2014 Russian Grand Prix Thread

[denkimi]

Why mention Senna? Just say 80s/90s? But anyway. There no question that previous generation of drivers (at least the recognised top guys), are superiors to the current mob.

Circuits these days a more forgiving to driver error. In fact, they're now designed to take into account modern day drivers inferior level of ability. There's was a wider variety of circuits. This leads to a greater challenge overall, over a season. Now? Almost all the circuits have the similar characteristics. A lesser season long challenge.

There's an assumed knowledge back then of how to drive on a track. Nowadays drivers are having to be told everything. I mean, the stringent safety car rules nowadays is due to the modern day drivers inferior lack of comprehension of actual discipline of driving.

Cars back before 94, were more raucous and fragile. Even in the best car, drivers had to manage them throughout the race. Nowadays, driving the cars are a more straightforward exercise. It requires less overall ability than in the past.

drivers adapt to circuits. if there's a wall in the exit of the corner, they will be carefull. if there's room to go off, they will push more. this has nothing to do with the level of driving skill. on the other hand are the cars of today way more complicated and thus harder to drive than those of the past.

imo is the average level nowadays higher than 20 years ago, but are the best of the best still on the same level.

[The Black Knight]

Why mention Senna? Just say 80s/90s? But anyway. There no question that previous generation of drivers (at least the recognised top guys), are superiors to the current mob.

Circuits these days a more forgiving to driver error. In fact, they're now designed to take into account modern day drivers inferior level of ability. There's was a wider variety of circuits. This leads to a greater challenge overall, over a season. Now? Almost all the circuits have the similar characteristics. A lesser season long challenge.

There's an assumed knowledge back then of how to drive on a track. Nowadays drivers are having to be told everything. I mean, the stringent safety car rules nowadays is due to the modern day drivers inferior lack of comprehension of actual discipline of driving.

Cars back before 94, were more raucous and fragile. Even in the best car, drivers had to manage them throughout the race. Nowadays, driving the cars are a more straightforward exercise. It requires less overall ability than in the past.


Again. Why single out Senna?

Fitness has nothing to do with the skill of driving.

Drivers have to be better prepared because they are inferior.

I single out Senna because most people, incorrectly in my opinion, hail him as a racing God but looking back on the races he made plenty of mistakes and I certainly don't regard him as the greatest of all time.

I disagree with your assertion that drivers nowadays are easier to driver. I would say quite the opposite. Drivers are required to multi-task constantly in todays cars. They have buttons that they use to affect balance, brake bias etc. They are far more complicated beasts than they were 20 years ago. I regard the drivers of today in much higher regard than those 20 years ago. The big difference is that drivers are much more prepared nowadays than they were back in the good old days and the standard for entering F1 is higher with F1 driver programs by the likes of RBR, McLaren and Ferrari.

Now to your comment that "Fitness has nothing to do with the skill of driving" This has to be the worst comment I've ever read on this forum. Drivers are athletes, especially nowadays since Schumacher came on board and raised the fitness level to that never seen before in F1. The fitter you are, the sharper you are. The sharper you are, the quicker your reflexes, the better you're able to focus. The benefits of being fit are massive and it translates to your skill on the race track. Being fit enables a person to harness their skill further and make the maximum from the ability they have. For a F1 fan to say being fit has nothing to do with the skill of driving really boggles my mind. If they weren't fit they wouldn't be able to drive today's cars and show their skill.

I agree with your point about the circuits being more forgiving now. I don't like this but if it is in the interests of safety then I am okay with it. This doesn't mean the drivers have less skill it just means that they can afford to make a mistake now whereas they couldn't before so now we see them making these mistakes and running wide because they know they can afford to do so while finding the limit, whereas in the past they couldn't afford those mistakes. That's nothing to do with skill, that's just a by-product of circuits being safer nowadays. It's also part of a racing drivers job, to find every advantage that they can and if they have to run wide a couple of times to do that, then so be it. It is what they are employed to do

[jens]

The discussion is so vastly off-topic here that I don't go much into it.

Just saying that the drivers nowadays can't be considered less talented or skilled than the drivers of past eras. That doesn't make much sense. Just that the era itself is different and drivers have adapted to different circumstances. If anything, they have got more advanced special training than in the faraway past days.

But a different thing to claim would be that decades ago drivers needed more sheer bravery to go into motorsports and try out a career - and I guess the answer to it could be "yes"!

[Doc Austin]

Just saying that the drivers nowadays can't be considered less talented or skilled than the drivers of past eras. Just that the era itself is different and drivers have adapted to different circumstances. If anything, they have got more advanced special training than in the faraway past days.

In any era, you have to take the technologies, teams and equipment that are available to you and make the best out of it, and beat the drivers that are put in front of you.

But a different thing to claim would be that decades ago drivers needed more sheer bravery to go into motorsports and try out a career - and I guess the answer to it could be "yes"!

