Are current F1 drivers as skilled as in previous years?
Poll: Are current F1 drivers as skilled as in previous years?
Total Members Polled: 139
Discussion
Having read several threads recently on the abilities of current and past drivers, I wonder what the concensus of opinion is on whether the drivers of today can be considered 'as good' as those in the past.
Obviously the cars have changed dramatically since the 50's, but having seen footage of Clark, Fangio and others I'm not convinced that they would have problems in modern F1 cars had they existed in their day.
The usual argument against this is that most F1 drivers start their careers very early in Karts, but does that really make a difference if you consider someone with a pure natural talent such as Clark?
Would Lewis and Kimi have kept up with him in Lotus 49's?
Obviously the cars have changed dramatically since the 50's, but having seen footage of Clark, Fangio and others I'm not convinced that they would have problems in modern F1 cars had they existed in their day.
The usual argument against this is that most F1 drivers start their careers very early in Karts, but does that really make a difference if you consider someone with a pure natural talent such as Clark?
Would Lewis and Kimi have kept up with him in Lotus 49's?
Always difficult to compare drivers from different eras. Modern cars are no doubt easier to drive and a number of the drivers have been brought up on similar machines so have not had to develop the same skill set as drivers up to the late '80s (particularly the ability to change gear). However, given time I'm sure that the current crop would most likely be as good as any of the older set in whatever machines. Although I'm not sure they'd have the balls to risk themselves without belts or crash barriers etc.
kusee pee said:
Always difficult to compare drivers from different eras. Modern cars are no doubt easier to drive and a number of the drivers have been brought up on similar machines so have not had to develop the same skill set as drivers up to the late '80s (particularly the ability to change gear). However, given time I'm sure that the current crop would most likely be as good as any of the older set in whatever machines. Although I'm not sure they'd have the balls to risk themselves without belts or crash barriers etc.
I've never driven anything even approaching an F1 car (other than on sims 
), but I would have guessed that current cars would be harder to drive. The reason being the cars are stiffer and I believe the optimum slip angles are smaller on modern tyres. This would lead to the cars being less progressive, less forgiving and ultimately harder to maintain at the limit of adhesion.The downforce of course would mean in most cases more stability in high speed corners than older cars so perhaps today's cars are easier to drive in that respect but I'm sure they would be more tricky in slow corners.
I'm not sure that the issue is how difficult the car is to drive. In something as highly competitive as F1, cars that are "easier" to drive will simply be driven closer to their limits, more often.
This is dependent on the drivers from different eras making equivalent efforts. If anything, I would guess that modern drivers put more into driving than their predecessors did. Although it is certainly true that drivers in the old days raced more often, today's drivers do huge amounts of driving simulation and huge amounts of physical training (including developing their reactions).
In addition, today the pool of talent from which F1 drivers are selected is maybe ten or twenty times as big as it was in the golden age 40 years ago.
This is dependent on the drivers from different eras making equivalent efforts. If anything, I would guess that modern drivers put more into driving than their predecessors did. Although it is certainly true that drivers in the old days raced more often, today's drivers do huge amounts of driving simulation and huge amounts of physical training (including developing their reactions).
In addition, today the pool of talent from which F1 drivers are selected is maybe ten or twenty times as big as it was in the golden age 40 years ago.
stifler said:
Modern cars have more bells and whistles to keep you occupied in the cockpit.
Older cars had to be worked harder to keep them on the track.
The drivers were braver too!
Oh and Jim Clark would be faster than anyone in anything in any era.
Older cars had to be worked harder to keep them on the track.
The drivers were braver too!
Oh and Jim Clark would be faster than anyone in anything in any era.
profstoff said:
stifler said:
Oh and Jim Clark would be faster than anyone in anything in any era.
plus 1I had the pleasure of attendings several events and saw "The Flying Scot" in action ~ and as a rail enthusiast I'm not talking steam locomotives now although I frequently saw that in action too! ...
If driving a flimsy F1 car on those uber dangerous 1960s circuits was not enough, Clark, Hill and some other F1 drivers would jump into touring cars and put on an even more spectacular display ~ with genuine overtaking and none of these so called 'racing incident' PIT or T-Bone moves either.
Modern BTCC Drivers ~ yes including THAT one, don't know theyze born...
ETA @ 21:54
I voted "just as skilled" ~ which, on average, is probably near the mark ~ but above average and exceptional talents have been pretty thin on the F1 ground of late.
..
Edited by MGJohn on Tuesday 2nd June 21:55
stifler said:
The drivers were braver too!
Didn't one sage some time ago observe that, "There is no such thing as bravery, just degrees of fear" (J Stewart)? Certainly, IMO, the drivers in the era of Fangio / Moss / Collins / Behra etc had to be brave, considering the tracks they were racing on and the machinery they were negotiating them with. I would imagine driving a 250F on the old Pescara circuit in a cloth shirt and a tin hat certainly takes some cojones. And not a little amount of skill to, not just get 'round the track, but circulate at a race pace.But I think the skills are much different from that era compared to this.
Driving quickly in a 250F or a Lotus 49 or a 917K or a 512M is - to me - totally different to driving a Brawn or an Audi R15 quickly. Yes. The moderns have paddle shift gear changes, no clutch pedals, adaptive fuelling for each track (each corner in some cases, I think), and super sticky tyres. That doesn't mean they are easier to drive (I suspect). Just look at the steering wheel on a modern F1 car
not to mention chatting away to your race engineer on the intercom. These are things that I imagine would baffle the likes of Clark and Hawthorn. f
king hell. It baffles me how they drive a modern F1 car that fast at all with all that st to think about!But. Could Kimi or Lewis or Felipe pedal a 917 around the old Spa circuit at an average speed of 160mph+ a la Rodriguez? Or have beaten Moss around Pescara in 1957? Somehow, I doubt it.
Different eras, different skillsets.
I think a lot of current drivers could drive f1 cars from the 60's at race pace after a bit of practice, because back then it was more about being able to control the car whereas now they have to control the car and fiddle with the brakes/fuel/wings/engine power and chat to the engineer.
EDIT - I'd like to add that I don't think many of the currnt F1 drivers would have the balls to race around without seatbelts/helmets etc.
EDIT - I'd like to add that I don't think many of the currnt F1 drivers would have the balls to race around without seatbelts/helmets etc.
Edited by EDLT on Tuesday 2nd June 23:53
TVR Moneypit said:
kiteless said:
Different eras, different skillsets.
Nail. Head.I did read a story on here a while back about Jackie Stewart and Juan Montoya.
Aparently they were at Donnington together doing some promo work. They both got the chance to pedal a bog standered production car around the circuit, (Focus 1.8 or some such).
Stewart went out first with Montoya in the passanger seat, driving in his usual calm and smooth fashion, posting a respectable time.
They pull back into the pits and swap places, Montoya is determind to show this old fogey the way around the track.
Off he sets in a cloud of tyre smoke, rev limiter in each gear, throwing the car around the circuit, right on the ragged edge. He gets back to the pits certain that he has beaten Stewarts time, by at least two seconds, certain that that car simply cannot go any faster, but is still quite impressed that such an old man can still drive a car reasonably swiftly.
He then gets told his lap time..... It was something like 3/10th slower than Stewart.
Montoya was both gobsmaked and highly impressed.
Countless examples similar to that illustrate that looking fast and being actually faster are not always the same thing. Button's qualifying this season is another perfect illustration of this. He always looks smooth and unhurried, rarely tail happy and yet chalked up the occasional pole and in so doing, is comfortably faster than drivers previously regarded as fast....
.
There was an interesting experiment at the Goodwood FOS a couple of years back, involving modern era drivers and past era drivers driving each others F1 cars. Jackie Stewart and Nico Rosberg swapped cars at one point. Needless to say Jackie Stewart had no problems getting Rosbergs' Williams up the hill. Rosberg made a right pigs ear of getting Jackies' Tyrell up the hill. Bruno Senna couldn't get Ayrtons Lotus Renault turbo F1 car off the line at all during the same event. It wasn't a scientific experiment but certainly made me chuckle.
acf8181 said:
I have to say i reckon the cars now appear harder to drive.....theyre way more twicthy, nervous, and the limit is a lot higher (which means less time to react to anything)
But the circuits are far, far easier and safer to drive ~ makes a big difference. The majority of modern F1 drivers would be brown bread if they drove the way they do in recent years on the circuits of a few decades ago.Valid comparisons across the years are simply impossible ~ the goal posts and yardsticks are all so very different.
By "shift", you mean H-pattern stick-shift? It won't be hard for them to learn. Give them one or two days in a H-pattern stick-shifter on a race track, and they'll get it.
