Jackie Stewart F1 legends question (aka is F1 too safe)

[strad]

When you guys say todays drivers are just as brave I think back to a Moss quote that used to be my signature..
""To race a car through a turn at maximum speed, is difficult", but to race a car at maximum speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other - Ah, that's an achievement. S. Moss"""
To me todays driver is the first part without the balls to do the second part.
Think about it...I bet you can shoot an apple,,,,but would you shoot it off your sons head?

[Stradivarius]

And of course, as formula 1 is broadcasted worldwide to millions of people, one should also think about what is considered acceptable to show on TV. Showing people die on live TV is clearly not something which is considered acceptable among the majority of the viewers.

I disagree. Marco Simoncellis crash in MotoGP last year hasn't stopped the sport of motorbike racing, hasn't stopped the tv broadcasts or caused any major players to stop racing and from what I can tell, hasn't caused any major sponsors to leave. People still tune in to watch the races. I watched it live on tv and was horrified at what I saw. I still watch the races though. MMA has had a reported 7 deaths, yet the sport continues to grow in popularity. It's one of the most brutal and bloody sports seen since roman times - so why do so many people tune in to watch?

Ever been caught in a traffic jam only to find out that a car crash on the other side of the road is slowing everyone down to have a gawk? It's live and people look knowing full well it's an accident and there may be carnage. Bet you look too.

There is a big difference between showing a rare fatal accident, like when Simoncelli crashed, and showing an event where one can expect people to die on a regular basis. Simoncelli's death came a shock, which is why we remember it. Besides, even if a lot of people would still watch even if there were fatal accidents, it doesn't mean that all those people would prefer the driver to die from the crash. Having watched a big accident, only psychopaths (by definition) will sit in front of their TV hoping that the driver(s) involved died, and these psychopaths are by far outnumbered (also by definition) by normal people who hope the driver(s) involved are ok, but who don't necessarily turn off the TV. Enhancing the safety of the cars and the tracks to avoid fatalities, simply complies with what most people want.

If fatal accidents were normal in formula 1, let's say on average 2 drivers died each year, formula 1 one would definitely not be as well suited to show on TV as it is today. Not only would most TV-channels think more than twice before showing such violence on sundays at two o'clock, but sponsors would also stay away. Road safety is a big issue all over the world and being associated with a car that kills it's drivers is not exactly good for business.

Another consequence is that sensible people would never become racing drivers, or involved in formula 1 at all. I speak for myself now, but I am quite sure I also speak for the majority when I say that like in all forms of competition, watching the absolute best of professional competitors is by far most attractive. Formula 1 is therefore more popular than GP2 and Premier League is more popular than The Championship. If formula 1 became as dangerous as it was during the worst years, todays professional drivers would be replaced by either fools who are incapable of evaluating risk, or total imbeciles who are willing to risk their life. Today's professional teams, consisting of brilliant people (at least to some extent), whould be replaced by "killers", i.e. people who wouldn't mind risking their driver's life in order to acchieve glory for themselves and the team. Formula 1 would turn into a "dirty" business of which most people and companies would prefer to stay clear.

[ajdavison2]

Perez' crash is probably the biggest crash we had in almost 10 years, look with what he came out of it, with only a concussion. Then in 2004 Ralf Schumacher crashed in Indianapolis, that was the biggest crash we recently had in F1, and that was 8 years ago.

There have been a few serious injuries since 2004 aswell, not sure if I misunderstood your post but it sounded like you said there haven't been an injury since then? Obviously the Massa incident springs to mind, but also Glock (or trulli) broke his leg when a suspension arm penetrated the chassis in 2009 in Japan I think.

[wesley123]

ah yes, the last serious injury in car, thus by the car and not like Massa's was by Glock in 2009, he broke a part of his spine I believe.

[ajdavison2]

I'm sure it was a broken leg when he was driving for toyota?

EDIT: he injured both

[strad]

Concider this from Jenson Button and understand how you make it dangerous, when you make it too safe...
click photo

[Stradivarius]

When you guys say todays drivers are just as brave I think back to a Moss quote that used to be my signature..
""To race a car through a turn at maximum speed, is difficult", but to race a car at maximum speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other - Ah, that's an achievement. S. Moss"""
To me todays driver is the first part without the balls to do the second part.
Think about it...I bet you can shoot an apple,,,,but would you shoot it off your sons head?

Moss is absolutely right, that there is a big difference. But that doesn't mean it's easier to compete in modern formula 1, just because it is safer. A driver today still has to go quicker than anyone else in order to win. That is a challenge no matter what the tracks or the cars look like. Corners that are taken flat out (at maximum speed) are never a challenge to a modern f1-driver. The challenge is to drive as fast as possible all around the track.

When Stirling Moss was driving, he might have been held back a little bit by fear. But that was also the case for his competitors who had to face the same fear, so it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now. On the contrary, since the improved security means that a lot more people compete in motor racing, it is more difficult than ever to reach the very highest level. 50 years ago, all you had to do in order to win was to beet a very limited number of drivers who were not making half the effort that today's professional drivers are making in order to perform as well as possible.

[SeijaKessen]

When you guys say todays drivers are just as brave I think back to a Moss quote that used to be my signature..
""To race a car through a turn at maximum speed, is difficult", but to race a car at maximum speed through that same turn when there is a brick wall on one side and a precipice on the other - Ah, that's an achievement. S. Moss"""
To me todays driver is the first part without the balls to do the second part.
Think about it...I bet you can shoot an apple,,,,but would you shoot it off your sons head?

Moss is absolutely right, that there is a big difference. But that doesn't mean it's easier to compete in modern formula 1, just because it is safer. A driver today still has to go quicker than anyone else in order to win. That is a challenge no matter what the tracks or the cars look like. Corners that are taken flat out (at maximum speed) are never a challenge to a modern f1-driver. The challenge is to drive as fast as possible all around the track.

When Stirling Moss was driving, he might have been held back a little bit by fear. But that was also the case for his competitors who had to face the same fear, so it wasn't more difficult at that time compared to now. On the contrary, since the improved security means that a lot more people compete in motor racing, it is more difficult than ever to reach the very highest level. 50 years ago, all you had to do in order to win was to beet a very limited number of drivers who were not making half the effort that today's professional drivers are making in order to perform as well as possible.

I'll disagree.

These guys in the unsafe era did not hold back from pushing to the limit.

Fear was nowhere near the factor you're thinking it was. Most of these guys turned to racing because they were looking to live life on the limit, not hold back. There was nothing else they could go to get their thrills other than to go racing.

I would also argue the inverse. It was more difficult to reach the highest level back then because if you were really conscious of the possibility that you could be killed in a race on any given race weekend, you were psychologically done. It's a lot harder to reach a high performance level when the risk is such that you can be killed in the blink of an eye...so even though you may think you are willing to push to the limit, subconsciously you are holding back so you can remain in the realm of the living. It was a sport for men, not children.

I would wager perhaps 90% of the current grid would have been unable to compete in those eras of F1 simply because when you are whipping past trees and armco barriers in a car surrounded by petrol that can easily ignite upon shunt in excess of 180MPH, the prism in which you see the world changes quickly. Today's drivers do not have that daredevil factor the drivers decades ago had. They love racing yes, but they don't do it for the same reasons drivers back then did it.

How many of them would be willing to take part in the suicidal endurance races of that time period? Somehow I can't really fathom a lot of them willing to blast off into the Italian countryside at deadly speeds the way Stirling Moss did at the Mille Miglia? Nor could I see them even going near something like the Carrera Panamericana.

[Richard]

Good points about fear of fear causes people to tighten up and unable to compete.

I would wager perhaps 90% of the current grid would have been unable to compete in those eras of F1

It's impossible to compare different eras like that. The cars were different so divers need different competencies to drive them. They developed those competences to meet the needs of their era. Its like trying to compare Michaelangelo and Damian Hirst, or Shakespeare and Steven Spielberg. All of them were the best in their day.

Lets say for instance that competitive advantage favoured bravery over analytical intelligence in the olden days, but it is the reverse now. So when we teleport a modern driver back in time he'd be told he was too analytical and he should thrash the car until it falls apart. Meanwhile the olden driver in a modern car would be told he needs to concentrate on the technology and stop thrashing the car until it falls apart.