If you go back to late 60s/early 70s times, safety was an afterthought and a joke. Fully one third of the 1971 season opening Formula One starting grid was dead before the year was out, and this does not include injuries....we're just talking about death here.

Looking back on safety in those times we are horrified, but then again, maybe we did not know any better. Again, we dealt with what was put in front of us, and it was a case of either you wanted to race badly enough to accept it, or you didn't. It's the same thing today, but as we have seen with Jules' Bianchi, it takes a bizarre set of circumstances to lead to a serious accident.

Safety is so good now days that I do not remember the last time (before Jules, of course) we have had someone badly hurt. While this is a good ting, it does make it difficult to hold today's drives up and compare them to drivers from the Stewart/Clark/Hill era, especially when it comes to who faced the most danger. It's hard to imagine any of those guys could have raced as long as Rubens did and lived to tell about it.

[journeyman racer]

Absolutely the most stupidly dangerous, deliberate thing I have ever seen anyone do. Of course, while still wishing the best for Michael, his swerve on Hakkinen on the fastest part of the track at Spa was pretty damm stupid too and he could have killed them both very easily.

You know, the drivers did dumb things back in the golden years too, though I don't recall anything that Clark, Gurney or Stewart did. I think those were the real drivers and everyone since has had to live up to that.

Alain Prost spun off at Imola on the formation lap.

Senna crashed at Monaco while almost a lap ahead.

Perhaps the biggest gaffe was JR Hildebrand crashing on the last turn of the Indy 500.

Some rednheck fan steals the pace car and drives around Talladega while the race is going on!

Senna had checked out at Adelaide, but slams into the back of (I believe) Brundle in low visibility. Many people want to hold Senna up as some sort of god, but he made many dumb mistakes, sometimes as a result of pushing too hard. You know, if Senna can get killed, maybe this sport is so difficult that even the very best drivers can mess up.

So, if you have Prost flying off on the formation lap, and Senna crashing with no other cars in sight, perhaps it is time to give the other drivers some slack when they do stupid things. That or stop holding those two in such high regard.

Then, there's the tragic stupid stuff that's not even funny. Jackie Ickx was involved in fivefatal incidents. One of them was when Stefan Belof tried to pass Ickx around the outside of Eau Rouge, with predictably fatal results. At leMans 1970, Ickx hit a barrier at night and killed a marshall that was sleeping where he was not supposed to be. In both cases, someone did something stupid and got themselves killed. there's more too, but I can't remember it all right now. I'm still on my first cup of coffee.

It may require another thread to discuss in detail. But in all the conversations I've had over the years. There's a grey line about "accidents" , which I've attempted to make black & white. For no reason other than my own interest in motorsport.

But I think there's a distinct difference between a lapse in concentration, getting caught up in the heat of battle and making a misjudgement, making an innocent mistake which looks clumsy and blatant carelessness and negligence.

While I'm at it. Along with my top three. I'd also like to include Anthony Davidson at Le Mans, in the LMP Peugeot, punting the class leading Corvette out of the race. Ridiculous. Especially when trying to justify it afterwards. What a ********. Don't anyone ever lament him missing out on a lengthy GP career. A brainless spud.

[journeyman racer]

drivers adapt to circuits. if there's a wall in the exit of the corner, they will be carefull. if there's room to go off, they will push more.

Do they? Or do they make a fuss about how dangerous that wall is? If modern day drivers had that inherent ability to show that judgement and adapt. They then wouldn't have to be told to slow down during yellows and be made aware that sector times will be observed.

Circuits are now designed to account for a lower level of driving, under the premise of safety.

this has nothing to do with the level of driving skill.

I hate to break it to ya, Bud. But it most definitely does.

on the other hand are the cars of today way more complicated and thus harder to drive than those of the past.

Are they? Why are they so complicated?

For a long time, I've read about what vicious beasts the 80s turbo cars are. Today's turbos are relative pussycats. But seem to trouble leading drivers. Even the late 80/early90s NA cars are considered to produced the most physically demanding cars.

imo is the average level nowadays higher than 20 years ago, but are the best of the best still on the same level.

If it's your opinion. There's little point in making a counterpoint.

[journeyman racer]

I single out Senna because most people, incorrectly in my opinion, hail him as a racing God but looking back on the races he made plenty of mistakes and I certainly don't regard him as the greatest of all time.

There is no question, he is definitley a racing God. He has made his fair share of misjudgements. I don't regard him as the great of all time, so far.

I disagree with your assertion that drivers nowadays are easier to driver. I would say quite the opposite. Drivers are required to multi-task constantly in todays cars. They have buttons that they use to affect balance, brake bias etc.

There are more buttons on the steering wheel. But the stuff your saying drivers have to do now, they did then.

They are far more complicated beasts than they were 20 years ago. I regard the drivers of today in much higher regard than those 20 years ago. The big difference is that drivers are much more prepared nowadays than they were back in the good old days and the standard for entering F1 is higher with F1 driver programs by the likes of RBR, McLaren and Ferrari.

I'm not sure about that. Those driver program seem to be about teams finding it easier to get a good driver, before another team does. I've not yet heard of a driver say he's become better since going through a DDP, even if they didn't end up in F1.

But we'll see how Vettel does at Ferrari, to see the effects of RB ddp, and how JEV career goes.

Now to your comment that "Fitness has nothing to do with the skill of driving" This has to be the worst comment I've ever read on this forum. Drivers are athletes, especially nowadays since Schumacher came on board and raised the fitness level to that never seen before in F1. The fitter you are, the sharper you are. The sharper you are, the quicker your reflexes, the better you're able to focus. The benefits of being fit are massive and it translates to your skill on the race track. Being fit enables a person to harness their skill further and make the maximum from the ability they have. For a F1 fan to say being fit has nothing to do with the skill of driving really boggles my mind. If they weren't fit they wouldn't be able to drive today's cars and show their skill.

Yes, there's a certain level of physical strength to drive the cars, and keep it up. But there's only so much training and diet can do. It doesn't make you more skilful at driving a car. You can try it yourself.

As far as Schumi goes. All that talk about his fitness was the media embellishing him, and in turn, F1 as a whole. Ihaven't seen him do anything which suggests he was fitter than anyone else, as in a physical test. He never won a race as a result of superior stamina, like you do see in a footy code. Damon Hill did the reaction tests at the British equivalent of the Australian Institute of Sport. Of the thousands of sports people they tested, he was the best at that. No one gave a ****, because it was Hill.

I agree with your point about the circuits being more forgiving now. I don't like this but if it is in the interests of safety then I am okay with it. This doesn't mean the drivers have less skill it just means that they can afford to make a mistake now whereas they couldn't before so now we see them making these mistakes and running wide because they know they can afford to do so while finding the limit, whereas in the past they couldn't afford those mistakes. That's nothing to do with skill, that's just a by-product of circuits being safer nowadays. It's also part of a racing drivers job, to find every advantage that they can and if they have to run wide a couple of times to do that, then so be it. It is what they are employed to do

I disagree with some of this. But not enough to make a point about it right now.

[Doc Austin]

It may require another thread to discuss in detail. But in all the conversations I've had over the years. There's a grey line about "accidents" , which I've attempted to make black & white. For no reason other than my own interest in motorsport.

I think the grey line turns black when stupid accidents become a pattern, like, say, this year with Pastor Maldonado, or even Grosjean a couple of years ago.

An isolated dumb accident is just the kind of thing that happens to almost everyone. I mean, even Jackie Stewart missed part of the 68 season (which probably cost him the championship) when he broke his wrist in a simple spin in an F2 car. It was just a dumb accident, but it did not become a pattern.

Also remember that Mika Hakkinen was forced to sit out a race because he had too many dumb accidents. From there he turned it around, but he got off to a rough start.

But I think there's a distinct difference between a lapse in concentration, getting caught up in the heat of battle and making a misjudgement, making an innocent mistake which looks clumsy and blatant carelessness and negligence.

If you remove all the danger people will be careless. F1 is still not a safe sport, but it's a whole world different from 1971. Latre, Senna's death was such a shock because we were all lulled into a false sense of security, and now I think Bianchi's accident will wake people up a bit. Hopefully we will see less carelessness. After all, absolutely nothing happened at the Russian GP.

[journeyman racer]

An isolated dumb accident is just the kind of thing that happens to almost everyone.

I suppose when you compare drivers at this level, you have to pick at infrequent incidents. But I can see the weakness of my pov. This is a fair point made.

[The Black Knight]

Yes, there's a certain level of physical strength to drive the cars, and keep it up. But there's only so much training and diet can do. It doesn't make you more skilful at driving a car. You can try it yourself.

If you mean try be fitter myself and see if it improves my skills I've already done that for many years and it doesn't make you more skillfull but it did allow me to harness my skill better on the track. In my home circuit where I did all my testing/karting, I set the lap record when I was at my optimal from a fitness pov. It wasn't that I was more skillful as a result of working out, it was simply that there were minute differences. A slide I'd catch or feel earlier. Those tiny differences added up to a couple of tenths of a second lap time. It didn't make me more skilful, it just allowed me to harness my skill a little better This was Schumacher's philosophy really, if every component of his body was working at an optimum then that would allow him to harness what he already had better. Optimise everything.

As far as Schumi goes. All that talk about his fitness was the media embellishing him, and in turn, F1 as a whole. Ihaven't seen him do anything which suggests he was fitter than anyone else, as in a physical test. He never won a race as a result of superior stamina, like you do see in a footy code. Damon Hill did the reaction tests at the British equivalent of the Australian Institute of Sport. Of the thousands of sports people they tested, he was the best at that. No one gave a ****, because it was Hill.

Schumacher did do a physical test back in the 90s. All GP drivers of the time did somewhere around 95/96 and he came out head and shoulders above the rest. I remember John Watson speaking about it on Eurosport. I doubt there is any link I'll find online about this though since it was so long ago.