Formula 1 - Then and Now

[Codger]

Ron Clark has an excellent 1/12 scale Ferrari 312T in progress on the WIP page and a lively discussion is taking place. He's going far beyond the Tamiya box and approaching MFH territory. Many talented members are inspired and adding significant input and picture reference. Which is what we all strive for.

But a thought has formed in my ancient brain about just the difference 45 years ( ! - I was cheering for those guys then!) makes in the state of F-1 art. Modeller Dan has noted the surgical nature of today's cars vs the smell of oil and hot brakes then. And then I thought;

If Clay or Nikki could come back today and drive LeClerc's or Vettel's car now - what would they feel? My guess is they would not get past 5tenths of the car's envelope. However, Charl or Sebastion could easily go to Goodwood or Brands and thrash the daylights out of even a well-cared for 312T. At 11 tenths. True, it would all be in the driver's hands - a fraction of the downforce or traction - to say nothing of power - of today's car. Just my 2 Bob...

A very interesting build and participants over there.

 

-And I sure wish Nikki and Clay were here to give us thoughts........

[RobL]

If we're talking same age and ability as when Lauda and Regazzoni were racing, I think both would disagree with you.  As an F1, and motorsports in general, fan/anorak, for some 30+ years I certainly disagree with you.

 

You can put any half decent open wheel car driver, who hasn't sat around doing nothing for a couple of years, in today's F1 cars and they will do well, particularly when you put them in the top cars.  The last race at Sakhir with Russell in the Mercedes proved that (same driver, better car, night and day).  Even Schumacher somewhat proved that point when he came out of retirement in 2010 after 4 years away from F1.  However, having watched some "recently "retired"" drivers actually do some historic racing, it's safe to say the opposite is not true - being good in modern F1 does not necessarily translate to being good in historic F1 or any other motorsport - Alonso has proven that at Indy, three times!

 

Today's cars, which are hugely reliant on aero, are just easier to drive fast than cars of "yesteryear" that had less aero, relied more on mechanical grip, which often was lacking, were a lot less safe, and had engines/drivetrains that made cars absolute animals.   The cars with a BMW engine between 1983 and 1986, including Piquet's Brabham, for example, towards the end of Lauda's career, had 1400 horsepower, give or take 50, available to them for quali, about 900 or so in the race, and drivers talked of wheelspin in 4th gear!!  And that was a 1.5 litre turbo inline 4 pot, not even a turbo 6 pot hybrid like today's engines, of which only a handful just get over the 1000hp line (Mercedes reportedly get 1022hp apparently) in "party mode"!

 

The 70s and 80s in particular are littered with examples of difficult to drive, often race/championship winning, cars that modern F1 drivers would not just simply be able to "jump into" and do as well as drivers of those eras, for one thing they're all too used to racing with modern F1 cars.  I recall Hamilton, the current "GOAT", drove a historic F1 car not so long ago (although I forget which one it was) for a video piece for Sky or some other broadcaster, and stated that he was scared witless, and he wasn't even driving at race/quali pace...

 

There's a reason modern F1 cars are mostly like watching Scalextric...

 

Cue all the fanboys...

Edited December 12, 2020 by RobL
clarity of point

[Scimitar F1]

Though not a fan 

6 hours ago, Codger said:

My guess is they would not get past 5tenths of the car's envelope.

I would think that the opposite would be true. Stick shift? Lower consistency is manufacturing in the past. Far less predictability in design than modern designs due to modern CAD, CFD and simulation.

 

Put it another way are today’s cars that we drive easier to drive quickly than 40 years ago? 100%
 

Another question - what is easier to fly a WW2 Typhoon or a modern one? Again the former was far harder to fly to the limits without FBW in the ‘40s airspace environment. (That is fly not fight)

 

Bottom line though is that humans have not evolved so over time they would tend to the same result.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Scimitar F1

[Vicarage Vee]

39 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:

Bottom line though is that humans have not evolved so over time they would tend to the same result.

 

 

Quite agree, the levels of innate skill, bravery and intelligence have not changed over the past century.  What is different is that the changes in machinery alter the relative importance of different elements of the balance of skills needed.  

Niki Lauda in particular may well have thrived in modern cars.  Of course equally he might not.  The circumstances of each generation select those best suited to rise to the top, and the best drive the available cars to the edge of the performance envelope.  
 

