planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:45 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
This is a list of Fomula 1 driver records that can be equalled or beaten in 2017. Updated after China 2017:

Image
Image

Legend:
  • Current holder: For records shared, like wins in a season, which is shared between Schumacher and Vettel, only the driver who achieved it first is listed.
  • Earliest date: Earliest date it is possible, however unlikely, the record is equalled or broken. Includes GP, date, and race number. Assumes that the current calendar won't be altered.
  • Current: Current statistic for the record of the driver most likely to beat it.
  • Condition: Condition required to break the record when it's not obvious.
  • Likelihood: Likelihood, in my view, that the record is equalled or broken in 2017. The likelihoods are: VU: Very unlikely. U: Unlikely. I: Intermediate (about 50-50). L: Likely. VL: Very likely. AC: Almost certain. Completely subjective, of course.
  • MLD: Most likely driver to equal or break the record. Also very subjective, of course. Some of these are based on my perception that Hamilton is the driver most likely to succeed and take the WDC in 2017, which might certainly be wrong.
  • Bold: Records in bold are records "to watch for". These are the records which seem most relevant and have a relatively high likelihood of being beaten (higher than EU).

I have left out records which fit one of these criteria:
  • Are so extremely unlikely to be beaten that they can be considered unbeatable for practical purposes. Example: Oldest winner (held by Fagioli, who won a GP at the age of 53).
  • Could be broken by any driver at any race. Example: Win from farthest back in the grid.
  • Are both extremely unlikely to be broken and relatively unimportant. Example: Most laps led without a win.

Let me know if I made any mistakes or I missed something important.


Last edited by Alonshow on Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:27 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 164
Location: Netherlands
Some observations:

- Consecutive wins cannot go to Hamilton in Spain, because he didn't win in Australia. So earliest possible is Vettel in round 9 or Hamilton in round 10.
- Most races before first win, might want to add Hulkenberg there. The Renault is looking equal to the Force India.
- Bottas might take podiums without win.

Apart from that, awesome list! Nice to see it all in one place. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Thank you!

Corrected the entries about consecutive wins and podiums without a win. I created this chart a few months ago and updated most of it now, but looks like I had missed a couple of things.

Regarding the races before the first win, Hulk and Pérez seem equally likely to break it (both extremely unlikely anyway). I prefer to have only one name in MLD to keep the list tidy, so I left it as is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Cool list, and obviously a lot of time went into it! :thumbup:

There are a few of them I question your likelihood for, however - particularly having Verstappen as 'Likely' to take his first pole this year. Pre-season I might have agreed with that, but the way the cars stand right now RBR is over a second off the top two teams. Outside of a rain-affected qualifying, I don't see him as having much of a chance at taking a pole this year at all.

Another one that stands out to me is 'Percentage of races in the points' - you have noted that a rookie can take this achievement by scoring in 17 of the 20 races. Based on the pace of the Williams, Stroll really ought to do this, so I would rate it higher than extremely unlikely. Granted, his only race so far was a DNF, but the car looks to be good for points in every race he finishes. Maybe just unlikely? If it was a driver with less of a record for crashing, I'd put it at least intermediate personally.

The final one that seems odd to me is the pairing of most races finished and most races classified; you seem to have it down as more likely for Alonso to finish 13 races than to be classified in 16. That seems logically impossible to me, so I assume it's simply a typo? Or is there something I'm not getting?

But once again, nice work, and a very interesting read overall!

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Thank you for your nice words! :proud:

Exediron wrote:
having Verstappen as 'Likely' to take his first pole this year. Pre-season I might have agreed with that, but the way the cars stand right now RBR is over a second off the top two teams. Outside of a rain-affected qualifying, I don't see him as having much of a chance at taking a pole this year at all.
You have a point there, for sure. I based my likelihood rating in the idea that the main weakness of the Red Bull is the engine, so I would expect them challenge for the pole in street circuits and in the rain. Apart from that, Renault has promised to bring a big upgrade soon, which should give them some hope to get poles in other situations as well. Still, more than a second off the pace might be too much even taking that into account, so I reduced the likelihood a bit.

Exediron wrote:
Another one that stands out to me is 'Percentage of races in the points' - you have noted that a rookie can take this achievement by scoring in 17 of the 20 races. Based on the pace of the Williams, Stroll really ought to do this, so I would rate it higher than extremely unlikely. Granted, his only race so far was a DNF, but the car looks to be good for points in every race he finishes. Maybe just unlikely? If it was a driver with less of a record for crashing, I'd put it at least intermediate personally.
Again, you have a point so I replaced Hamilton with Stroll and increased the likelihood rating. Still, Stroll needs to score points in 17 out of 19 races to achieve this one. That's a lot of consistency to expect from a guy whose history in Formula 1 so far is one race, one DNF, and three crashes. Not to mention that every team faces some mechanical failure throughout the season. I think "very unlikely" is the best we can give him for this one.

Exediron wrote:
The final one that seems odd to me is the pairing of most races finished and most races classified; you seem to have it down as more likely for Alonso to finish 13 races than to be classified in 16. That seems logically impossible to me, so I assume it's simply a typo? Or is there something I'm not getting?
There's no impossibility here. Finishing 13 or more races in a season and being classified in less than 16 is quite common for drivers with reliability issues. Last year, for instance, that happened with three drivers: Kviat, Button and Palmer. All of them finished and were classified in only 15 races (more than 13 and less than 16).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Alonshow wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The final one that seems odd to me is the pairing of most races finished and most races classified; you seem to have it down as more likely for Alonso to finish 13 races than to be classified in 16. That seems logically impossible to me, so I assume it's simply a typo? Or is there something I'm not getting?

There's no impossibility here. Finishing 13 or more races in a season and being classified in less than 16 is quite common for drivers with reliability issues. Last year, for instance, that happened with three drivers: Kviat, Button and Palmer. All of them finished and were classified in only 15 races (more than 13 and less than 16).

Yeah, I think I somehow had the numbers reversed in my head or something! I was thinking you had the higher number of races classed as more likely, but that's clearly not the case. Brain fade! x(

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:08 am
Posts: 501
I havr a doubt here, in China, Perez achived 12 consecutive races in the points and media said he will hold this record among all drivers on the grid, altough the list indicates Raikkonen hold this record with 27 races. Does anyone has some precise idea of it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Alonshow wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Another one that stands out to me is 'Percentage of races in the points' - you have noted that a rookie can take this achievement by scoring in 17 of the 20 races. Based on the pace of the Williams, Stroll really ought to do this, so I would rate it higher than extremely unlikely. Granted, his only race so far was a DNF, but the car looks to be good for points in every race he finishes. Maybe just unlikely? If it was a driver with less of a record for crashing, I'd put it at least intermediate personally.

Again, you have a point so I replaced Hamilton with Stroll and increased the likelihood rating. Still, Stroll needs to score points in 17 out of 19 races to achieve this one. That's a lot of consistency to expect from a guy whose history in Formula 1 so far is one race, one DNF, and three crashes. Not to mention that every team faces some mechanical failure throughout the season. I think "very unlikely" is the best we can give him for this one.

At this rate, I think you were right all along - Stroll is looking more likely to get 17 DNFs than 17 finishes right now! :lol: x(

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 7546
Great list!

I can see the podium record at least being equaled by Vettel or Hamilton. Hamilton already equaled it last season with all those problems and with there being 20 races it easier than Michael getting 17/17

It's a shame the new points system has ruined that statistic.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:06 am
Posts: 2848
There is one you missed, Hülkenberg can potentially break the record for most races without a podium if he does not get a podium before or at Hungary this year.

_________________
Danger is real, fear is choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco '12 & '15, Silverstone '14, Austria '15, Mexico '15, China '16)
Podiums: 11
2017 Championship Standing: Don't look, it's hideous!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
lamo wrote:
Great list!

I can see the podium record at least being equaled by Vettel or Hamilton. Hamilton already equaled it last season with all those problems and with there being 20 races it easier than Michael getting 17/17

It's a shame the new points system has ruined that statistic.


