Are modern F1 drivers as good a previous generations

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by nicanary

I reckon there are some drivers from an earlier age who could make the transition - Jim Clark mixed-in with the other drivers to some extent, but on the whole he was not a carouser in the mould of Graham Hill. He was physically fitter, I reckon, than many of his era.

And S C Moss was very conscious of his need to keep fit - he took a very professional attitude towards his career. In his prime I reckon he could have adapted to the current G-forces. It's the one big "what if?" from my favourite era - what if he could have raced against Clark on equal terms for a couple of seasons? Epic races, I imagine.

Clark might have struggled in practice in a modern F1 car, but by the race he would have right on it for as long as his neck held out, by the next race the modern breed wouldn't see which way he went.

As far as Stirling goes he was the first real professional driver, shame he & Clark never went wheel to wheel, but Schumacher wouldn't have seen which way Senna went either, certainly cut Shumacher's WDC tally back to reality.
As far as ability went Clark & Senna were in a different league, ask Bauble who saw Clark in his day.

[JeremySmith]

Yes the lack of a Senna V Shumacher' battle was a great shame...

[Bent Wishbone]

Given enough practice and money a person of average driver ability could become an average F1 driver. To become a F1 great - money can't buy that level of skill - my opinion

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by Bent Wishbone

Given enough practice and money a person of average driver ability could become an average F1 driver. To become a F1 great - money can't buy that level of skill - my opinion

Not unless you know you are never going to be hurt you cant.
Braking is the hardest thing to learn, leaving it late enough & still braking whilst turning well into the corner, then being instantly on the power but not all of it is very hard to learn, a lot of talent & belief is needed.

[FAS33]

In the same Equipment, the Drivers on the grid today would destroy the likes of Fangio, Senna, Prost.

[Salamus]

IMO comparing drivers of different generations is like comparing hockey players of different generations. The game has changed so much, there are way too many factors and looking at just driver skill isn't enough.

The OP mentioned how drivers nowadays are told what to do. But we're forgetting that today, strategies determine a driver's race pace, different tires mean different paces, and equipment has to be maintained. Let's not forget gimmicks like DRS which take away from true driver skill. Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, you drive like hell and hoped you didn't crash or your car didn't break down.

Today's group of drivers is much more competitive then 20+ years ago. It is very hard to be great now because everyone is so close. Not only are drivers so close but teams as well, RBR, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Lotus, all have a chance to win. Even today, it is hard to determine who is the best because of different team mentalities (supporting one driver vs two) and different equipment.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Maybe early 2000s was similar with Schumacher, Montoya and Kimi going at it, but that was spoilt by Mosley's Ferrarism.

No, that was spoilt by Montoya and Raikkonen not being anywhere near as good as Schumacher.

Originally Posted by FAS33

In the same Equipment, the Drivers on the grid today would destroy the likes of Fangio, Senna, Prost.

Fangio, who knows.
Senna and Prost, highly unlikely.

Look at it this way:
43 year old Schumacher was ahead of Rosberg last year with a similar margin to what Hamilton has now.
37 year old Schumacher was half a second clear of teammate Massa. The next year, Raikkonen was pretty much even with Massa.
Now imagine 90s Schumacher. There's no real evidence, but I imagine Senna was about as fast as Schumacher when they raced each other in the 90s and Prost was very well matched with Senna in 88-89 despite the disadvantages he faced. So I would disagree with your claim.

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by Beryl

Look at it this way:
43 year old Schumacher was ahead of Rosberg last year with a similar margin to what Hamilton has now.
37 year old Schumacher was half a second clear of teammate Massa. The next year, Raikkonen was pretty much even with Massa.
Now imagine 90s Schumacher. There's no real evidence, but I imagine Senna was about as fast as Schumacher when they raced each other in the 90s and Prost was very well matched with Senna in 88-89 despite the disadvantages he faced. So I would disagree with your claim.

What do you mean by Schumacher was ahead of Rosberg last year?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Salamus

IMO comparing drivers of different generations is like comparing hockey players of different generations.

I had a similar thought. It's like comparing different generations of snooker players.

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by FAS33

What do you mean by Schumacher was ahead of Rosberg last year?

Michael was a tenth on average faster in qualifying (tied 10-10 overall) and was ahead 7-3 when both finished. He performed better.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by FAS33

In the same Equipment, the Drivers on the grid today would destroy the likes of Fangio, Senna, Prost.

I know we don't always see eye to eye, but that really is one of the daftest things I've ever read on Tenths........ Only my opinion, of course........

Originally Posted by Adam43

I had a similar thought. It's like comparing different generations of snooker players.

Generations of any players, I suspect.......

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

I know we don't always see eye to eye, but that really is one of the daftest things I've ever read on Tenths........ Only my opinion, of course........

and we all know what opinions are like aye................................................................................................. .......................................................................................

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by Beryl

Michael was a tenth on average faster in qualifying (tied 10-10 overall) and was ahead 7-3 when both finished. He performed better.

True, but when you look at all the times they were together as team mates, Rosberg out qualified, out raced, and destroyed him in total points accumulated, and he also managed to win a race.


Faster qualifying time: Rosberg 41 / Schumacher 17
Best race result (inc DNFs): Rosberg 35 / Schumacher 22
Overall points: Rosberg 324 / Schumacher 197

I think it's safe to say Rosburger beat shoemaker quite easily.

[FastDB2s]

Originally Posted by FAS33
In the same Equipment, the Drivers on the grid today would destroy the likes of Fangio, Senna, Prost.

When I read that the hospital had to give me a sedative to stop me laughing !

[steve_r]

Schumacher's speed and racecraft was not the same as it was in his prime, upon his return with Mercedes. I really don't think any useful comparison can be drawn, apart from the fact that the sport had moved on in just a couple of years.

For that reason, comparing drivers who are a whole generation apart is impossible, and it is all down to personal opinion.

My personal opinion is that the likes of Senna, Prost, Clarke, Stewart, Lauda etc would be on a similiar level to the current A grade drivers - Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton etc, and would be better than the current mid-pack of drivers.

[Paradise City]

If today's guys were dropped into Fangio's era, into cars from Fangio's era, with tracks from Fangio's era, sans a helmet basically, no seat belt, they wouldn't stand a chance. NOT a chance.

And let there be no shame on them for that because that era was MENTAL.

[leonidas]

My take on this is that it would be a lot easier for Stirling Moss to adapt to modern conditions that for Seb Vettel to adapt to those of old.

Just take the tracks - they are now all essentially the same. Then look back to the days of the Nurburgring, Pescara, banked Monza, the old Spa... alongside more conventional tracks like Silverstone, Monaco. It was a different challenge every round.

And then there's the changing conditions. With longer tracks it was wet in one place and dry in the next. There was much more adaptability required.

Then the cars... yes, modern F1 are still hard to drive on the limit but in the 50s the only electronic aid you had was the muscles in your feet!

As for fitness, its horses for courses. One and half hours around the Hungaroring or three hours around Pescara? As an ordinary mortal I could just about imagine getting fit enough for the former... but the latter? No way.

[Moneyseeker]

Martin Brundle is probably one of the closest we have to a driver who has raced F1 cars over a wide enough technical and car development era - from 84-96 and has driven F1 cars from early to current day for his TV features, so his take would be interesting.

[bauble]

Has any 'modern' driver built and raced his own car on cinder tracks, and won championships?
has any 'modern' driver driven on dirt roads for thousands of miles in stripped down hotted-up saloons, and won?
Has any modern driver competed in a thousand mile race around Italy on only partially closed roads in a sports car capable of 180mph, and won?
Do any 'modern' Formula 1 drivers compete in 1000 kilometre sports car events in between Grands Prix?
Has any 'modern' driver won five championships driving for four different teams?
Has any 'modern' driver won a Formula 1 World Championship in his fifties?
Has any 'modern' driver won half of the Grands Prix he competed in over an eight year period?

If you can then you may compare them with chaps from the '50's, until then can I suggest (respectfully) that we do not even try?

The greatest driver of all time was almost certainly racing before the current Formula 1 World Championship was even inaugurated.

Naturally everyone is perfectly entitled to form their own opinion on what constitutes a/the Greatest of All Time, but comparing past era's with the present day is fraught with peril.

Still it is as some have pointed out - it can provide a good laugh.

bauble OAP.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bauble

Naturally everyone is perfectly entitled to form their own opinion on what constitutes a/the Greatest of All Time, but comparing past era's with the present day is fraught with peril.

true but i do feel these types of threads/questions do help with crystallizing what attributes are the crucial factors in determining greatness.

im not sure if anyone has read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers before. among the various ideas he put forward about what makes highly skilled people great is a concept he borrows called the 10,000 hour rule.

quite literally it says that if given enough playing time (10K hours) is the threshold for a skilled person to become great.

anyways i bring it up in response to Salumus' point,

Originally Posted by Salamus

Today's group of drivers is much more competitive then 20+ years ago. It is very hard to be great now because everyone is so close. Not only are drivers so close but teams as well, RBR, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Lotus, all have a chance to win. Even today, it is hard to determine who is the best because of different team mentalities (supporting one driver vs two) and different equipment.

on one hand i agree that the field is much closer today then in the past and achieving greatness and or separation from the rest of the field does seem harder to do now (for all of the reasons he states).

but with Gladwell's 10k hour rule in mind i wonder how much of that has to do with the lack of testing? with the current test ban i doubt any modern driver will accumulate the necessary hours to hit that target and the last 'great' that we could get any semblance of agreement on being great was Schumi and he is known for a long career and spending hours and hours pounding around Fiorano....which perhaps gives credence to this theory.

so if you subscribe to the 'Outliers Theory' then perhaps the rules themselves are the reason why we dont see greatness anymore because the drivers simply lack the time necessary to be great. a condition that didnt exist in the past but certainly should be seen as a limitation for todays drivers.

anyways food for though and with all the 'X is great' threads and stuff this book has been on my mind a lot lately and thought i would share!

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by steve_r

My personal opinion is that the likes of Senna, Prost, Clarke, Stewart, Lauda etc would be on a similiar level to the current A grade drivers - Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton etc, and would be better than the current mid-pack of drivers.

I see Alonso and Hamilton more as of a Piquet and Mansell. It's not just the number of titles, it's the way neither have dominated their teammates or performed miracles in slower cars (I know, the latter is extremely subjective). I still see Prost and Senna on another level.

Vettel is still a question mark.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by FAS33

In the same Equipment, the Drivers on the grid today would destroy the likes of Fangio, Senna, Prost.

Only cos two of them are dead and the third's almost an OAP.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Beryl

Vettel is still a question mark.

3 back to back WDCs against the strongest most experienced field in history, containing more world champions than ever before! More parity rules than ever before, and greater levels of engineering skills and resources across the grid than ever before!

Yup Seb is just an ordinary plodder who got lucky.

[Armco Bender]

3 back to back WDCs against the strongest most experienced field in history, containing more world champions than ever before! More parity rules than ever before, and greater levels of engineering skills and resources across the grid than ever before!

Go back 40 years and half the grid would be deceased and not there,go back to Fangios day and 2/3's of them would be deceased.They were different times back then.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Go back 40 years and half the grid would be deceased and not there,go back to Fangios day and 2/3's of them would be deceased.They were different times back then.

My point exactly, previously you had a few experienced drivers against a few neophytes!

Now days you are up against very experienced well trained competitors.

Much easier to look good under the previous circumstances.

Stewart did not get to race against Rindt and Clark at the peak of their prowess when he was at his peak.

Still, I believe it is impossible to compare different eras for all the reasons the members have expressed above.

Kind of like comparing Baron von Richthoven to a member of the Blue Arrows!