Where would TGF Place on This Grid?

[Liz]

Here is the 1979 Long Beach Grid - my benchmark for Real Competition. Where do you think TGF would have started and finished on this grid?

==================

Starting Grid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gilles Villeneuve
Ferrari 312T4 1:18.825

Carlos Reutemann
Lotus 79-Ford 1:18.886

Jody Scheckter
Ferrari 312T4 1:18.911

Patrick Depailler
Ligier JS11-Ford 1:19.025

Mario Andretti
Lotus 79-Ford 1:19.454

Jacques Laffite
Ligier JS11-Ford 1:19.032

James Hunt
Wolf WR7-Ford 1:19.643

Jean-Pierre Jarier
Tyrrell 009-Ford 1:19.580

Alan Jones
Williams FW06-Ford 1:19.910

Riccardo Patrese
Arrows A1B-Ford 1:19.727

Nelson Piquet
Brabham BT48-Alfa Romeo 1:20.456

Niki Lauda
Brabham BT48-Alfa Romeo 1:20.041

Jochen Mass
Arrows A1B-Ford 1:20.608

Jan Lammers
Shadow DN9-Ford 1:20.740

Clay Regazzoni
Williams FW06-Ford 1:20.768

Emerson Fittipaldi
Fittipaldi F5A-Ford 1:21.033

Didier Pironi
yrrell 009-Ford 1:21.192

John Watson
McLaren M28-Ford 1:21.304

Patrick Tambay
McLaren M28-Ford 1:21.411

Elio de Angelis
Shadow DN9-Ford 1:21.961

Hans J. Stuck
ATS D2-Ford 1:22.828

Derek Daly
Ensign N179-Ford 1:23.888

Arturo Merzario
Merzario A1B-Ford 1:22.938

Hector Rebaque
Lotus 79-Ford 1:22.990

================

Finishing Grid:

1. Gilles Villeneuve Can Ferrari 312T4 1:50:25.40 80
2. Jody Scheckter SAf Ferrari 312T4 29.38 sec. 80
3. Alan Jones Aus Williams FW06-Ford 59.69 sec. 80
4. Mario Andretti USA Lotus 79-Ford 1:04.33 80
5. Patrick Depailler Fra Ligier JS11-Ford 1:23.52 80
6. Jean-Pierre Jarier Fra Tyrrell 009-Ford 1 lap 79
7. Elio de Angelis Ita Shadow DN9-Ford 2 laps 78
8. Nelson Piquet Bra Brabham BT48-Alfa Romeo 2 laps 78
9. *Jochen Mass Ger Arrows A1-Ford 2 laps 78
DSQ Didier Pironi Fra Tyrrell 009-Ford Disqualified 72
Ret Hector Rebaque Mex Lotus 79-Ford Accident 71
Ret Derek Daly GBr Ensign N179-Ford Accident 68
Ret John Watson GBr McLaren M28-Ford Metering unit 62
Ret Hans Stuck Ger ATS D2-Ford Disqualified 49
Ret Clay Regazzoni Swi Williams FW06-Ford Engine 48
Ret Jan Lammers Hol Shadow DN9-Ford Accident 47
Ret Riccardo Patrese Ita Arrows A1-Ford Brakes 40
Ret Carlos Reutemann Arg Lotus 79-Ford Driveshaft 21
Ret Emerson Fittipaldi Bra Copersucar F5A-Ford Driveshaft 19
Ret Arturo Merzario Ita Merzario A1B-Ford Engine 12
Ret Jacques Laffite Fra Ligier JS11-Ford Brakes 8
Ret Niki Lauda Aut Brabham BT48-Alfa Romeo Accident 0
Ret Patrick Tambay Fra McLaren M28-Ford Accident 0
Ret James Hunt GBr Wolf WR8-Ford Driveshaft 0
DNS Jean-Pierre Jabouille Fra Renault RS01 -
DNS Rene Arnoux Fra Renault RS01 -

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* - Not running at finish; DSQ - Disqualified; DNS - Did not start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Fastest Lap: Gilles Villeneuve, 1:21.200

My guess is he would have started between Tambay and Marzario and would have finished between Jacques Lafitte and Niki Lauda.

[Don K]

Originally posted by Liz
Here is the 1979 Long Beach Grid - my benchmark for Real Competition. Where do you think TGF would have started and finished on this grid?

OK, let's assume Michael entered Formula one somewhere during the 1969 season, and let's assume he survived until this race.
By that time he should have been grown into a mature and strong racer.

I think he would have qualified somewhere near Mario Andretti.
I don't think he would have had a mechanical failure, and starting in front of both Lauda and Tambay, he would not have been involved in their accident.
So he might have finished anywhere between positions 1 and 5.

[LucaBadoer]

Would TGF be driving the F2001?

[Quino]

Talk about your useless topic

[Liz]

No, in equal equipment.

Quino, if you don't like the topic, nobody is compelling you to read it or respond to it.

[eatapc]

It's impossible to compare athletes of different eras in most sports. Chris Evert and John McEnroe were musing today that when the TV coverage has to deal with Wimbledon rain delays, they sometimes show highlights of "classic" matches (featuring none other than McEnroe & Evert), and that all the old players seem to be moving in slow motion. "Today's players see that and laugh at us." Of course, put Rod Laver's small, heavy wooden racquet in the hands of a modern player and we'd see who has the last laugh.

That said, I don't see anyone on your 1979 grid who dominated the competition like TGF does today. What does that tell you?

[Don K]

Originally posted by eatapc
That said, I don't see anyone on your 1979 grid who dominated the competition like TGF does today. What does that tell you?

Maybe the standards were higher then. There were lots of good drivers. Now we've got only one driver of the top level.
Or maybe the standards were lower then. Everybody could enter F1 and go straight to the top.

[Quino]

Liz> I know, but I'm doing it anyway.

Im starting to see a rather pathetic patern here...

[R]

I think TGF would have qualified 2nd on this grid, in equal equipment, given that he'd had a few years' experience prior. He would have been edged by a few thousandths of a second by Gilles, and he would have been beaten by Gilles in the race as well. By approximately 10 seconds.

[Liz]

Newer doesn't mean better. It just means newer.

And what it tells me that nobody on the grid in 1979 "dominated the way TGF does" is that TGF looks soo good because he has no competition. That is my entire point. Put him in a grid with real competition and make him drive the car without any driving aids, and what would he do? He has said himself he is afraid of those cars.

Quino I have nothing to say to you.

[Gt_R]

Liz...i would have believed that Michael would have qualified top 8 and finish in the same range also, barring any accidents...

But it seems strange that you are time and again trying to put Michael down and discredit all his performance with things such as "looks good ...no competition" and "...has said himself he is afraid of those cars." It seems like you are trying to paint an ugly picture of a useless WDC...which is not really appreciated by many pro-Schueys. If you noted, pro-schueys(at least the sensible ones) do not go around starting threads just to bad mouth and put down other drivers...so i do not really see the need for anti-schueys to start an anti-schuey thread every 2 days... Trust me...if Michael really said that he is scared after driving one, JPM would be tamed by it, DC would not even dare to start the engine, Jacques would not even attempt to shift it into gear...Mika wouldnt even dare to step into it...and Ralf wouldnt even dare look at it...

A car without drivers aids and the likes wouldnt stop MS from doing well. Its because you find in Schuey the same desire and talent for racing cars as you do in many of the other greats. Yes...it would be harder for him to do as well as today, as he might be slightly less successful than today...but he would overcome all these to really do well..and still be a successful driver...

The only difference is...the WDC in the past seems more strong...at least...we would be ensured that "weaker" drivers like Doo Heel and DC would NEVER win the championship then...

[mac]

There are also less competitive cars today - giving other good drivers much less chance to get near the front of the field.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by mac
There are also less competitive cars today - giving other good drivers much less chance to get near the front of the field.

Look at the qualifying times: Villeneuve had a 1:18.8 to Derek Daly's (Ensign N179-Ford) 1:23.888. The McLarens of Tambay and Watson were about two and a half seconds slower than the top Ferrari. Are this year's backmarkers -- even Minardi -- less competitive? No.

To me, the difference is that today's cars are more consistent. The best teams stay the best teams from one track to another. Computer telemetry, highly paid engineers and more knowledgeable drivers might explain why the good teams are able to adapt their cars to different courses.

Would any of the older drivers have been able to achieve the optimum set up on a modern car like TGF does race after race? That's a skill they didn't need to develop so highly in their era. Many of the drivers on that grid would never have been able to adapt their driving style and setup technique to modern cars, just as some modern drivers would flounder in the old cars. Liz, as you said, newer isn't necessarily better, it's just different. But older isn't better, either.

BTW, Mario Andretti was reunited not long ago with his championship-winning Lotus (fully restored, with helpful input from Mario himself) at Watkins Glen (sorry, I can't remember the magazine). Mario said something to the effect that the old cars were incredibly flimsy, and are scary to contemplate now. If TGF said they were scary, he was just stating the obvious. I'm a closet Jacques Villeneuve fan (OK, I'm out of the closet on this forum), and I wouldn't want to see him behind the wheel of the car that killed his father.

P.S. I think this kind of "what if" is stimulating, even if ultimately "useless." Keep it up, Liz.

[DNQ]

Hmm, interesting topic. I really don't know, but I'd place him about the same as Jody Sheckter, in the other Ferrari. TGF wouldn't get close to Gilles Villeneuve

[Valve Bounce]

I must disagree strenuously, Liz. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that today's drivers are more professional in their approach, and just as good as, if not better than the drivers of yore. I think Jacques is a great driver, and so we disagree right from this point. I think that TGF, DC, Mika, Rubens, and Ralf and JPM also could mix it with the best from the 1979 starting line up, and because our drivers are fitter and stronger, more focussed in their training, and test a helluva lot more, I think if you put the 1979 guys at their 1979 aptitude against the current F1 guys by some form of instantaneous magic, the current guys would occupy the top 4 rows. AND it hurts me to admit it, but I would put my money on TGF for pole position. For those who want to throw fruit at me, please start with bananas, as there is a ready market for them here.

[Nuvolari]

I tend to agree, though I'm also in the camp which believes ultimately it's futile to compare competitors from different generations:

Could Babe Ruth hit eighty home runs today? Could Mark Magwire have hit sixty when Ruth played?

[Airhead]

I would agree with Valve here.

On the one hand are the benefits of traction control, auto boxes and telemetry (to name a few) on the other is the pressure placed on the current crop due to large amounts of money involved and the very visible evidence of their performance during a race, compared to the class of '79, who were at the tail end of self funded teams and drivers and only had their performances disected by a tell tale tacho and the people over the spectator fence.

I think it would have been easier in '79.

[RussianFriend]

The grid in 1979 was more competative than today. But the equipment was not such a sophisticated. If TGF won in Kart and in other series he might win in old F1. But he wouldn't have the domination, just one of 8 - 10 best drivers who would win by turn.

[EERO]

I think its a great topic, its open to a lot of conjecture. I say Schumacher would qualify in the top 4. Hunt was already in his decline and the Wolf was a dog (no pun intended). Jones and the Williams were just starting to be a real force and Lotus was beginning its slide. (Now that I think of it, Reutemann in a Lotus is a frightening image of an inappropiate pairing of team and driver)

Schumacher has great skills at bringing the car home. A win would not be out of the question and a points finish likely.

[angst]

Let's say he had no experience of todays cars and safety measures, and he was driving a Ferrari which he had had time to test and develope to his liking. I think he may have just pipped Reutemann for second on the grid, he would've made a terrible start (never his forte) and had to fight his way back, crashes with Jones during a particularly muscular move putting Jones out of the race, then nursing his ailing car home just ahead of Andretti's Lotus. Andretti is furious with some of his blocking manouvres and takes him to task. He then returns to the pits where an irate Alan Jones awaits him.....

[Tristan]

Nope, rubbish topic. We are not comparing like with like! Dump Michael on that grid in a Ferarri 312 and he would have a cat in hells chance.

With experiance? Every bit as good as any one of them. Honestly. The guy is a legend, and the sooner people put him in that category, the better.

The standard of the grid as a whole in 1971 isn't even comparable to the grid of today. The drivers on todays grid are more proffessional, serious and BETTER. Granted, the cars are easier to drive, but I'd like to see any one of the above drive one head to head and they'd get beat comfortably.

The sooner people snap off their rose tinted spectacles the better.

[neutral]

Valve and Moff must be congratulated. Their distaste for Michael has not clouded their judgement. While it may be popular to follow the "70's were the greatest, therefore the drivers were superior" line of reasoning, it clearly has its flaws. Most important of which is the level of fitness between the two eras. Considering the cars back then required greater physical effort, I have no doubt that someone with the level of fitness possessed by Michael could have gained a significant advantage over the field. Michael cycles 20km a day in the offseason, James hunt would drink 20 beers a day during the season. Also as Moff said, the more money that is injected into the sport, the greater the level of professionalism demanded. A string of bad performances can mean the end of a promising career for the current F1 rookie and while powerslides may be fun and spectacular, the modern driver understands that this is not the optimum way around a track or the way to please a team boss.

In 1999 Red Auerbach, one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time, was asked how Shaquille O'Neal would fair against the 60's/70's legend of Wilt Chamberlain. Not only did he say that Wilt wouldnt stand a chance against the Laker centre, he went further and claimed that even the 10th best centre in the current game would trouble the great one. His reasoning was that the game had advanced so much in 2 decades. Big men were stronger and more versatile, their skills were well honed through college, and they practised four times as much. However, the way Wilt dominated his era justified his position among the NBA's all time elite.

It is clear among most that absolute comparisons are difficult and vague at best. Michael is not a 70's driver and Gilles is definitely not a 2000 driver. Who was better is a matter of personal judgement. And while some may gain pleasure believing Michael would struggle in the 70's others will understand that Gilles would find it just as hard in the current game. As Liz implied, the F1 world in the 70's was more difficult, but was it really?

[TimD]

For the benefit of those who are questioning Michael Schumacher's statements over the historic Ferrari he tried, it was in an Autosport feature about three years ago. While I don't think he actually said he was "scared" by it, he did ask why there was no crash padding in the cockpit tub, and did raise his personal estimation of the drivers who were prepared to race in those sorts of cars.

If I could only find the article, I'd post an actual quote!

Now - as to the topic in hand, I've had a long think about this, and I reckon the question is unanswerable. Not for reasons of not comparing era to era - because I've never been afraid to do that - but because I simply don't have the data to go on for Michael's aptitude with anything other than an ultra-downforce turn-of-the-century F1 car.

Given what he was like in the Mercedes sports car in 1989/1990, I would guess he would be pretty close to the top of the grid. But pole? Well, in the same way that a 1998-2001 F1 car naturally suits the Schumacher and Hakkinen driving style, so a 1977-80 F1 car naturally flattered Andretti, Villeneuve and Scheckter. It suited them, thus they shone.

What I don't see is any Schumacher-bashing in the intent of this thread. Michael is the class of the field right now - no question. Thus it is only natural to use him as the benchmark for what can be achieved in a car. I'll say this though - I would be willing to state that if the 2001 grid was made up of Lotuses, Ferrari 312s, Tyrrells and FW07 Williams, then Michael would NOT be the dominant force he is today. I would confidently state that Jean Alesi and Nick Heidfeld would likely be fierce adversaries, and that Coulthard would probably outqualify Hakkinen on a regular basis.

That's not a value judgement - just an observation of car behaviour and instinctive style.

I've said it before - give a contemporary F1 driver some alternative challenges, and his true capability will be easier to determine. Give him a touring car and see how he fares against the BTCC specialists. Give him a rally car and see if he can embarrass Tommi Makinen.

And give him a classic Grand Prix car, and he can still even now test his skills against the likes of Sir Jack, Sir Stirling and Big John, who are still racing today, and who have lost but little of their speed.

As I said - I don't shirk comparisons.

[Liz]

That is exactly my point Tim - not to "bash" TGF but to set him in a field of people who were competitive and comparable with what he seems to be able to do, and see how he'd stack up. It's easy to be the best if you're the most experienced, the current cars suit your style, and you have everything you could possibly need to keep you at the front. And that is not including having the rules bent in your favour either.

Would it be easy for him to race in the style he uses today if he had to try it against the likes of Mario, Gilles and Jones? One slash across the front of Jones and his career would be over. And if he were lucky he'd live to tell about it, too.

Being as dispassionate as possible, giving him equal experience with the cars that the average of the field had, I would rank him about midfield, as a season-long average, but I don't think he would have shown well at this Long Beach race.

Would Babe Ruth be able to hit homers today? Yes. But would Wayne Gretzky be a champion in 1967? No.

[BBKing]

I don’t know about TGF. He has not been recognized for his abilities as a qualifier. Often enough have attributed his inability to qualify to inferior cars. They elaborated on the theory that he works for the race more than for qualifying. We can safely say that even if he might be considered as the best all rounder of his generation he is not the most outstanding qualifier. I think Hakkinen has the edge on him on that department.

I don’t think the difference in cars would make much of a difference. Gilles and the others () where only humans after all. As usual with human beings they are believed to be better or braver than today’s drivers. I said this before the only thing you can say about them is that they were different.

Back to the question. If Ferrari was a team build around TGF like it is today he would be fighting for the pole. If not, who knows. We never seen TGF against a qualified teammate in equal conditions. He had his 2nd. tier teammates under contract not to race him.

I don’t think the one-man team racing would have been possible back then. Then there was not Bernie and his marketing machine trying to sell the hollow story of a super driver in a crappy car like he has been doing since Senna passed away.

Therefore the only conclusion is that a top 6 position was within his reach both in qualifying and the race.