Discussion
I'm sick of this "the rally boys are better than F1" argument. There have been a couple of tests where rally drivers have been put into F1 cars, and vice versa.
In 1996, Colin McRae and Martin Brundle swapped cars at Silverstone. McRae lapped the circuit within half a second of Brundle's target time IIRC, and Brundle was similarly close to McRae on the rally stage.
In 1999, Tommi Makinen was given the chance to test an F1 car, but binned it on the first lap when he got the wrong gear, but that's besides the point.
To suggest that all you need is money to get into F1 is seriously underestimating the talent and balls needed to drive something with a power to weight ratio of about 1700bhp/tonne, three tonnes of downforce and huge amounts of mechanical grip. If all you needed was money, anyone would be able to jump in one and drive at the limit straight away, which is clearly bollocks. You couldn't jump in a WRC car and go quickly right away, and you couldn't do it in an F1 car either. You'd scare yourself shitless in both of them.
Yes, MotoGP is fantastic and they have balls of titanium, never mind steel.
Anyway, to return to the original point, F1 drivers and WRC drivers are just as talented as each other, as has been proved
not meant to sound like I'm having a go, just putting some facts an opinions down
>> Edited by The DJ 27 on Sunday 15th February 01:46
In 1996, Colin McRae and Martin Brundle swapped cars at Silverstone. McRae lapped the circuit within half a second of Brundle's target time IIRC, and Brundle was similarly close to McRae on the rally stage.
In 1999, Tommi Makinen was given the chance to test an F1 car, but binned it on the first lap when he got the wrong gear, but that's besides the point.
To suggest that all you need is money to get into F1 is seriously underestimating the talent and balls needed to drive something with a power to weight ratio of about 1700bhp/tonne, three tonnes of downforce and huge amounts of mechanical grip. If all you needed was money, anyone would be able to jump in one and drive at the limit straight away, which is clearly bollocks. You couldn't jump in a WRC car and go quickly right away, and you couldn't do it in an F1 car either. You'd scare yourself shitless in both of them.
Yes, MotoGP is fantastic and they have balls of titanium, never mind steel.
Anyway, to return to the original point, F1 drivers and WRC drivers are just as talented as each other, as has been proved
not meant to sound like I'm having a go, just putting some facts an opinions down
>> Edited by The DJ 27 on Sunday 15th February 01:46
both entertaining in their own right.These guys are good but look how many fighter pilots out there do what they do.Given the chance,time,and training it shows what an average person can do.My point is theres no technical selection process to be in these sports like there is in the military/airforce so what if they did take some outstanding person who can do 10 things at once?Might just show everyone up.
Andy Green,now theres talent.....opposite lock at 500mph.And if anyone else tells me how super fit these drivers are i'll fall off my chair laughing.
>> Edited by pawsmcgraw on Sunday 15th February 08:02
Andy Green,now theres talent.....opposite lock at 500mph.And if anyone else tells me how super fit these drivers are i'll fall off my chair laughing.
>> Edited by pawsmcgraw on Sunday 15th February 08:02
I prefer F1 myself.
In WRC you get some really nice scenic locations, more chance of dyeing, and you dont race against other people, you race against a clock
In F1 the sport is becoming sooo much more interesting to watch, more of a spectator sport than rallying and the cars in it are just amazing
In WRC you get some really nice scenic locations, more chance of dyeing, and you dont race against other people, you race against a clock
In F1 the sport is becoming sooo much more interesting to watch, more of a spectator sport than rallying and the cars in it are just amazing
F1 is becoming MORE interesting? Well, I'm not so sure about that to be honest. Certainly, the cars do not look that spectacular - they are blindingly quick but as they appear to run on rails most of time the "skills" required to keep them on track are not obvious. Note that I'm not saying that modern F1 cars do not require skill to drive. What I'm saying is that it is not that obvious to the spectator what the driver is doing to keep the car on the track. Downforce rules. I prefer cars that slip and slide about and you can see what the driver is doing to keep the whole thing balanced.
With so many driver aids available to the modern F1 driver what does he need to keep it all together? Bravery - of course, commitment - of course, quick reactions - definitely. Finesse - not as much as in previous eras. Steering still needs to be precise but application of power (the old "balancing the throttle") is now looked after by the on board computers. So is gear changing. This was once an intrinsic part of the driver's art. Now it too is largely looked after by the on board systems.
