F1 vs Rally Driver Skill

Does Rallying rely more on a drivers skill than F1 does??? If you have a Bad driver in a good car would he go worse in rallying or F1. If Schumacher had the same skill in a rally car would he be unbeatable. I don't think so because their are just as many stand out drivers in F1 as their are in Rallying.

There's an interesting article in Autosport this week (which makes a change recently!) about drivers who have driven both rally cars and Grand Prix cars (oh, there we go again - Autosport and F1!!) and offers a great quote when talking about Colin McRae's proposed test of the Stewart GP car, 'if driving truly is a private conversation between man and machine, then McRae's test of a Stewart-Ford should demand that he learns a new dialect, nothing more.'

Ayrton Senna is said to have loved it when it was arranged for him to test a group of the very best (and most powerful) rally cars of the day. And the aforementioned Colin McRae claims that F1 is 'relatively easy', but wonders how he would cope in a crowd of 20 other machines.

However, Autosport sums it up nicely when it says, 'a great driver is a great driver - whether rallying or racing' It also offers a nice story about the Scottish Great, Jim Clark, who rolled into a Scottish ditch on stage 45 of the 1966 RAC. "We tripped over the border", he said - as perfect a quote as European motorsport has ever summoned. He spent the rest of the event in a Lotus Cortina service car, helping out his team mates. He even took the entire Ford outfit out to dinner at the end of the event. By that time he had twice been F1 world champion and Indy 500 victor.

The main differences that come to mind between being a rally driver and a F1 driver has to be the difference in precision. F1 demands exacting precision in placing the car at the correct location on the track every single lap. Rally does not immediately demand this as they only run on a few closed courses for laps. What rally demands that F1 does not is the lightning reflexes of not knowing exactly what is around the bend. The ability to maintain a long four wheel drift at insane speeds around blind corners. I think that MS would make a good rally driver with some practice, and McRae could do the same in F1. However, both are probably too old to change disciplines now.

I know what u mean about F1 AND precsion. But rally needs a diffrent type of pression. In F1 you break turn accellarte. In rally you break turn slide break accelerate control oversterr understerr break then finally acccellerate out. A samall mistake hurts more in F1 but it is easier to make a mistake in rallying.

It's not really F1... but any time a racing driver has attempted an event the British Rally Championship (or RAC Rally) they haven't done very well...

Derek Bell tried a couple of times, the famous in car footage showing him crashing out at a 90 left with co-driver's words "Derek, Derek, Derek,listen to me, listen to me..."

There have been other Touring Car drivers try their hand at rallying, all without huge success. I think because they can only do one thing at a time - drive. Rallying requires a driver to 'multi-task' - ie listen, understand and respond to..

The notable driver who went the other way is Touring Car driver John Cleland, who started off driving quite successfully in rallies and moved to racing, again with good results.

Does this all mean Rally drivers are better?

Peter Brock entered the Round Australia Trial, which is just another way of saying really long rally, in 1979 and won, he did roll the car at one point though.

Another thing to consider is the mentrality of the modern F1 driver versus that of the modern rally driver. F1 drivers are very tempermental and easily succumb to negative pressure from the team, rivals or the press. They operate the car alone and must communicate their situation to the team. Rally drivers by nature are dependent on their co-driver to inform them of the next obstacle to overcome. The rally drivers seem content at times to place well at an event instead of taking an outright win because they know that the chances of dropping out of an event are quite high. F1 drivers are expected to win no matter how bad the car is. Rally drivers are expected to keep the car from damage and finish the stage in good position. I think that rally drivers are probably more trusting in nature than other race dirvers who do not rely on some one else telling how fast the turn is taken at.

Brett, see if you can get a hold of the April 8th issue of Autosport if you haven't already. Russell Bulgin has an excellent article about Rally drivers versus F1 drivers. His contention is that a great driver is a great driver no matter what they drive. He speaks with some knowledge as he set up the rally car and F1 tests of Hannu Nikkola, Ayrton Senna, and Colin McRae. Great article.

I think that the drivers at the pinnacle of their sport - whether WRC rallying or F1 have very similar levels of skill and commitment. The difference lies in the fact that rally drivers need vastly more experience than F1 drivers before they can be truly classed as true all-rounders.

Rally drivers tackle a much wider variety of terrains, car problems, time schedules etc. and, as such can be seen as more complete drivers. This is the reason why rally drivers adapt much better to racing than vice-versa.

I also think it would be fair to say that there is only one true superstar at the top of F1 - Michael Schumacher, whereas six or eight years ago you could include MS, Ayrton, Alain Prost and Nige. To draw a parallel in the WRC you can include Colin and Tommi Makkinen as the rally counterparts to Ayrton and MS (real chargers, driving at 10/10ths) and Sainz and Auriol as the thinking counterparts to Prost and, maybe, Mansell.

In addition, rally drivers appear to have their feet much more firmly on the ground as they are not lulled as much into the Prima Donna syndrome as F1 drivers. All the time they are aware that no matter how much they are paid or how fancy their car is, good old mother nature is lurking round the next corner waiting to catch them out.

[Jason]

I tried to debate this same topic on Daily F1 forum, but not many people were willing to discuss it. IMO, rally drivers are more skilled, simply because they have more factors to deal with. For example, different surfaces such as gravel, mud, dirt, snow, ice and asphalt. Just asphalt in F1. Also, rally events usually span 3-4 days and sometimes the weather changes dramatically in that time frame. In F1, races usually last less than 2 hours, therefore weather changes are less dramatic. Also racing for 3-4 days requires more stamina and concentration than a 2 hour race. Rally drivers race at night. F1 drivers don't. In rallying, driver don't drive on the track before the actual race and during the race they never race over the same part of track again. In F1, the drivers practice many laps on the same track before the actual race. In rallying, there are often blind hairpin turns. In F1, the turns are visable well in advance. Rallying is about adjusting to changing conditions. Whereas, F1 is about taking the proper racing line and setting up for the next turn.

[This message has been edited by Jason (edited 15 August 1999).]

[SkylineR34]

If you take a look at the average ages of the top F1 guys and the top WRC guys, the rally drivers are almost jeriatric.

It takes lightning reflexes to be an F1 drvier simply because you're going a lot faster.

[Grant]

I'm sure that F1 drivers could go on for much longer than they do these days. After all Mansell was no spring chicken when he blitzed the field in 1992. I've no doubt that if he had not ran in the huff to play at Indycars that he could still have been competative today but F1 is rapidly becoming very ageist. Gerhard Berger proved in his last year that he still had what it took, he just didnt have the car to do it in very often.

Young F1 drivers are the in thing in F1 just now and its something that Rallying does not suffer from. Look at the lengths of the careers of Carlos Sainz and Juha Kankkunen, and I cant see either of them throwing in the towel in the near future either.

It not 100% fair to compare drivers from each series as each discipline is vastly different and what works for one wont always work for the other, however history shows that it can be done, look at Jim Clark and even Jackie Stewart nearly ended up a rally driver. Again, maybe thats a throwback to the F1 cars of old that slid about more, like a rally car?

Grant

[Chuck Lantz]

I follow both F1 and WRC, and have given this question a lot of thought. I agree with KC that the Rally drivers seem to have their heads screwed on tighter. On the other hand, F1 drivers are much more likely to suffer serious injury or death in a shunt. But I have to think that Rally drivers are more skilled across the board. Racing strictly against the clock takes a certain discipline that not all F1 drivers seem to have. Not all F1 drivers are good qualifiers, but Rallying could be described as "constant qualifying". Check the in-car shots of the WRC drivers,...those guys are WORKING!

[ashley 19]

who win

[Dutton]

Chuck, I do not understand how you can conclude there is more chance of injury in F1...that makes no sense to me. I would say the disciplines are so very different it is very hard to judge accurately, but in terms of how I feel about them? I have immense respect for rally drivers in the sense of the total madness of rallying, and all that it entails: just having the balls to do those incredible speeds along the routes fries my head, and I love it! Then I also find it mind blowing how in the likes of F1 drivers can follow each other centimetres apart, braking etc at all the right times to avoid ramming into each other etc: and overtaking judgements, like where you are in relation to the competitor etc. The way the cars lower down the order have to negotiate around the sprawl of machines at the start, culminating in making sure they get through turn one safely. An F1 car in the wet too, especially torrential conditions, requires skill perfectly comparable to that of rallying.

I don't respect or revere drivers of either discipline over the other, for they are so utterly different: both require phenomenal talent to do it in the first place, let alone those who achieve to the highest levels.

[Heebeegeetee]

Haven't had chance to read all this thread, but quickly wanted to give my twopenuth.

A few years ago they used to have a rally driver v F1 driver competition at Donington, and I think a rally driver always won. They were much more versatile.

That aside though, think of this. When watching rally cars, and I've just thoroughly enjoyed Rally GB, when you're watching the in-car camera, and the cars in say, 5th or 6th gear, and it's been at full chat for a bit, and you're watching those horrible greasy tracks through the windscreen, I always start to feel distinctly uncomfortable. I'm like, wincing, and starting to think "oooh, this is gonna be big if we go off" etc., and I'm relieved when the corner comes and we go through safely.
I never feel like that when watching F1. It never has that effect on me.
Nope, for me, rally drivers live by their wits, for most of the length of an event. For me, they're the braver and more skillful drivers.

