The evolution of F1 drivers

[alchemy]

Bernie would welcome Tom Cruise to F1. Tom would be one of the few he wouldn’t have to look up to!

[Guisbro Rod H]

I think Lee Janotta's comparison with aircraft pilots is interesting.

But lets remember Anthony Davidson. Could Rennen comment if Anthony was any better as a driver when he improvred his fitness to compete in the last two GPs? Personally, I would have thought that driving round in the BAR for a year testing would improve his F1 driving skills, especially in a BAR! Fitness enabled him to drive.

Modern drivers do not have better reaction times or mental ability to choose new racing lines through a bend. Fitness enables them to survive the tiring G forces. I wonder if Mrs Schue refuses to wash Schue's balaclava etc., and that is why he has to be fit and not sweat.

[Red]

Given the speeds they achieve, the performances of the brakes (read much shorter braking zones), accelerations that their cars can get, grooves + limited elements in wings/higher nose (read less grip), etc, I mean they are allowed only a mistake per race, I'd say that you can say anything about the current Formula 1 drivers.... but NOT that they don't have better reaction times or mental ability to chose a racing line!!! No matter what drivers aids do they have.

[Valve Bounce]

I totally agree with you here. My perception is that when a current driver makes a mistake, he only has a minute fraction of a second to correct it or he is gone. There is no progressive slide to correct - as soon as the ground effects are lost, the car is gone.

Valve

[TimD]

Just a thought on fitness and G-forces. It is an accepted fact that the G-forces exerted on the body are greater in the modern Formula 1 car than the historic one. But there is another important difference in the equation at work.

The modern driver is strapped rigid into a bucket-seat moulded to conform to the specific contours of his body. The only parts of him that are not firmly tied down are his arms, legs and head.

I noticed at Goodwood this weekend, that the drivers in the 1950s cars, while still handling forces of 3 to 3.5 G's, were having those forces exerted on their entire bodies. They don't have seatbelts, and so it is down to them to brace themselves against those forces, and very often in a seat that only has rudimentary sides to it.

Just an observation. Make of it what you will.

[Red]

Yes VB.... interesting facts: I read somewhere that the deceleration record was hit by Frenzen at Jerez in 1997 and it was somewhere about 6.5 G. Let's consider 6 G.... Assuming that I didn't completely forgot the physics from the elementary school, a F1 car decelerates from 300 km/h to 80 km/h (let's say Adelaide corner) in 54 meters and it takes 1 second. And in such time perhaps he might worry about the driver that chases him... and try to outsmart the driver in front. I say it's pretty remarkable even though he doesn't actually has to handle a "stick" gear shifter.

Tim, their bodies ARE strapped, but their heads are not...... It's their neck that suffer most, not the body. Uh, and I forgot... maybe not so critical, but actuall even though their bodies are rigidly strapped, their internal organs aren't in a similar proportion...

[greg.n]

So what would happen if aerodynamic grip was reduced, narrower tyres, but slicks (maybe no tyre changes, only fuel), a less efficient braking system(it still works reliably but it takes longer to slow the car down)lower corner speeds mean it takes longer to accerate to existing terminal speeds so they maybe down, longer braking distances, mechanically operated gearbox systems would add up to more driver skill, less emphasis on having a good car? Maybe?
More entertaining racing?

[Red]

Originally posted by greg.n
So what would happen if

aerodynamic grip was reduced - bad idea. Besides, there are various junior formulae or GTs that do not have such aerodynamics

narrower tyres, but slicks - either nothing or yet another riot from the fans.

only fuel :confused: - that's debateable. What changes exactly? The amount or chemistry?

a less efficient braking system (it still works reliably but it takes longer to slow the car down)[...]mechanically operated gearbox systems A big no-no. Steps down... I want progress instead...

less emphasis on having a good car? Ah-hAAAA Now we're talking business. The Formula 1 constructors are supposed to build fast cars!!!!!!! You want driver skills only, then a kit-car or one-make formula is for you! F 3000, Porsche Michelin, etc! Not Formula 1!

[Gt_R]

This is interesting..

Indeed, i agree with Red that i would hate to see anything that takes a backward step in terms of technology. Modern F1, and part of it's appeal, is the technological progress. It is far far ahead at the technological forefront compared to any other major racing series. Gear sticks and steel drum brakes...nah..

And yes, i believe in F1, its about CARS AND DRIVERS... if we only want a pure drivers series, we should head for a series where all the cars are exactly the same. If we want a pure car series....ermm...is that possible?! But the point is, since F1 has a structure of different teams employing their own drivers and building their own cars, its a series where the best combination wins.

Some guys here claim how drivers in the past are so much greater because they use cars that has so little grip with skinny tires, yet want the big slicks to come back for the modern drivers? Anyway, i won't mind to see the old slicks come back...the grooves look a joke! How about low profile tires too?

[TimD]

I do find it interesting that there is a continuing resistance to the adoption of manual gear shifting and throttle control, in the name of pure technology, and yet those who are arguing the case for unfettered technology seem not to be agitating for greater design freedoms.

Where are the six-wheel cars? The ground-effect cars? The V-6, V-8 and V-12 cars? The four-wheel steer cars? Legislated out of existence by the rule-makers. And yet it could be argued that many of these innovations are just as applicable to modern road-car evolution as the electronic wizardry that seems to be so keenly defended.

In some ways, the very limited scope for today's Formula 1 designer has led to an evolution of drivers. In a quirky survival of the fittest, any driver who doesn't happen to have his skills honed to drive a point-and-squirt, predisposed to understeer, high nose car is going to be at a natural disadvantage in his efforts. Any other type of driver is being ever so gradually legislated out of contention.

[Red]

Originally posted by TimD
I do find it interesting that there is a continuing resistance to the adoption of manual[...]

Well, Tim, the explanation is quite simple I believe, although not quite obvious. And here I have to contradict Gt_R! The “appeal” of Formula 1 is not perceived as technological stuff, but it consists mostly in it’s glamour (and a perfect PR-machine, thank you Mister Bernie-sir and that was not in jest! I really mean it!); on one hand. On the other hand from memories from the past. The simple fact that other series exist, and they comprise the “requirements” of masses is overlooked. Or maybe the fact that those series are NOT called Formula 1 or World Championship is, perhaps... and unexplainable, extremely important.

“Any other type of driver is being legislated out of contention”… in F1! But they can take full advantages and display their skills in other series!!!.... That don’t have same coverage or support of course…. Because the fans insist to watch only a series.... That is a consequence of a lousy management... I mean a Bernie-lack.

Tim, technology is good, however Formula 1 is still a formula. Not a Formula Libre. I kinda agree with your point regarding the number of cylinders (whatta I’m talking about, I was outraged when the V10-only limit was imposed), but I accept FIA’s point: F1 means 3 liters V10 no ground effect 4 wheels cars (only 2 driven). That’s it. Same goes for soccer for example. Perhaps I might become interested if they were allowed to use hands…. or pass the ball forward..... no-wait, American football already does that?! Hmmm :confused: Should I care that Manchester United doesn't play in it?

[freud]

Originally posted by alchemy
Bernie would welcome Tom Cruise to F1. Tom would be one of the few he wouldn’t have to look up to!

I guess Uncle Bernie would love the company of Danny DeVito then...

[Mal]

I think Bernie is quite happy looking up to people, bearing in mind the size of his wife!

[TimD]

I'm not arguing for a Formula Libre, Red. Just a bare minimum to the stipulations that make up that formula. Because we are now in a place where there is no room for a Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray, Harvey Postlethwaite or any number of other radical designers in F1. The designers who looked at the stipulations of the regulations and looked again at them - sideways, as it were. In these days when we can argue ad infinitum about millimetres on a barge board either here or there, there is no room for radical design.

And perhaps more crucially to our thread, there is no room for a classic symbiosis between a radical designer and a driver who can tell him precisely which directions to look in. Michael Schumacher has been fortunate indeed that his epoch has been marked by a style of car which suits his particular and indisputable gifts. The stability in regulations has given him and his team the time to optimise what they do within these strict parameters. That's why they are so dominant.

My problem is that this is something new. Why should drivers with a fascinating and natural style be "relegated" to other series? That's a poor show in my book. Technology may be all very well, but it does not necessarily make for good racing. And the regulations make it perfectly possible that Formula 1 as a formula could find itself up an evolutionary dead-end. It happened before. Grand Prix racing in the last years before 1914 was a series of bigger and bigger engines until finally the series became a parody of what a car should be. In 1952 Grand Prix organisers switched en masse to Formula 2, because the steamroller success of the Alfa Romeo team forced all opposition out of the championship. I can only hope that things change before we see this sort of thing happen again.

[AllonFS]

Originally posted by Red
but I accept FIA’s point: F1 means 3 liters V10 no ground effect 4 wheels cars (only 2 driven). That’s it.

Why? This is only a recent rule change, F1 does not mean any of the above. It has meant all sorts of engine sizes and configurations over the years, and in the future will no doubt 'mean' something else. F1 has a wonderful history of innovation, which is being almost completely stifled by the present rules, (and no I don't count a clever new software programme for a fast start as an innovation).

For me F1 has always meant the pinnacle of motorsport, the best cars, the best drivers, the best tracks, the best racing. That's why I am so disillusioned with it now; it has some of the best modern drivers, but as for cars, tracks and racing - oh dear.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by TimD
In some ways, the very limited scope for today's Formula 1 designer has led to an evolution of drivers. In a quirky survival of the fittest, any driver who doesn't happen to have his skills honed to drive a point-and-squirt, predisposed to understeer, high nose car is going to be at a natural disadvantage in his efforts. Any other type of driver is being ever so gradually legislated out of contention.

