The evolution of F1 drivers

[Valve Bounce]

Last night, while watching Grant Hackett in the 1500m, I heard the commentator saying that not that long ago, 17 minutes was a great swim for the 1500, and now this guy does a 14min40 secs. That is one heck of an advancement on the capability of swimmers mostly due to improved training techniques, the monitoring via video, and I suppose different and better coaching methods.
Then I thought about F1. Sure, my heros Bernd Rosemeyer and Stirling Moss drove different cars than today's drivers, but that doesn't mean today's drivers are not better. The F1 car has evolved infinitely, and drivers have had to change their techniques and training regimen to keep up with the cars.
Suddenly, I realised that it is possible that today's drivers might be better than yesteryear's heros. It is quite probable that there are more 4 wheel racers in teh world today than ever before, motor racing becoming more competitive with each passing year. To get into F1, today's drivers have to compete against a greater number of drivers who are also improving because of this competitive requirement.
Sure, I have argued against electronics, but that was because of the skyrocketting costs. Today's cars are just as difficult to drive if a driver wants to go faster than the next guy - only the requirements in technique are different. No matter how good the car is, if the driver exceeds the limit trying to better his opponent, he is off, and sometimes in a big crash. Just look at that steering wheel with its myriad of buttons and associated paddles. Push the wrong one and "hello tyre wall!!".
In the same way, I believe Roger Bannister was a truly great sportsman, training specifically to better the 4 minute mile, but that time/distance rate can be exceeded at every major international meet of the 1500 metres (using comparable times of course for the shorter distance). That only means that todays athletes are better trained and possibly develope better techniques.
So getting back to our current drivers, I believe they are probably better than those we used to admire.

Valve

[z2252314]

Completely agree Valve. Thats why when comparisons are made, they can only be relative. Sure, Fangio was great for his time, but getting into F1 back was a lot less competitive. Yes, money drives the sport now, but that has its upsides as well. BMW, Merc, Renault etc dont pour millions into this sport to watch a mediocre driver circle around in their multi-million dollar investment. Its got to the point that if a driver has a couple of bad races his seat could be on the line. While there are more driver aids, to say that F1 is any less challenging is ridiculous.
I went to Melbourne this year, and they had a race with some old F1 cars. Yes, they were nice and looked very dangerous to drive, but they looked like snails compared to the modern cars. As long as the good drivers can still surface, I have nothing wrong with driver aids. If it gets to the point where all teammates are obtaining identical times (proving that the driver is irrelevant) then I will voice my concern. Until then, we can still say that we are undoubtedly watching the greatest drivers in the world every second week.

[Jukebox]

I agree with what you have contemplated in this thread Valve.

There's this article by Peter Wright (grandprix.com) that i would like to share with everyone -

The complexity of today's Formula1 car is in some ways greater than the jet fighters of the 1970's (the aircraft had limited electronics and computers) and the understanding of its aerodynamics and vehicle dynamics somewhat similar. Test pilots must have an engineering degree as a minimum qualification, followed by extensive training in order to become qualified to test-fly and develop aircraft. Much of that training is spent in the classroom and a fair portion of the flight training is spent in variable-stability aircraft, in which the instructor can expose the pupils to all sorts of undesirable flight characteristics so that they learn to identify them correctly.

[TimD]

I'd like to raise an opposing view if I may. And it concerns specifically the assertion that there are more and more competitive four-wheel racers on the planet aiming for a Formula 1 drive.

The point I want to make is that while perhaps six seats on the Formula 1 grid are awarded on the strength of talent alone, the rest of them are always decided on a blend of talent, politics and ready cash. While this has inevitably been true to a certain extent, it now has got to the level that an unbacked genius will never get a sniff at the Grand Prix driver he or she richly deserves.

By way of example, may I present Ferenc Szisz, Herrmann Lang and Graham Hill. Respectively, they were some of the men to beat in the 1900s, the 1930s and the 1960s. And all had something in common. They were the team mechanic before they were given an opportunity to try the cars themselves. In Graham Hill's case, he didn't even get around to learning to drive a car till he was 29 - about the time when current Formula 1 drivers are starting to look long in the tooth.

So what I'm saying is - the overall worldwide talent pool may be bigger, but the arbiter of whether you get on and get to run in a Grand Prix is not whether you're good or not. It's whether you're lucky with your sponsors.

[z2252314]

Everyone complains about pay drivers, yet they still love privateers. Ive been saying it all along, the more manufacturers the better. There not willing to give away a good seat for an extra 10mill in sponsorship.

[Lee Janotta]

I've got to completely disagree with this topic. Absolute brilliance behind the wheel is always just that, brilliance. Drivers today get more time to test, have short circuits that they can master more completely in the time they're allowed, have all kinds of electronic voodoo both to give them the perfect setup _and_ to do a portion of the driving itself!

The is no possible way Michael Schumacher could come even close to the lap times of Bernd Rosemeyer or Tazio Nuvolari in a V16 AutoUnion with no synchromesh, skinny little bias-ply tires, no downforce, and drum brakes on the full Nurburgring! Senna, the greatest driver of the last 30 years, would have had a hell of a fight turning in comparable times... He'd have had to drive every bit as hard as the drivers he was trying to match.

[Liz]

I agree with Lee, and also with TimD. Valve, are you really telling me that Gaston Mazzacane and Alex Yoong are two of the best drivers on Planet Earth? Can it be true that if these two men were put in the 2002 Ferrari -- let alone the 1979 Ferrari or the Lotus 79 -- that they would outshine Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson?

Sadly, but without any doubt at all, a Dennis Vitolo with a large budget is still not the equal of Mario Andretti with no money at all, no matter what car you put either man in.

And "privateers" are not the same as "pay drivers"; a privateer is a team that is run without works backing, such as Champion Audi, and may have outstanding drivers such as Stefan Johanssen and Johnny Herbert. A pay driver is exactly that, a Rich Bloke such as Ricardo Rosset who can get himself a superlicense. We all know that Tom Walkinshaw would sign Satan to drive for him if Satan had a budget. This does not make Satan the equal of Stirling Moss in driving talent.

It's a mixed bag really, obviously not every driver in F1 is the best in the world, ie there are undoubtedly better ones out there and, although there's always been pay drivers in F1, it tends to attract the best drivers in the world. I think in many cases talent has a lot to do with getting a drive (Raikkonen for example) while teams with smaller budgets tend to go with drivers who can bring in some cash.

I think comparisons from different eras can run a little dry when trying to prove who was 'better' (It seems that sometimes these comparisons are clouded with golden memories in mind). Technology has come along and the face of the sport has changed considerably for any meaningful comparisons to be made.

[freud]

F1 drivers of the modern era are physically fitter & healthier than the drivers of earlier eras. Whether they have more natural talent, car control and speed is very difficult, if not impossible to prove. I dont think they are. Motorsports, in general, have become much easier & safer over the period of years and its no so difficult to drive a formula one car now, then it was 30 years ago.

[KA]

Originally posted by Liz
And "privateers" are not the same as "pay drivers"; a privateer is a team that is run without works backing, such as Champion Audi, and may have outstanding drivers such as Stefan Johanssen and Johnny Herbert.

...or Moss when he drove for Rob Walker- (or when he drove his own Maserati 250F for that matter...)

[Jordi]

Drivers are all great in their era, except for Mario or Emerson who drove for a longer time than usual. Probably Bernd Rosemeyer would have it not easy to drive these 2-pedaled, button-filled, super-nervous F1 cars of today, too.

[Valve Bounce]

Paid drivers who really aren't up to the task have always featured in F1 for as long as I can remember. However, I just looked at the list after Friday practice at Spa, and I cannot find a single driver on that list who doesn't deserve to be in F1.
To suggest that the lower end of the grid today would have been better than the likes of Bernd Rosemeyer or Stirling Moss is absurd; but I would go as far as to say that had the likes of Mika Hakkinen or SchM had to come up through the ranks in cars similar to the ones in 1930's, they would probably be on the front row of the grid alongside Bernd and Tazio.

Valve

[TimD]

Only maybe, Valve. I've still got to be convinced on that.

But you got the other end of the stick. The point I was trying to make about the lower end of the grid was that Mika or Michael have been both talented and lucky with their funding. If Graham Hill or Herrmann Lang were in a team today, the teams would never have a chance - never mind the inclination - to give them a try in the cars.

Lang is a case in point. He was given the chance to drive the Silver Arrow as a mechanic, and when he was seen to be more than decently quick, he was given a race tryout in a Grand Prix. It's like the McLaren Mercedes lollipop man being given a third McLaren to take a crack at the French GP. It just won't happen nowadays.

And this is my point. Graham Hill is a multiple champion, an Indianapolis champion, a Le Mans champion. How many multiple champions are there, I wonder, twiddling spanners in the pitlane never to be given an opportunity to prove their capability simply because their dad had not either the foresight or the ready cash to give him a racing kart for his fourth birthday?

[Jordi]

Money rules the world. It wasn't that so much when Lang and Graham raced...

[Valve Bounce]

TimD, I am talking about the evolution of the capabilities of sportsmen, training and coaching metods that we have today as an example. Sure, Graham was lucky, so was Niki Lauda, and I am sure there are many others. Mark Webber was very lucky to scrape together enough money to get into Minardi and Anthony Davidson is extremely luck oo get the chance to take over from Yoong for two races. I am sure we can name many like Junqueira, Pizzonia, and so on who are not so lucky. But, that is not the line of reasoning of this thread. Basically, I am talking about the development of many drivers to cope with today's cars as they are, and because of the competitiveness of the also rans, they have to improve their ability to get that break nowadays (pay drivers not counted). I suppose if Graham was starting out today, he'd probably get a chance coming up through the ranks to be test driver and so on. Who knows.

Valve

[Liz]

Well, it kind of was, Jordi; racing started out as a sport for Gentlemen, meaning Guys With Money.

I don't thing this discussion is whether Stirling Moss is a better driver than Gaston Mazzacane; that is like asking "What time is it on the moon?" Isn't it whether the drivers in Formula One today are the best drivers available in the world today? I think TimD is correct -- and sadly that is probably the case in every other field of endeavour as well. The guys driving at the pointy end of the field today are simply the ones whose families had the right motivation, the right connections and enough free time to put their sons where they could benefit from all of the above. Everyone in CART knows the Legend of Memo Gidley. That's what Graham Hill would be today.

But it's not just racing that is a **** shoot, is it? How many Einsteins are toiling away in Chinese rice paddies? How many Fred Astaires are running carpet making machines in Georgia or picking tomatoes in California?

And how many would-be surgeons, nurses, philosophers and poets are strapping explosives around their waists and heading for parks crowded with the same?

[RT]

How do we select for talent?. The point is that different times and technologies demand different drivers. Would Tazio feel at home in a Ferrari taking orders from Ross Brown or would Schumi would like to face Rosemeyer, von Brauchitsch and Caracciola in an undepoweed Alfa?? I think not in either case.

Yet the key question is, IMHO, how do we choose the best. My guess is that a bunch of WDC's are trying to get from home to work or school in Sao Paulo or to get an eighteen wheeler on time from Detroit to a storehouse in downtown Chicago. (If you think it's easy, try doing the Chicago loop at more than 7 mph during rush hour, and Monaco won't seem that daunting). There are many cases like these.

I think the future of F1 is not so much technology and funding but is instead how to draw from the very best pool of talent in the world.

We all may yet be amazed when it happens...just think. Neither Schumi nor Senna came from racing dynasties. What great drives and drivers caould be hiding out there....and how can the system get to offer them an opportunity. Its not only a matter of fairness...in the end it's also the survival and progress of F1 at stake.

[Valve Bounce]

I would say that on the basis of ability to perform, then the current drivers in F1 are probably close to the best available. It is impossible to go further into the hypothetical to ask whether any among hundreds who did not get the chance would not have been better. But my view here is a picture of a myriad of formulae in many countries (exclude Australia here) for future drivers to develop and ultimately become better than current drivers to the extent these are pushed out by better drivers.

Valve

[z2252314]

And "privateers" are not the same as "pay drivers"; a privateer is a team that is run without works backing, such as Champion Audi, and may have outstanding drivers such as Stefan Johanssen and Johnny Herbert.

What I meant was that privateers are the ones that tend to have pay drivers, wheras manufacturers go for the talent as they dont need the extra money as badly. Therefore, less privateers will mean less pay drivers. More manufacturers in the sport will help ensure that drivers get seats based on talent as opposed to their bank accounts.

The is no possible way Michael Schumacher could come even close to the lap times of Bernd Rosemeyer or Tazio Nuvolari in a V16 AutoUnion with no synchromesh, skinny little bias-ply tires, no downforce, and drum brakes on the full Nurburgring!

Well those drivers back then wouldnt stand a chance against the likes of Schumi and Hakkinen in a modern F1 car. You cant blame current drivers for the evolutions in race cars. What Valve is trying to say is that training methods have advanced and competition has increased to a point where the driver pool is much more talented, relatively speaking.

Back in the 1950's there is no way you can claim that the best 20 drivers in the world where racing. Racing back then was exclusively for the rich. Not many kids had go-karts after the second world war, the lack of money in the sport would have meant little coverage and the lucky ones who could afford to race may have often been missed. Although you still need a fair income to send your kids racing, In todays world it is relatively cheap compared to the post-war 50's era. In Australia, there are heaps of kids karting every weekend, and I would imagine in Europe there would be thousands more. Car racing gets a lot of exposure, and talent is more easily spotted.


By no means am I trying to discredit the competition in the 'old' era. I will admit that Racing was undoubtedly more dangerous back then. Those drivers where true gladiators. But in terms of the talent pool, I am convinced that breaking into F1 is much more difficult today. Only the cream of the racing world get a chance.

[Guisbro Rod H]

Is it possible to compare drivers of the past with the future? Everbody says no because the cars are so different. Go far back far enough in time and its like comparing F1 now with Paris Dakar type driving.

Or is it? Now we have racing schools. One group of foreigners were buying some special cars specifically built for use in a racing car schools. They were down on the Indy circuit at Brands being demonstrated. Someone asked if the bloke who obviously represented the money - old distinguished and fat could sit in the car. Let the old soldier have a go. Lady translater explained no more than 4,500 revs to this old codger. Yes its up to the pit exit and turn right at Paddock bend.

Pit wall bloke comes across and says he is calling the old fool in because he is obviously exceeding the rev limit. Driver signalled back to the pits. Lady translater chastices old bloke for exceeding rev limit. NO ONE had ever gone that fast in a school car straight out of the box within the 4,500 rev limit. Must be exceeding rev limit to get that lap time.

Old man points with knarled finger to rev counter 4,400 revs on tell tale. Impossible, for you me and race instructors but not for one Juan Manual Fangio.

Oh he had never seen Brands.

Then somebody remembered that he had never driven a rear (mid) engined race car in his life. Fangio confirmed the fact regarding never driven rear engined cars and then climbed out of the car, he did not want to push the new car too hard. Driving instructors absolutely gobbsmacked

I wish I had been there that day!

Oh yes, some of those old drivers could handle a modern car but may be not the brutal G forces of a modern car without extra fitness training - the modern electronic aids make it much easier relatively.

[TimD]

Fabulous story, Rod. I wish I'd been there too. I saw Fangio just once, demonstrating a Mercedes at Donington in 1979, and it was definitely a demonstration.

But he really was a genius. Of that there is no doubt at all.

[Lee Janotta]

Rod, thank you _so_ much for posting this story... And for relating it so dramatically!

[paulzinho]

Brilliant story!

When did that happen?

[Valve Bounce]

Wish it was me

Valve

[freud]

Originally posted by z2252314

By no means am I trying to discredit the competition in the 'old' era. I will admit that Racing was undoubtedly more dangerous back then. Those drivers where true gladiators.

But in terms of the talent pool, I am convinced that breaking into F1 is much more difficult today. Only the cream of the racing world get a chance.

The first para is fine. The second para is correct with a few exceptions. Breaking into f1 is difficult not due to oversupply of competitive drivers in the market but due to sponsorship packages that drivers must obtain before actually getting their signatures on contract with a formula one team. A question... Why Minardi didnt sign AD at the beginning of the season?