[garcon]

I'm with you on thet heebee - many of us have given it some in a quick-ish car down some country lane or other and thought we could be a rally driver, but when you watch the in-car they seem to be in a different dimension and you realise just how completely barking mad they are.

I reckon the reactions of an F1 and WRC driver would be similar if you tested them. The age difference may be down to the fact it doesn't take as long to learn 17 circuits as it does to learn all the rallies (conditions, tyre choices etc, not necessarily every km of stage - though I'm amazed how much the old boys know by heart!)...

[Zep]

If we are talking about rallying and F1 in same sentence we have to mention Henri Toivonen, right? Henri could have had circuit racing career without family reasons -his family thought rallying would be safer than sportscar/F1 -career... Tested F1 in early 80's with GOOD results and was racing in Rothmans 962's.

[imull]

Toivonen would have prefered to race than rally. Theer was an article about it in teh Motorsport magazine a couple of months ago, I think.

At the top of the thread some guests were talking about accuracy. consider this, the narrowest Formula 1 track (Monaco aside is wide enough for about 3 cars... Very rearely do rally cars see more than a basic one lane each way road.

Most Formula one cars average what a rally cars top speed is, but a rally car weighs 1230kg compared to about 600kg(ish).

F1 is on Tarmac, usually of a single grade, rallying will see several surfaces in each stage, and in some cases a couple of hundred yards. Just ask Marcus Gronholm

When you pick tyres on an F1 race, you pick specific tyres for dry/intermediate/wet. On a rally cars, you have to take into consideration thiings like amount of grit about (and depth), type of surface, weather conditions. On a rally tyre they can alter things like, width, tread pattern, extra cuts (can have extra cuts in tread etc), compund and many more.

Back to accuracy, Yes, F1 cars are closer together but I reckon that rally drivers have to be more accurate.

Often, a rally car is travelling at well over 100mph and will have a corner coming up where there is no run off area. Trees on road side in Oz, huge cliffs in Corsica...

If an F1 driver make a small mistake he can run slightly wide and use the huge run off areas available (now even more with tarmac ones). Occasionaly they will get stuck in gravel or crash. On a rally a driver can be a split second too early turning in and roll his car into a ball (McRae last year) or too late and will be off the road and into a tree (Delocour in Oz).

In rallying, if you get it wrong there is a fraction of the space available to corect it.

Rally drivers, have as someone said, to turnin, brake and get back on the power whilst following a line. This is the same as in F1, but in rallying the line is about 12" wide and then they get on the loose stuff and almost all grip vanishes. On a circuit this line is only imaginary.

Rallying is a more demanding and skillful discipline for me every time.

Just wish Schumi would take up McRaes challenge.

As for the challenge day thing at Brands hatch, the Race of Champions is heald every year (maybe every two years) in Gran Canaria. This is a sprint event open to champions and invitation drives. They drive modern, old and specias during the contest. I dont think a racing driver has won it yet.

[Lee Janotta]

American Robby Gordon came pretty damn close last year.

Robby, of course, is currently a NASCAR driver, but has won championships on dirt ovals, in sports cars, in off-road trucks (Baja), and had some success in CART on road courses.

How I wish Chevrolet would enter WRC with Robby as their top driver.

[garcon]

Chevrolet? In what?!

[garcon]

Actually, saw some footage of a classic rally event recently with some truly bizarre cars giving it all on the gravel - including an Aston Martin V8

[Lee Janotta]

Well, the next version of the Chevrolet Cavalier will be built on the Opel Vectra platform, so I suppose combined with the turbocharged 2.0L Ecotec engine which has been developed for drag racing, they could put together a decent WRC car.

Or, they could go smaller with the Chevrolet (formerly Geo) Metro, based on the Suzuki Swift platform.

[garcon]

In theory the Cavalier/Vectra could make a decent starting point - though if GM were to pursue rallying it'd more likely be based on an Opel Astra.

The 'craze' for swb cars like the 206 puzzles me - longer wheelbase cars like the Impreza/Octavia/Lancer should in theory be more stable...

[Lee Janotta]

The stability's the drawback, actually. The shorter cars turn faster, which is an advantage since the AWD allows you to "dig" yourself out of the corners.

And yes, I'm sorry, I should have said Astra, not Vectra. Gah, those are _weird_ model names...