PDA

View Full Version : The Real Heroes



ArrowsFA1
4th September 2008, 12:42
I was interested to read Mark Webber's comments about the challenge of Eau Rouge. His reported comments ended by saying:

"It is natural that guys will say, back in the day it was more dangerous, but actually what Senna and co drove, they were pussies compared to what Jack Brabham drove. The sport moves on. The real heroes were back in the 1960s and 1970s."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70260

Do you agree with Webber that the real heroes raced in the 60's/70's?

wedge
4th September 2008, 13:16
I think ALL racing drivers are heroes.

I think it goes back to Stirling Moss' question of whether Schumacher would've pulled same moves in Moss' era. Moss answered no because Schumacher would've died but I have no doubt that Schumi would've pushed to the limit one way or other because that's why all drivers are heroes, they pushed the limits of their cars, some better than others.

555-04Q2
4th September 2008, 13:18
Yes. Cars in the 80's, 90's and today have so much downforce that going through Eau Rouge is still challenging, but not as bad as it used to be.

ioan
4th September 2008, 13:21
We have no idea what todays drivers would have done driving the 60's or 70's cars. They might have been a bit worse but also better.

Belittling today's drivers just because the cars evolved so much is based on an absolutely wrong logic.

wedge
4th September 2008, 13:34
Yes. Cars in the 80's, 90's and today have so much downforce that going through Eau Rouge is still challenging, but not as bad as it used to be.

True but the drivers have big balls and pushed the limits in different ways. For example, when Mansell and Senna went wheel to wheel they used their race cars like a game of chicken eg. Spa 87??, Portugal 89.

4th September 2008, 13:58
I was interested to read Mark Webber's comments about the challenge of Eau Rouge. His reported comments ended by saying:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70260

Do you agree with Webber that the real heroes raced in the 60's/70's?

No, because the real heroes, if we are going by safety regulations compared to horse-power, drove silver cars in the mid 1930's.

PolePosition_1
4th September 2008, 14:11
F1 has evolved, and different skills are needed. Would an old time driver have been able to cope with the media pressures of today? Would they have had the determination to make it to the top, as I think its fair to say its harder to get into F1 now than before. Would they have had the same technical knowledge as required today?

Would they have had the same race craft skills as today?

Its just evolved. Whereas personally I think drivers had more "balls", I don't think the less or more skilled, its just the skills needed to succeed have changed.

MrJan
4th September 2008, 14:25
For me it was the guys that used to race with no real idea of what safety was, surprised they could all sit down given the size of the balls they must've had :eek:

ArrowsFA1
4th September 2008, 14:32
No, because the real heroes, if we are going by safety regulations compared to horse-power, drove silver cars in the mid 1930's.
That was my first thought when I read Webber's comments :up:

jens
4th September 2008, 16:52
I agree with an opinion expressed in another thread that current F1 and that one we saw in the early years of F1 can well be considered as different sports. In different eras different driver qualities have had more importance and so-called different racing disciplines shouldn't belittle each other. I don't think anyone says that for example baseball players are better sportsmen than cricket players or whatever. :p : It would sound like apples and oranges comparison. ;)

Rollo
4th September 2008, 22:16
No, because the real heroes, if we are going by safety regulations compared to horse-power, drove silver cars in the mid 1930's.

The real hero drove a blue car in the late 60s and early 70s then quit the sport partly in disgust at seeing his friends die every other fortnight, then actually did something about it.

Rollo
4th September 2008, 22:21
Todays heroes stand by corners with a set of flags, often unpaid for their work, they wield fire extinguishers, some of them are out the back who after watching their protagonists come back go without sleep and often step into poverty to send them back out again.

They're often right down in the lowest eschelons of the sport; without whom, the 20 gladiators earning zillions of quid would not even exist.

MrJan
4th September 2008, 22:46
Todays heroes stand by corners with a set of flags, often unpaid for their work, they wield fire extinguishers, some of them are out the back who after watching their protagonists come back go without sleep and often step into poverty to send them back out again.