The good thing is that there are lots of other racing categories out there other than F1 that still require most of the old attributes (TVR Tuscans and Caterhams come to mind straight away).
With so many driver aids available to the modern F1 driver what does he need to keep it all together? Bravery - of course, commitment - of course, quick reactions - definitely. Finesse - not as much as in previous eras. Steering still needs to be precise but application of power (the old "balancing the throttle") is now looked after by the on board computers. So is gear changing. This was once an intrinsic part of the driver's art. Now it too is largely looked after by the on board systems.
The good thing is that there are lots of other racing categories out there other than F1 that still require most of the old attributes (TVR Tuscans and Caterhams come to mind straight away).
Gazboy said:
To suggest that all you need is money to get into F1 is seriously underestimating the talent and balls needed to drive something with a power to weight ratio of about 1700bhp/tonne, three tonnes of downforce and huge amounts of mechanical grip. If all you needed was money, anyone would be able to jump in one and drive at the limit straight away, which is clearly bollocks.
Not read Flat out/Flat broke then? The F1 world revolves around money. Look at the result of the exchange and mart f1 challenge, the lad who could attract a bigger sponsor won the place, not the fastest driver. How many F1 drivers have come from breadline backgrounds? It costs money to race in Formula Fords, no-one gets picked off the street like footballers/models/singers, true you need some talent to start with, but money is the key to a lot of doors.
No I haven't read it yet, I'm waiting for my Dad to finish with it. Of course there is an element of money involved in getting to F1. But there is a massive amount of talent needed to go quickly in a modern F1 car
To be fair, you need a hell of a lot of cash to get into either! Although there is probably more straight forward (although not easier) to head to the top of F1.
WRC is spectacular to watch. There are so many intangibles and the driver's skill in coping with them are well demonstrated on screen. It's just a shame that ITV hasn't got the balls to jump in with both feet (speaking of which, can we get more pedal box shots please?). Also a rally is such a great event because of the range of cars that compete - never just WRC remember.
F1 on the other hand is the Daddy. It may not show so readily how skilled its drivers are but we all know that circuit driving is a lot harder than it would first appear! There's no denying that WRC cars are bristling with technology but F1 is in another league. The things teams do to make they're cars go faster suspend belief at times and so the rule makers have the hardest time in motorsport trying to keep up. This is what makes it fascinating.
Of course it's all personal preference and that and in some ways it's like comparing jet planes with helicopters (neither are better than the other all in).
It comes down to whether you like you motorsport divided into 3 managable parts or all in one big go. My preference? I like them both.
WRC is spectacular to watch. There are so many intangibles and the driver's skill in coping with them are well demonstrated on screen. It's just a shame that ITV hasn't got the balls to jump in with both feet (speaking of which, can we get more pedal box shots please?). Also a rally is such a great event because of the range of cars that compete - never just WRC remember.
F1 on the other hand is the Daddy. It may not show so readily how skilled its drivers are but we all know that circuit driving is a lot harder than it would first appear! There's no denying that WRC cars are bristling with technology but F1 is in another league. The things teams do to make they're cars go faster suspend belief at times and so the rule makers have the hardest time in motorsport trying to keep up. This is what makes it fascinating.
Of course it's all personal preference and that and in some ways it's like comparing jet planes with helicopters (neither are better than the other all in).
It comes down to whether you like you motorsport divided into 3 managable parts or all in one big go. My preference? I like them both.
I love the sound of the old F1 engines, in particular the scream of a flat-12 Ferrari - and the sound of a 5 cylinder quattro howling though the forest - but if you really want the hairs on the back of your neck to stand up, try a 27 litre, 12 cylinder Merlin in a Spitfire (Supermarine, not Triumph) or a Mustang (North American, not Ford). The crackle of the stub exhausts sounds like God clearing his throat.
Nothing to do with motorsport, of course - unless you count Reno - but once a pistonhead, always a pistonhead...
Nothing to do with motorsport, of course - unless you count Reno - but once a pistonhead, always a pistonhead...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff