DSJ was on to something...

[Bruce D]

Was quite amused while reading the July 1963 issue of Motorsport (DVD archive) and found this comment from Denis Jenkinson after the Belgium GP:

"The amount of trouble designers are experiencing operating rear-mounted gearboxes has gone beyond being absurd. It's time to revert to front engines and gearboxes in the cockpit with simple gear-levers, or else get down to some scientific hydraulic controls."

Given that fuel injection had just been released on the Climax engines that year, DSJ was well ahead of his time. Had that whole paddle-shift gearbox thing worked out long before John Barnard! :D

[wedge]

Was quite amused while reading the July 1963 issue of Motorsport (DVD archive) and found this comment from Denis Jenkinson after the Belgium GP:

"The amount of trouble designers are experiencing operating rear-mounted gearboxes has gone beyond being absurd. It's time to revert to front engines and gearboxes in the cockpit with simple gear-levers, or else get down to some scientific hydraulic controls."

Given that fuel injection had just been released on the Climax engines that year, DSJ was well ahead of his time. Had that whole paddle-shift gearbox thing worked out long before John Barnard! :D

LOL!

Jenks was a purist. I'd imagine he'd hate the paddle shifters!

[Saint Devote]

LOL!

Jenks was a purist. I'd imagine he'd hate the paddle shifters!

Which requires a discussion on what a purist is.

I do not think Jenks would have been against paddle-shifters. He was always for new technologies. A purist rejects that which is not naturally part of motor racing.

In concrete terms - pit stops made because teams have to use two types of tyres would be rejected.

Or the way the after race ceremonies are stage managed - was Kubica required to change into a clean racing suit before tv interviews?

[Bruce D]

I think he probably would have loved the details of the technology but maybe not the fact that it made life easier for the driver.

[Saint Devote]

I think he probably would have loved the details of the technology but maybe not the fact that it made life easier for the driver.

That sounds like DSJ :D but only within the context of - if it flattered drivers, I'd say.

[Mark]

Personally I think F1 cars shouldn't have paddle shift, they should have to shift using the clutch and a gear stick like the rest of us!

[Bruce D]

Oh yes I totally agree, and this excuse that it helps to save engine damage is total rubbish because up until 2 years ago Indycar drivers managed to use manual shifts without blowing engines and these were supposed to be "inferior" drivers and the F1 guys are supposed to be "the best".

[V12]

Like many so-called purists I'm kind of torn on the issue - I want to see clever and interesting technologies, while wanting the best drivers to be tested, and sadly the two seem to be mutually exclusive to a degree.

Having said that as I get older I'm leaning more towards the technological side of things. When I was a naive kid I practically hero-worshipped the drivers and would have been happy to see them in identical cars going at it (I shudder at that thought now!). Now I'm in my late 20s and the hero-worship factor has gone, I can still mildly support drivers but not as much as I used to, and I need other things to hold my interest.

I still don't want to get off the fence on the whole driver aids thing though.