Oh, and Ron’s 312 T is magnificent!

[keefr22]

What also needs to be remembered is that guys like Niki and Clay were 'racing' drivers and had to use racecraft and skill to get past other drivers. Today most 'overtakes' are aftificial - sail up behind the car in front in a DRS zone and just drive by. I agree there are a few good 'proper' overtaking moves per season, but not that many!

 

I've often wished that today's 'best' drivers were made to drive that season's worst car in at least one race - the final one of this season might be very entertaining if they let Russell have the Merc again and stuck Hamilton in the Williams....!!

 

Keith

[cmatthewbacon]

There was certainly a piece, in Octane I think, in which Lewis H drove a Mercedes W196, and emerged (even more) full of respect for the men who’d wrestled with it in the day. Personally I think the thing to remember when trying out the “these youngsters today don’t know they’re born” line is that they haven’t died, either. Far, far too many F1 drivers in the “Glory Days” did, so if watching cars go round in circles is your thing, be glad that these days no one has to die for your entertainment... (Full disclosure: I love Historic racing, but I felt sick when Christian Deveraux was mortally injured in a crash at Donington. You just don’t think it can happen any more...)

best,

M.

[Codger]

Well now, it was not my intention to stir up debate; merely a then/now comparison that arose from Ron's great thread. We are all certainly entitled to our own thoughts on the subject and I respect all that's been said here. But I also stand by my ideas. 

My own data base extends back to Road&Track, Autoweek (the Racing section) and Sports Car Graphic magazines of the '60's and of course the ABC Wide World of Sports broadcasts of the races themselves. I did attend open wheeled races but only of the American kind.

Yes, the heros manhandled those cars in the day. But I doubt (were they here in their prime) would they be prepared for the forces in all three dimensions generated by today's cars vs their old ones.

But make no mistake, my heart is always with the 'old time' racecars. Current F-1 is no comparison when only 4 cars finish on the same lap or 5th place is 30+ seconds behind. And aesthetically I find them  inferior even though every surface is there for aero efficiency. I do however respect the physical condition all the drivers are in to withstand all the G's - like 'elderly' Kimi or Fernando.

Ron's build is proving to be a benchmark for advanced F-1 builds and many are learning from it.

[JohnT]

Thinking about these GOAT discussions I find my own view is that we will just never know the answer. 
 

I have a sneaking suspicion that if today’s drivers were brought up with yesterday’s cars or vice versa once one allowed an adjustment period to enable the driver to come to grips with the changed scenario they would have been just as competitive as the other era drivers. Probably in the blood

 

Same goes probably for comparisons between Albert Ball, Richthofen, Hartmann, Gabreski, Olds etc

 

[Spiny]

12 hours ago, Vicarage Vee said:

 The circumstances of each generation select those best suited to rise to the top, and the best drive the available cars to the edge of the performance envelope.  
 

 

I'd have to agree with this. Not long ago I saw a very similar comment that if you put one of today's top drivers into a 1950's Grand Prix car they probably wouldn't be anything special due to a combination of the car moving around so much more than they were used to and the threat factor of sitting unbelted in and surrounded by single skin fuel tanks would probably make them push the car less than the drivers of the time.

 

The corollary of that is that the top 1950s drivers would probably be off the pace in a modern F1 car due to a combination of the extra fitness required to push the car and the trust you need to place in the aerodynamics. While it may be the case that a driver out of his 'own' time may get up to speed in the other machinery, it may also be that other drivers of the time may be better suited to the change of machinery. I'm reminded years ago of a journalist who took a road-going Renault Laguna around Brands Hatch (Indy) and was only a couple of seconds off the BTCC driver (may have been Menu, it was a long time ago). Then they got into the BTCC car with its aero and was way off the pace - the BTCC driver was about 10 seconds quicker in the BTCC car while the journalist only gained a couple of seconds as they just couldn't get their head around the fact that the aero would make the car stick better to the track.

[Coors54]

Great debate starter Mr C, my view is that the natural affection you have for something or someone you have an interest in, are enthusiastic about and have seen perform particularly live , be that racing drivers, cars, musicians, artists, footballers - beer will mean that you will always tend to favour certain ones come what may and comparing them with later or earlier incarnations that you haven't seen, heard or tasted will always result in irrational disagreement.

"My" era of motorsport is 1975 - 1983 and no one will ever tell me that past or present drivers are better than Lauda, Petersen, Nilsson, Scheckter  et al, mainly because I haven't attended a GP since 83 (watching on TV doesn't count) and never saw Moss or Nuvolari "live".

I can admire drivers from earlier ages through old films and descriptions and photos in books and look at todays drivers with respect for their abilities with computers and aero but nothing can take away my favouritism borne from seeing "my" aces and cars at the time of my greatest enthusiasm.

 

So Lauda is the great driver technician, but for sheer driving ability it's got to be Ronnie.....and I'll see anyone that disagrees in the car park.

 

Dave

[Flintstone]

Alway an interesting topic when comparing cars and drivers over the years. We must also remember the state of the tracks, which could considerably sort out the gifted from the good!

I would have loved to see the Auto Union and Mercedes battles of the 30s, the 50s sports car battles between Ferrari, Jaguar, Maserati, Lancia, Aston Martin and Porsche. The 1.5 litre formula of the 60s probably produced the best looking cars in simple schemes, before the arrival of brash advertising!

I started watching races in the mid 70s. Too late to see 917s in action, but I do remember Ronnie Peterson hurling the Lotus 72 around Silverstone and the Lancia Stratos. But the 80s meant Turbo F1, Group C and Group B and I feel very lucky to have seen that!

I think it was Bernie Ecclestone who said that if you gave a driver the choice of a safe car that was 0.5 seconds slower or a faster less safe one, the true racer would always take the faster car. In the past driver perhaps needed a poor imagination to press on, but luckily today tragic losses are rare and perhaps we have lost sight of the fact that drivers of all eras would push their vehicles to the limit.

[Roger Holden]

As an unashamed fan of historic F1 (my favourite period is the 'Cosworth' era, 1967-82), there is no question that driving the current generation takes far less skill and finesse.

Driving an F1 car has been de-skilled with each passing decade.  Better weight distribution (mid-engined), better grip (wider tyres), better downforce (Wings and then ground-effect aerodynamics), more rigid chassis (carbon fibre), semi-automatic gearboxes (which reduce the chance of over-revving an engine by about 90%), pit-driver telemetry, completely-optimised CFD aerodynamics (which allow the rapid evaluation of hundreds of aerodynamic configurations) and off-track simulation have all progressively reduced the role of the driver. That's why 17-year olds can do it today after a few hours on the simulator.  F1 has gone from a semi-amateur sport with teams of half a dozen members to 

something which has overtaken aerospace in sophistication, with teams of 2000 members, in about 50 years.  The current drivers are the best at what they do, but that requires

far less skill (or bravery) than the likes of Nuvolari, Fangio, Clark, or even Senna.  You only have to watch the onboard video of Senna lapping Monaco, with constant steering inputs, gear changes, heel and toeing, along with all the head-buffeting and vibration from less-than-perfect aerodynamics taking place to realise that. Modern cars are on rails by comparison. They provide effortless speed, like sitting in a simulator with added 'g' effects......   

[dnl42]

2 hours ago, Roger Holden said:

...completely-optimised CFD aerodynamics (which allow the rapid evaluation of hundreds of aerodynamic configurations) and off-track simulation...

Not to diminish the point, it's not as completely optimized as they would like. FIA limits CFD and wind tunnel utilization.

There's a far cry between building a car and running it on a track (then) and CFD & wind tunnel analysis (now).

[Vesa Jussila]

15 hours ago, dnl42 said:

There's a far cry between building a car and running it on a track (then) and CFD & wind tunnel analysis (now).

 

I fully agree with this CFD comment, Result is as good as your CFD model is. And how well you can model track and conditions there.

[cmatthewbacon]

22 hours ago, Roger Holden said:

far less skill (or bravery) than the likes of Nuvolari, Fangio. Modern cars are on rails by comparison. They provide effortless speed, like sitting in a simulator with added 'g' effects......   

Sorry, that’s complete nonsense. It’s like saying that Chuck Yeager had less skill (or bravery) than Charles Lindbergh. Or Bill Knight had less than Scott Crossfield. Or John Young had less than Neil Armstrong. Whatever generation you’re in, the Right Stuff is still the Right Stuff. While people still get into cars and try to drive them faster than other people on the same track, then someone will be better than the others, whether they are F1, e-cars, or “only driven by women.” Stick Jamie Chadwick in the Evo track cars of the year (as they did this year) and she’ll hang them out on the ragged edge as well as Helene Delangle did with her Bugatti 35.

You want to find out who really is GOAT? Then it’s a one make race, same rules, like the Mercedes Race of Champions or the Porsche Carrera Cup...

best,

M.

 

[keefr22]

14 minutes ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Porsche Carrera Cup...

 

Where Harry King has this season been one of the most exciting racing drivers I've seen in many a year. Simply brilliant young driver who made some blinding overtakes! And the way he hustled that 911 around Goodwood in the Speedweek 'sprint' was fantastic to watch!

 

And give me BTCC and the support races over F1 any day of the week!

 

Keith

[Roger Holden]

2 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Sorry, that’s complete nonsense. It’s like saying that Chuck Yeager had less skill (or bravery) than Charles Lindbergh. Or Bill Knight had less than Scott Crossfield.

 

We'll have to disagree on that one, then. Like I said, the current drivers are the best at what they do, but it's a different (and much more scientific) skill set than raw seat of the pants car control required decades ago. Even 40-odd years ago Mario Andretti said of the Lotus 79 'It drives like it's painted to the road' and that trend has only accelerated since. Of course, the less-sophisticated the machinery, the more driver input is required, why many other branches of motor sport provide better entertainment than F1.

 

And the F1 drivers of the 60s/70s in particular, were very brave. A heavy head-on shunt would probably break both legs (or worse, result in internal injuries) or a side impact would rupture the fuel tanks and douse the driver and hot exhausts in fuel. Outcomes which are extremely rare today. They accepted those risks, for relatively little remuneration, by today's standards.

 

Interesting discussion.  

[Graham Boak]

It is wrong that modern F1 cars require less driver input, but it occurs in a way that is less visible.  Thus  misleading the spectators.  There was also a very different approach to risking life in the years after the mass slaughter of the wars, something that took a long time to change for the better.  Bianchi and Grosjean's crashes show that the dangers are still there when driving at the margins, and the margins have moved spectacularly.

 

There is certainly less physical effort, with shorter races, lighter weights and greatly improved physical fitness contributing to this.  But the mental effort seems heavier rather than lighter.  And modern drivers do take more risks when overtaking: the behaviour of some of the younger drivers would have led to a much shorter career in the 60s!

 

But then, the finest racing was always in the years we first saw the sport.

[Flintstone]

On 19/12/2020 at 10:51, Graham Boak said:

It is wrong that modern F1 cars require less driver input, but it occurs in a way that is less visible.  Thus  misleading the spectators.  There was also a very different approach to risking life in the years after the mass slaughter of the wars, something that took a long time to change for the better.  Bianchi and Grosjean's crashes show that the dangers are still there when driving at the margins, and the margins have moved spectacularly.

 

There is certainly less physical effort, with shorter races, lighter weights and greatly improved physical fitness contributing to this.  But the mental effort seems heavier rather than lighter.  And modern drivers do take more risks when overtaking: the behaviour of some of the younger drivers would have led to a much shorter career in the 60s!

 

But then, the finest racing was always in the years we first saw the sport.

 

I agree, we tend to look fondly at the time we first saw whatever it was that sparked out interests/passion!

[Tyas]

Old F1 drivers have to deal with physical issues, how to hustle their cars to slightly above the limit of the grip without throwing themselves on to a telephone pole, having to deal with unassisted steering and brakes that were probably more suitable on a pram, etc.

For current drivers, however, the load is more on the mental side. How to keep your tyre temperature, how much fuel they should use, when to apply brake without either locking up and looking like an idiot or braking too soon and looking like an idiot, etc.

My point is, these guys had their own era, we cannot directly compare, say, Lewis or Sebastian with the likes of Jackie or Jacky (why is every driver in 1960s and 70s named Jackie?!). Different era requires different skill sets, so if you're asking the absolute GOAT, the discussion will never end until the day we die. Let's just enjoy the fact that even in the era where overtaking requires waiting behind the slipstream for most of the time, occasionally great races break out like in Monza or Turkey last year.