Both sets of drivers delivered the very best in the context of their day and were a product of their day. I expect most of them have the talent to be the best if born in any era because they'd develop the competencies needed for that era, they'd have an attitude to risk appropriate for that era.

[SeijaKessen]

Good points about fear of fear causes people to tighten up and unable to compete.

I would wager perhaps 90% of the current grid would have been unable to compete in those eras of F1

It's impossible to compare different eras like that. The cars were different so divers need different competencies to drive them. They developed those competences to meet the needs of their era. Its like trying to compare Michaelangelo and Damian Hirst, or Shakespeare and Steven Spielberg. All of them were the best in their day.

Lets say for instance that competitive advantage favoured bravery over analytical intelligence in the olden days, but it is the reverse now. So when we teleport a modern driver back in time he'd be told he was too analytical and he should thrash the car until it falls apart. Meanwhile the olden driver in a modern car would be told he needs to concentrate on the technology and stop thrashing the car until it falls apart.

Both sets of drivers delivered the very best in the context of their day and were a product of their day. I expect most of them have the talent to be the best if born in any era because they'd develop the competencies needed for that era, they'd have an attitude to risk appropriate for that era.

Well regarding different competencies, I'm talking less about the skill set required to drive say a Ferrari 312-F1 '67, and more of the mindset required to race in an extremely unforgiving environment where the slightest mistake can be fatal. Most people out there cannot adapt to that mindset.

Any truly great driver can adapt to the machinery, which is why if you took Jimmy Clark, he would have excelled in all eras except perhaps the present year. That's why I don't believe in the notion that the greats of those days could not have been successful in later decades simply because of G forces. They would have done what was needed to adjust to that.

[Richard]

Well regarding different competencies, I'm talking less about the skill set required to drive say a Ferrari 312-F1 '67, and more of the mindset required to race in an extremely unforgiving environment where the slightest mistake can be fatal. Most people out there cannot adapt to that mindset.

Surely attitude to risk is a product of the era? If a current diver grew up alongside Moss then he'd have the same attitude to risk as Moss. His genetics would will give him the same outstanding hand/eye co-ordination and spatial awareness of fast moving objects, so he'd be likely to be competitive in old F1.

Of course there will be nuances as different drivers are better in different racing series.

Actually the old cars were slower, so maybe older drivers could get away with slower reaction times?

[bhall]

"...bravery over analytical intelligence"? I'm not quite sure I understand that bit. Then again, I'm not quite sure I understand the Michelangelo/Hirst and Shakespeare/Spielberg analogies, either. (For one thing, what does a Ninja Turtle have to do with art or F1?)

You can only ever ask a driver to do what's required/expected of him at the time. Comparisons between eras are unfair for that reason only, simply because the requirements/expectations of earlier eras were as different as the cars.

I think the same drivers that are good now would have been good then, and the same drivers that are bad now would have been bad then, but their careers wouldn't have lasted for nearly as long. And even some of today's good drivers would inevitably have had their careers cut short, because the cars haven't always been so tolerant of bone-headed maneuvers and optimistic risk-taking. Drivers, of course, can adapt, but the rate of survival then meant that drivers didn't get too many chances to learn on the job. For that reason, some of today's heroes would have never even gotten to F1.

(In the case of Maldonado, I don't know that he could've fitted a helmet to his head in order to race due to the swelling caused by being repeatedly assaulted outside the paddock by drivers unwilling to tolerate his on-track antics.)

[SeijaKessen]

Well regarding different competencies, I'm talking less about the skill set required to drive say a Ferrari 312-F1 '67, and more of the mindset required to race in an extremely unforgiving environment where the slightest mistake can be fatal. Most people out there cannot adapt to that mindset.

Surely attitude to risk is a product of the era? If a current diver grew up alongside Moss then he'd have the same attitude to risk as Moss. His genetics would will give him the same outstanding hand/eye co-ordination and spatial awareness of fast moving objects, so he'd be likely to be competitive in old F1.

Of course there will be nuances as different drivers are better in different racing series.

Actually the old cars were slower, so maybe older drivers could get away with slower reaction times?

It's my opinion that while attitude to risk can be a product of the era, it's also not something that applies to everyone in the era.

Were a current driver to grow up along with Stirling Moss, there's no guarantee his attitude would be entirely the same as Moss. He could decide that the glory is not worth it after seeing a driver wrapped around a tree and decide to take a desk job somewhere where the risk is minimal, while Moss shrugs his shoulders and says, "Well, he was a good chap. Bloody sorry to see him go that way, but it's the nature of our sport."

Not everyone turns out the same in spite of similar circumstances. Dan Gurney had front row seats to what less glamorous aspects of that era, and he felt the drivers should shut up and stop complaining. On the other hand Jackie Stewart felt the opposite of Dan Gurney. Who is really right? It's more of a matter of opinion than some sort of concrete right or wrong debate. I've always felt F1 could use a certain element of danger again. Obviously others feel differently. The product was by far more interesting with the danger because it added a new element into the mix, that frankly, today's drivers do not need to worry about, for better or worse. This year is all about managing tire life and nothing more. No incentive to push on the limit. Kind of dull compared to the historical record if you ask me.

Or the flipside is, a current driver may be able to stomach other drivers getting killed, until it happens to one that they are good friends with as was the case with Keke Rosberg deciding to retire from F1 after Elio de Angelis's death.

[strad]

Surely attitude to risk is a product of the era? If a current diver grew up alongside Moss then he'd have the same attitude to risk as Moss.

A point I have tried to make..People brought up in any recent time have a whole different mindset about danger...they can't picture riding a bicycle without a helmet...they have been brainwashed in my opinion but be that as it may...they are brought up scared of any danger. Don't run with scissors taken to the max.
bhallg2k makes good points with this:

I think the same drivers that are good now would have been good then, and the same drivers that are bad now would have been bad then, but their careers wouldn't have lasted for nearly as long. And even some of today's good drivers would inevitably have had their careers cut short, because the cars haven't always been so tolerant of bone-headed maneuvers and optimistic risk-taking. Drivers, of course, can adapt, but the rate of survival then meant that drivers didn't get too many chances to learn on the job. For that reason, some of today's heroes would have never even gotten to F1.

And yes Pastor would have been put straight along with a bunch of others back in the day.

[RB7ate9]

I think the same drivers that are good now would have been good then, and the same drivers that are bad now would have been bad then, but their careers wouldn't have lasted for nearly as long. And even some of today's good drivers would inevitably have had their careers cut short, because the cars haven't always been so tolerant of bone-headed maneuvers and optimistic risk-taking. Drivers, of course, can adapt, but the rate of survival then meant that drivers didn't get too many chances to learn on the job. For that reason, some of today's heroes would have never even gotten to F1.

This, I believe is the more telling conclusion that I will agree with. Much like the thread about which driver one would choose to pull performance out of a car, the drivers of today will have at least that basic understanding of grip, lines, speed, and grit to drive a aero-less car around '67-era Spa. Much like I can imagine Jim Clark being able to push a Caterham around a tilke-o-drome. The difference, as it always has been, is the rate at which a driver can acclimate to the differing conditions and drive fast enough to beat his opponents.

I would like to think that the emphasis on karting would bring modern drivers up with a ferocity that comes from a lack of aero downforce. A Lewis Hamilton-type would build up to Jim Clark speeds readily and steadily to find the limit. Of course, god help the HRT or Marussia that gets in the way of a 2012 F1 car with Clark or Fangio at the wheel! The difference would be the rate of acclimation. Obviously, a modern driver sent back in time would lose the inherent safety, the large runoff areas, and all of the technical achievements, but I agree that the good drivers will be good, it would just take a while. On the other hand, if one gave Clark even something like a 2012 Force India or Toro Rosso, the unbridled power and grip on sweeping tracks like Suzuka, the only issue would be building the confidence in braking later, getting on the power faster, and trusting in the aero and technical support to provide the maximum out of the car. With everything built off of the past apart from aero developments, I can easily imagine Clark seeing his time fall by seconds, and - with a big inhale - use DRS and KERS through Eau Rouge.

In short, if we took Hamilton back to Spa '67 and Clark to Spa '12, and gave them two weeks to prepare for the GP on Sunday, just in terms of acclimation (understanding the car, the rules, the track, and not outright pace relative to other cars), Clark would be on the limit faster than Hamilton due to the technical developments and track conditions that support modern drivers.