They're often right down in the lowest eschelons of the sport; without whom, the 20 gladiators earning zillions of quid would not even exist.

:up: :up:

True. I often feel guilt that I've never donned the old fluroscent jacket, especially when I moan about driving in the wet without even consider the poor buggers that are stood out in it all day. With out them nothing would be possible and I salute them :D

D-Type
4th September 2008, 23:51
The real hero drove a blue car in the late 60s and early 70s then quit the sport partly in disgust at seeing his friends die every other fortnight, then actually did something about it.Very well put

CNR
5th September 2008, 00:11
http://i33.tinypic.com/spjamc.jpg
http://f1clipz.blogspot.com/

ShiftingGears
5th September 2008, 08:06
Grand Prix Race Safety Late 1930's

http://forix.autosport.com/8w/prewar/br-evd-ds-avus37.jpg
http://members.a1.net/wabweb/history/images/avus_nordkurve.jpg

What was seperating the cars from launching off a 50ft rise while travelling at 200kmh + :
http://www.carelgodindebeaufort.nl/images/19590802-portret-avus-banking.jpg

ShiftingGears
5th September 2008, 08:20
I've always respected racing drivers like Moss who accepted the fact that being a grand prix driver was a dangerous occupation, and knew that if they didn't like the danger they could've quit.

Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.

truefan72
5th September 2008, 09:37
We have no idea what todays drivers would have done driving the 60's or 70's cars. They might have been a bit worse but also better.

Belittling today's drivers just because the cars evolved so much is based on an absolutely wrong logic.

agreed,

to me it is like a WW1 fighter pilot compared to someone flying a supersonic fighter jet with the extreme G-loads, change of direction, split second decisions, information overload, chatter through the intercom all while trying not to pass out. Those pilots might have done better in those simpler planes or at worst just as good.

Same applies to f1. I honor and respect the drivers of the past, their bravery and courage wasonly matvched by their guile. But today's drivers are just as cavalier,and deal with a whole set of issues that drivers of the past could not even fathom.

Era's are there for a reason.

btw. just as a side note. How would those 50's and 60's drivers handle a 2008 F1 car, wioth its complexities, speed, g force challenges and variables.

Flying on the edge of your seat is just as dangerous as flying a bullet. :)

ArrowsFA1
5th September 2008, 09:59
Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.
Put simply there is now a safety net where there was previously none. Saying that, I guess the safety net used to be a drivers foot. The challenge today is very different.

Stirling Moss compared it to walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon, or a tightrope 1" off the ground. The technique required is exactly the same, but the challenge very different.

5th September 2008, 14:10
Do you agree with Webber that the real heroes raced in the 60's/70's?

Whilst I don't agree because safety in the 60's & 70's was better than the decades before, Niki Lauda drove for Ferrari in the 1970's and his story is the most incredible and brave story.

For me, Lauda is a hero.

GJD
5th September 2008, 15:15
Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.

Good gracious. Denis Jenkinson has come back to life! ;)

Rollo
6th September 2008, 02:54
Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.

Fifteen drivers died in the 1950s
Twelve in the 1960s
Ten in the 1970s
Four in the 1980s
Two in the 1990s.
No drivers have been involved in a fatal accident in the last 14 years


We have no idea what todays drivers would have done driving the 60's or 70's cars. They might have been a bit worse but also better.
Belittling today's drivers just because the cars evolved so much is based on an absolutely wrong logic.

Hear hear :up:

I think that today's drivers are of a higher quality because they've been better trained mentally and physically. They're able to do things with cars not previously possible because of the technology of the cars and the tracks. The reason that they survive accidents tat would have killed their counterparts 40 years ago is nothing short of remarkable, and incidentally why I think that theugsquirrel's comments are fundamentally flawed.

markabilly
6th September 2008, 03:57
I was interested to read Mark Webber's comments about the challenge of Eau Rouge. His reported comments ended by saying:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70260

Do you agree with Webber that the real heroes raced in the 60's/70's?


AMEN

Been saying the same for years, except I would say 50-70"s

These current bunch of children who shave their man hairs to do shoes ads....and then play bumper cars with one another, aere clueless.

