket him a true legend for, neither Schumacher for taking that sort of move one step further and repeating it again and again, using tactics and thought rather than the pure emotion Senna had when he did it.

Safety has improved because of people dying, not because it had to, Senna's accident was a freak one, as was Roland's. Barrichello's was perhaps the most staggering that weekend. And that one certainly proved something had to be done to increase run off. (cant decide over apostrophe usage sorry)

So for me the era of safety has been largely ushered in through people being killed, remember some of the crashes not long before Imola, Patrese at Estoril, Berger at Imola (who then went with Ayrton to see if something could be done to find the stream sadly) all these were huge crashes and drivers lucky to be alive but little was done.

Do we really think anything would have been done if only Roland had died that awful weekend? I sadly think not as much. It would have been down to a small team maybe being unlucky.

But I do see the romantic side, anyone who has driven round the Nordschleife now and realised, as they are, that back then they had F1 races here and bike GP's, can't fail to have more respect for a driver who won there rather than who wins at Abu Dhabi or Bahrain I am afraid to say.

It is human nature.

[Bononi]

I'm still trying to find where we lost it !