Exactly!!! Thank you Tim, I'm _so_ glad someone else has noticed this!

Alesi is the clearest example... A driver who could have been a World Champion as recently as the late '80s, but instead found his natural driving style, driving more with the rear end of the car than the front, was less and less applicable to modern F1.

[Rennen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dani Filth
[B]you bringed the airplanes .. i'll bring the Tanks ... Is Michael Wittman .. the best tank commander in history and future

This all started out as a 'driver debate' by VB, until 'floristry' introduced that aircraft analogy...then it all went pear-shaped...people making combat comparisons! and getting bogged down in car technicalities, which just cloud the issue.

Interestingly 'Dani Filth' line about a WWII German tank ace would have gone over most peoples heads...Wittman was the Schumacher in 'his' respective machine...So what made Wittman so much better than 'his' contempories?
Now there's a thought for you...Michael Schumacher in a Tiger Tank!...no doubt he would have been equally as successful in another era!

On a more serious note: Someone asked me about Anthony's fitness training for F1...Yes! he had to do some very intensive & lengthy training indeed over the winter period at a specialist training centre, prior to resumption of F1 testing back in February. He also has to top that training up each week in the gym when hes not testing.

Someone mentioned that belts keep the body from moving in a modern F1...Not so!...just watch the mirror-cam which shows the side view of the driver at work next time. Watch how the torso crumples under braking...and grows under acceleration. It's that compression under G loads and the continual movement of the head (the heaviest part of the body even before the helmet is added) that modern drivers have to cope with.

Anthony told me he never ever gets 'arm ache' after driving regardless of the driving period...(I don't know about other drivers) but this I'am sure is from years & years of karting (13 years in his case...The ability to lock your arms being the key to kart control)

Does this get us any nearer to VB's point?

[Valve Bounce]

OK, so this thread is about the evolution of F1 drivers. I'll ponder awhile and maybe start another thread to discuss the evolution of F1 cars.
My view is that a driver has to reach a higher level of physical fitness as well as have more talent before he can get into F1 because of the overall comeptitiveness of motor racing at so many different levels and classes.

[greg.n]

My point about changing the cars was that a DRIVERS championship should test the skill of the driver. Making the cars more skittish or easier to slide allows for the more skillful driver to stand out. TGF may still win (if he is the best) but it would be interesting to see who was fastest behind him and the racing would be more spectacular. I agree also with the argument that other design freedoms have been legislated out of existence. Thats why there is actually little technical innovation in the sport. Development is channeled down narrow little avenues of permissible variation which in fact creates bigger gaps between the haves and have nots because it costs a fortune to find significant improvement in such a constrained environment. There is no room for the creativity of a Chapman or a Murray. So the design teams get bigger and bigger, chasing smaller and smaller advantages.

[Red]

Ok, Allon, I already said that I don’t agree with FIA/s V10 rule. But it’s only temporary (in 2007 they’ll be able to produce whatever engines they like) and it was meant to reduce the cost and…. just crossed my mind. People consider F1 boring because of Ferrari domination (among other things). But actually, Ferrari besides their 7-800 mechanics team fully dedicated to F1, had a V12 programme!!! And they got results! A V12 engine revving at unimaginable rpm’s, having a V10 consumption but didn’t “produce” the vibrations inherent to a V10!!!!!! Maybe, just maybe not in 2002, but in 2003 we could’ve heard that engine screaming on tracks! Now, was FIA’s decision good or bad? From my point of view, it was bull… actually it’s a Merc/BMW/FIA conspiracy against Ferrari And Toyota were the innocent victims….

Tim… We’re not talking about a problem of Formula 1 here. Actually that’s a problem of XX Century. (if that really is a problem) Just take a look around you. Name one thing, just one single thing that was invented in the last 50 years or so. Just one! And you won’t be able! Quite indeed, technology evolves at incredible soeed, but not a single innovation! We are able to implement zillions of transistors on a merely visible chip of silicon but the theory was developed in the 20’s! We do have photo cameras worth $ 50,000 that does almost everything except push the button, but the technique to implement it of film is the same as Daguerre used in XIX century!

I don’t know why is that, but there are NO Chapmans these days! Those were pioneers. They got a brilliant idea, implemented it in a matter of weeks and crushed the opposition. 1 race. 2 maybe. But by the 3rd everyone copied it and in 4th someone came with another. Now they spend millions just to get several tenths of seconds per lap. They’ve learned the lessons; they do have computers and aerodynamic tunnels and pure and simply the brilliant “guesses” have no room, no matter what rules can we propose. (and just a side note: we cannot!)