As to the current bunch, first they all brake with the left foot, and have no ability to heel and toe under pressure. Plus back then the g forces were not very high, the speed not so fast as to require extremely fast reflexes, but the ability to concentrate and put the danger out of mind were paramont, Some might make it, but some (if they drive like they do now) would quickly be dead.

wedge
6th September 2008, 15:56
AMEN

Been saying the same for years, except I would say 50-70"s

These current bunch of children who shave their man hairs to do shoes ads....and then play bumper cars with one another, aere clueless.

As to the current bunch, first they all brake with the left foot, and have no ability to heel and toe under pressure. Plus back then the g forces were not very high, the speed not so fast as to require extremely fast reflexes, but the ability to concentrate and put the danger out of mind were paramont, Some might make it, but some (if they drive like they do now) would quickly be dead.

Reminds me of a remark by Mario Andretti which Nigel Roebuck frequently quotes. When sprintcars added roll cages you saw more contact because the drivers would get away with it more and Mario would rather do away with roll cages because that would sort the men from the boys.

As I said before the drivers are there to push the limits and the different generations did it in different ways. And then you have people like JYS who points fingers calling Senna and Schumacher dangerous as the sport progressively became safer.


I've always respected racing drivers like Moss who accepted the fact that being a grand prix driver was a dangerous occupation, and knew that if they didn't like the danger they could've quit.

Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.

As much as I agree with Moss' school of thought but seeing drivers burnt alive; dying almost every race weekend; drivers having to stop and get out their cars to assist the marshalls; inadequate safety and medical infrastructure is totally unacceptable.

Saying that, in that era I probably would've of wrote to Motorsport magazine agreeing everything by 'Jenks'!

markabilly
6th September 2008, 19:34
As much as I agree with Moss' school of thought but seeing drivers burnt alive; dying almost every race weekend; drivers having to stop and get out their cars to assist the marshalls; inadequate safety and medical infrastructure is totally unacceptable.

Saying that, in that era I probably would've of wrote to Motorsport magazine agreeing everything by 'Jenks'!

I doubt that you would have written that because having "seen" via newspapers, TV and such, some of those drivers that I had met and worshiped as a young fan, suffer such accidents-people like Swede Savage, Jim Clark, Bruce Maclaren, Peter Revson, Jochen Rindt and Siffert ......well I have no desire to see a return to that particular part of the good ole days. But I do respect them for what they did and the dangers that they faced. Frankly, I still prefer the older cars and the difficulty of driving them compared to what Mario said about the cars in the late 70's becoming more and more like go-carts, where it was more point and shoot, with the wings providing more and more traction as the faster the car went.

In the older days, high speed corners before wings were to be feared, because the faster the corner, the more feel and control became important to stay on track. Now with wings, the faster the speed, the more the downforce.......

Personally I thought Jenks was trying to draw attention to himself and spending too much time in the old soft arm-chair doing what many sports jocks do, such as how some guy just don't cut it, cause he is not tough enough, he can not hit hard enough, can not take the punches and so forth, when the reality was that none of the would be jocks sports writers could have ever really played the game (or raced the cars)---- reminds of the line from Redford close to the end of The Natural, where he asks the writer Duvall, "did you ever play ball???????"

wedge
6th September 2008, 23:44
I doubt that you would have written that because having "seen" via newspapers, TV and such, some of those drivers that I had met and worshiped as a young fan, suffer such accidents-people like Swede Savage, Jim Clark, Bruce Maclaren, Peter Revson, Jochen Rindt and Siffert ......well I have no desire to see a return to that particular part of the good ole days. But I do respect them for what they did and the dangers that they faced. Frankly, I still prefer the older cars and the difficulty of driving them compared to what Mario said about the cars in the late 70's becoming more and more like go-carts, where it was more point and shoot, with the wings providing more and more traction as the faster the car went.

In the older days, high speed corners before wings were to be feared, because the faster the corner, the more feel and control became important to stay on track. Now with wings, the faster the speed, the more the downforce.......