Come to think of it, the only younger-generation F1 driver on the grid who has had significant experience racing H-pattern stick-shifters is Adrian Sutil (Formula Ford). He's not exactly setting the grid on fire though.
If you look back at the 1960s, there were some brilliant drivers, but also plenty of duds who would not have made it past karts by today's standards. At least today's F1 drivers are more or less universally good, instead of some being really good and some being ridiculous.
I think on average, today's drivers will leave yesterday's drivers in their exhaust fumes. But at the very pointy end of the grid, they'd be similar. Give Hamilton or Alonso a hundred laps in a Lotus 49, and I think they'll eventually be able to put down consistent laps times comparable to Jim Clark or Graham Hill. Likewise for Clark and Hill in a MP4/24 or R29.
Come to think of it, the only younger-generation F1 driver on the grid who has had significant experience racing H-pattern stick-shifters is Adrian Sutil (Formula Ford). He's not exactly setting the grid on fire though.
SlipStream77 said:
Are current F1 drivers as skilled as in previous years?
I think the demands placed upon today's drivers are higher, and the talent pool is larger.If you look back at the 1960s, there were some brilliant drivers, but also plenty of duds who would not have made it past karts by today's standards. At least today's F1 drivers are more or less universally good, instead of some being really good and some being ridiculous.
I think on average, today's drivers will leave yesterday's drivers in their exhaust fumes. But at the very pointy end of the grid, they'd be similar. Give Hamilton or Alonso a hundred laps in a Lotus 49, and I think they'll eventually be able to put down consistent laps times comparable to Jim Clark or Graham Hill. Likewise for Clark and Hill in a MP4/24 or R29.
Edited by Jungles on Wednesday 3rd June 01:58
Jungles said:
By "shift", you mean H-pattern stick-shift? It won't be hard for them to learn. Give them one or two days in a H-pattern stick-shifter on a race track, and they'll get it.
Come to think of it, the only younger-generation F1 driver on the grid who has had significant experience racing H-pattern stick-shifters is Adrian Sutil (Formula Ford). He's not exactly setting the grid on fire though.
If you look back at the 1960s, there were some brilliant drivers, but also plenty of duds who would not have made it past karts by today's standards. At least today's F1 drivers are more or less universally good, instead of some being really good and some being ridiculous.
I think on average, today's drivers will leave yesterday's drivers in their exhaust fumes. But at the very pointy end of the grid, they'd be similar. Give Hamilton or Alonso a hundred laps in a Lotus 49, and I think they'll eventually be able to put down consistent laps times comparable to Jim Clark or Graham Hill. Likewise for Clark and Hill in a MP4/24 or R29.
It was a very privileged sport back then - youi had to have private money to compete. There was the odd exception of course.Come to think of it, the only younger-generation F1 driver on the grid who has had significant experience racing H-pattern stick-shifters is Adrian Sutil (Formula Ford). He's not exactly setting the grid on fire though.
SlipStream77 said:
Are current F1 drivers as skilled as in previous years?
I think the demands placed upon today's drivers are higher, and the talent pool is larger.If you look back at the 1960s, there were some brilliant drivers, but also plenty of duds who would not have made it past karts by today's standards. At least today's F1 drivers are more or less universally good, instead of some being really good and some being ridiculous.
I think on average, today's drivers will leave yesterday's drivers in their exhaust fumes. But at the very pointy end of the grid, they'd be similar. Give Hamilton or Alonso a hundred laps in a Lotus 49, and I think they'll eventually be able to put down consistent laps times comparable to Jim Clark or Graham Hill. Likewise for Clark and Hill in a MP4/24 or R29.
Edited by Jungles on Wednesday 3rd June 01:58
Anyway - the reason why they were better skilled at being racing drivers back then is becasue they looked the part - Graham Hill being the daddy. If there was anyone that looked like the sort of guy that would have stepped out of a Spitfire after downing a couple of Hun, jumped into the car, easily won driving one handed because the other held a couple of fingers of single malt in a crystal tumbler, jumped out of the car, seduced a Princess before dinner and then back to the club for a night of hellraising with the boys.
I always think it's interesting when a driver from the "modern" era gets a go at the Goodwood Revival. That is probably the only arena where you can see how they might get on with older machinery on an old style cicuit. By and large, they usually fare pretty well - and generally a lot better than the owners or the "profesional" historic drivers.
shoestring7 said:
profstoff said:
stifler said:
Oh and Jim Clark would be faster than anyone in anything in any era.
SS7
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff