Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Purist
I do think there is an intimidation issue. The recognition that the cars, tracks, and safety crews were not near the standard of today had to play a part, and yet, there were some pretty crazy things done then (four abreast blasting past the pits at Monza).
|
Yes, but then they knew no different - it's the context issue again. Schuey drove a 1983 Ferrari turbo a few years back and remarked how dangerous it felt, whereas that would have been a much safer car to have a crash in than anything produced in the '50s or 60's. Similarly, in 20 years time, the drivers of the day may well believe that todays cars aren't very safe! It's all relative!
Having said that, I think there was a slightly different approach in the past. I believe Moss has said that he always left himself a margin because the consequencies of an off were so serious. Fangio's '57 German GP drive, to which you refer, was his greatest drive because it was one of the few occasions where he really had to let rip - and on one of the most daunting circuits in the world. In one sense, modern drivers have it easier because the risks are far less, but because of that they probably spend a higher percentage of their races on the absolute limit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Purist
Also, somehow I don't think the drivers of yester-year could have gotten by being completely unfit. The GPs were significantly longer distance-wise, and if Trois Freres at Rouen was any indication, there WERE plenty of high-speed, on-the-limit corners to deal with.
|
Good point, though I suspect that it was a different kind of 'fitness'. In the '50s and '60s (and before), being physically strong and robust was probably more of an asset to drivers than actual fitness (Frolian Gonzalez being one of the more notable examples!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Purist
As for tactics and driver skill, I would point out the events of the 1957 German Grand Prix. Fangio was in a 1954 Maserati 250F up against three of the new-for-1957 Scuderia-Ferraris. In addition, Fangio would have to make a pit stop for tires, unlike his rivals. In the first half of the race, Fangio built up a 28 second lead. He then pitted. Service took 56 seconds and the car was stationary for a minute or so. The official deficit that Fangio had to make up right after the stop was 45 seconds. He then proceeded to run his out lap slow, on purpose. This lulled the Ferrari team principals into false confidence, and they told thir drivers that Fangio had a problem and would not pose a threat. After his out lap though, Fangio went to a whole nother level. He started reeling in the top three hand over fist. There were a few times where he made up 17 seconds a lap on the Ferraris. Fangio broke the track record, and beat his own pole time by 8 seconds. He went into the last lap just behind his rivals, and came out winning by 3 seconds. There is a reason he was known as the "Maestro". He earned the title "Ringmeister" after that race. After that GP, he said he would never drive like that again, which is no small thing, and understandable considering the commitment of running on the limit on the Nordschleife.
|
Just to clarify a couple of points, the 250F that Fangio drove that day was quite well removed from the '54 version. Although it was an old design, the '57 250F was still one of the best cars on the grid. The Ferraris were loosely based on the Lancia D50s that Lancia had handed over to Ferrari at the end of '55 and it had taken, as Chris Nixon book 'The Rivals' points out, it had taken Ferrari two years to essentially spoil Jano's original design. Ferrari did not win a single World Championship GP in '57.
Funnily enough, I've always thought of Fangio's win at the Nurburgring as one of driver quality triumphing over a strategy that went wrong. He planned the stop and started on half-tanks and the idea was for him not to rejoin quite that far behind! However, the stop was atrocious and put him much further down than intended. Whether his opening lap was deliberately slow to lull Ferrari into a false sense of security or not I'm not sure, but there's no doubt that in the laps that followed Fangio put in one of the all-time great comeback drives.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that top drivers in the 1950s could think tactically. I reckon Moss' non-stop wins in the 1958 Argentine and 1959 Italian GPs are probably good examples.