Personally I thought Jenks was trying to draw attention to himself and spending too much time in the old soft arm-chair doing what many sports jocks do, such as how some guy just don't cut it, cause he is not tough enough, he can not hit hard enough, can not take the punches and so forth, when the reality was that none of the would be jocks sports writers could have ever really played the game (or raced the cars)---- reminds of the line from Redford close to the end of The Natural, where he asks the writer Duvall, "did you ever play ball???????"

LOL!

You've sussed out my contradictions!

Well when I originally wrote the reply I was also thinking about JYS trying to persuade the drivers that they shouldn't race at the 'Ring until the necessary improvements were implemented. Had I been in that era I probably would've been a sheep and been against JYS' revolution.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, looking at today compared to yesteryear but I remember Senna's death very well and not shedding a tear and thought the drastic changes brought afterwards were laughable.

What changed my opinion was the death of Greg Moore (RIP) because he was my other hero of the late 90s (Schumi the other) and his life was taken away too damn soon.

ShiftingGears
7th September 2008, 03:18
Fifteen drivers died in the 1950s
Twelve in the 1960s
Ten in the 1970s
Four in the 1980s
Two in the 1990s.
No drivers have been involved in a fatal accident in the last 14 years



Hear hear :up:

I think that today's drivers are of a higher quality because they've been better trained mentally and physically. They're able to do things with cars not previously possible because of the technology of the cars and the tracks. The reason that they survive accidents tat would have killed their counterparts 40 years ago is nothing short of remarkable, and incidentally why I think that theugsquirrel's comments are fundamentally flawed.

How is my argument flawed? Nothing you presented contradicted what you quoted.

Rollo
7th September 2008, 07:39
I would not call the lack of drivers dying an "adverse" effect, quite the opposite - unless of course you happen to be a sadist and actually like seeing people die.

ShiftingGears
7th September 2008, 09:05
I would not call the lack of drivers dying an "adverse" effect, quite the opposite - unless of course you happen to be a sadist and actually like seeing people die.

That's not what I said. Read my post next time.

Rollo
7th September 2008, 22:28
No. It's exactly what you said:

Personally I think the challenge of grand prix racing circuits has been adversely affected due to Jackie Stewart's campaign for safety.
Not only have I read your post, I quoted your post, and then provided logical argument as to why I thought it was wrong.

Adverse adj. -
1. Contrary, hostile
2. Hurtful, injurous

Race drivers are paid to drive motor cars, the fact that someone like Kimi Raikkonen can strike a wall like he did yesterday and walk away totally unharmed, negates whatever argument you may have had.


I've always respected racing drivers like Moss who accepted the fact that being a grand prix driver was a dangerous occupation, and knew that if they didn't like the danger they could've quit.
So what does Goodwood in 1962 mean then? Striling Moss was a coward?

Garry Walker
8th September 2008, 12:15
There is nothing heroic about being a racing driver.
A hero is a person who saves lives.

ShiftingGears
8th September 2008, 12:37
No. It's exactly what you said:

Not only have I read your post, I quoted your post, and then provided logical argument as to why I thought it was wrong.

Adverse adj. -
1. Contrary, hostile
2. Hurtful, injurous

Race drivers are paid to drive motor cars, the fact that someone like Kimi Raikkonen can strike a wall like he did yesterday and walk away totally unharmed, negates whatever argument you may have had.

I said adversely affects the challenge of grand prix circuits, for example, removing challenging corners like Tamburello, putting chicanes in the Ostkurve, chicanes in any corner considered too dangerous (usually means the corners are hard to get right)...no Nurburgring Nordschliefe.

It's led to the miles of runoff area that accomodate driver errors.

Again, when you quote something, read all of the quote, instead of half of it.



So what does Goodwood in 1962 mean then? Striling Moss was a coward?

No.
He accepted that racing could've resulted in serious injury or death, and he paid the price for subjecting himself to that risk. No complaints from him, nothing. He just accepted it as how it was, and after he emerged from the coma and discovered that he wasn't fast enough, he retired.

D-Type
9th September 2008, 00:20
I doubt that you would have written that because having "seen" via newspapers, TV and such, some of those drivers that I had met and worshiped as a young fan, suffer such accidents-people like Swede Savage, Jim Clark, Bruce Maclaren, Peter Revson, Jochen Rindt and Siffert ......well I have no desire to see a return to that particular part of the good ole days. But I do respect them for what they did and the dangers that they faced. Frankly, I still prefer the older cars and the difficulty of driving them compared to what Mario said about the cars in the late 70's becoming more and more like go-carts, where it was more point and shoot, with the wings providing more and more traction as the faster the car went.

In the older days, high speed corners before wings were to be feared, because the faster the corner, the more feel and control became important to stay on track. Now with wings, the faster the speed, the more the downforce.......

Personally I thought Jenks was trying to draw attention to himself and spending too much time in the old soft arm-chair doing what many sports jocks do, such as how some guy just don't cut it, cause he is not tough enough, he can not hit hard enough, can not take the punches and so forth, when the reality was that none of the would be jocks sports writers could have ever really played the game (or raced the cars)---- reminds of the line from Redford close to the end of The Natural, where he asks the writer Duvall, "did you ever play ball???????"I think you are being a tad unfair to Jenks. He was Eric Oliver's passenger the year he won the sidecar World Championship sidecar, so arguably he had been a world champion. He had 'been there'.

futuretiger9
24th September 2008, 22:22
Things are all relative. Today's drivers operate within a different set of parameters, compared with the heroes of the past.

Society has changed, and risks and dangers which were permissible in the 1950s and 1960s would not be tolerated nowadays. Commercialism is also linked in with this, and this was one of the reasons why the safety crusades of the late 1960s and 1970s took place;there was a very real fear that if the sport did not reform itself, and introduce new measures, it could be legislated out of existence. The enhanced media coverage to some degree promoted a sanitising of the product.

BDunnell
27th September 2008, 02:07
There is nothing heroic about being a racing driver.
A hero is a person who saves lives.

I don't agree with you that often, but I do on this. It's like using words like 'disaster' or 'tragedy' to describe someone losing a championship. It could also be said of labelling people 'stupid', but we won't go there.

BDunnell
27th September 2008, 02:23
Society has changed, and risks and dangers which were permissible in the 1950s and 1960s would not be tolerated nowadays.

I agree, and I don't think this is wrong, either. In my opinion, there is a certain part of the constituency of F1 enthusiasts who are too easily impressed by the 'macho' nature of the sport, and this informs their views on safety. They deem the sport to have somehow 'gone soft' as a result of increased safety. I can understand this to an extent, as I instinctively don't like things such as starts under the safety car and the increasing sanitisation of circuits, but neither do I want to tune in and see an event in which there's the distinct possibility of competitors being injured or killed. F1 is still a dangerous sport and there will surely be injuries and fatalities in the future — as the old cliche goes, accidents will happen. But if the risks presented by those accidents can be mitigated as much as possible, surely that's a good thing? This is, after all, part of progress. What isn't is the sort of knee-jerk reaction that brings about a chicane in the middle of Eau Rouge.

For my part, I spend a fair bit of my working life attending air shows. Some bemoan the way in which they are now so heavily regulated, and it is true that safety rules have gone too far at some events and now restrict the spectacle to too great an extent. However, there is no doubt in my mind that it is still possible to put on a spectacle, and that things are better for the greater professionalism that has developed over the years when it comes to display flying and event safety. I see significant parallels with F1 on this subject — again, it's a case of progress.

futuretiger9
27th September 2008, 07:03
Formula 1 has in the last twenty years sought to tread that fine line between maintaining the challenge which makes the sport compelling, and also not subjecting the competitors to unnecessary risks. Much of this ties in with society's increasing focus on protecting people from themselves. Whilst I think everyone welcomes the major leaps in safety standards which have taken place, we should also be careful to ensure that F1 maintains "the edge" which attracted many of us in the first place.