The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless. With 7-9 races a season and about 40% of the points for a win that the winner gets now, drivers from the '50s have to hope that people still remember how good they really were, as their records will be easily overcome from even mediocre drivers. The drivers of the 80, 90s, and 00s have less of a disadvantage perhaps but definitely when it comes to points, their records will be overcome as well... it is like a winner today gets 2.5x the number of points. To get a real idea, let someone figure out how many points Schumi would have scored with 25 points for a win, and the added points for positions down the line... it would be staggering.

Wins per season are closer, but still with 20 races per season for today's driver compared to 16-17 for those even 10 years ago. it is better than a 10% advantage with 20 or more races.

Going to be even harder to compare records from here on out.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless. With 7-9 races a season and about 40% of the points for a win that the winner gets now, drivers from the '50s have to hope that people still remember how good they really were, as their records will be easily overcome from even mediocre drivers. The drivers of the 80, 90s, and 00s have less of a disadvantage perhaps but definitely when it comes to points, their records will be overcome as well... it is like a winner today gets 2.5x the number of points. To get a real idea, let someone figure out how many points Schumi would have scored with 25 points for a win, and the added points for positions down the line... it would be staggering.

Wins per season are closer, but still with 20 races per season for today's driver compared to 16-17 for those even 10 years ago. it is better than a 10% advantage with 20 or more races.

Going to be even harder to compare records from here on out.

I've never had the impression that people care a huge amount about career points in terms of placing or remembering drivers. I certainly have no idea what the career points total of a driver like Clark or Fangio was, while I do have a very good grasp of wins, pole positions - certainly championships...

The increased number of races has certainly required one to exercise a bit more perspective when discussing career numbers, admittedly. You'll hear a lot about how Lewis has more poles than Senna when he gets there - which won't be long, one imagines - but less about how many more races it took him to get them. Similarly, Rosberg now possesses win and pole statistics that should put him high among the one-time champions. It's really I think only an issue statistically when a driver gets in a truly dominant car; the impact of a single season on career numbers can be much higher now, but in a competitive year the effect will be less.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 7546
Blake wrote:
lamo wrote:
Great list!

I can see the podium record at least being equaled by Vettel or Hamilton. Hamilton already equaled it last season with all those problems and with there being 20 races it easier than Michael getting 17/17

It's a shame the new points system has ruined that statistic.


The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless. With 7-9 races a season and about 40% of the points for a win that the winner gets now, drivers from the '50s have to hope that people still remember how good they really were, as their records will be easily overcome from even mediocre drivers. The drivers of the 80, 90s, and 00s have less of a disadvantage perhaps but definitely when it comes to points, their records will be overcome as well... it is like a winner today gets 2.5x the number of points. To get a real idea, let someone figure out how many points Schumi would have scored with 25 points for a win, and the added points for positions down the line... it would be staggering.



Wins per season are closer, but still with 20 races per season for today's driver compared to 16-17 for those even 10 years ago. it is better than a 10% advantage with 20 or more races.

Going to be even harder to compare records from here on out.


It should be easier to compare points in a few years. Provided that they keep this points system, we currently have drivers who raced both 10-8-6 and 25-18-15 but it won't be long (2011 on wards) before we get drivers who only raced the new system so a simple divide by 2.5 will but them in the old system.

Once all the drivers who raced both systems retire we can calculate their and all drivers who raced in the past into the new system and then use that for direct comparisons to the modern drivers. Before then its quite a messy calculation.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Thank you again for your nice comments :)

Deep_blue wrote:
I havr a doubt here, in China, Perez achived 12 consecutive races in the points and media said he will hold this record among all drivers on the grid, altough the list indicates Raikkonen hold this record with 27 races. Does anyone has some precise idea of it?
Räikkonen finished in the points all the races between the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix and the 2013 Hungarian Grand Prix: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_driver_records#Most_consecutive_points_finishes.
What the media said seems to be wrong. Maybe they meant that Pérez has the record for most consecutive races classified among the drivers in the grid. That would be correct, with 32 and counting.

specdecible wrote:
There is one you missed, Hülkenberg can potentially break the record for most races without a podium if he does not get a podium before or at Hungary this year.
It's there, but I put it in the "Races" group for consistency with the rest of the list. I can understand that you might expect to see it in the "Podiums" group, though.

Blake wrote:
The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless.
These records, like the records in any other sport, have limited meaning and "validity", but they're most certainly not meaningless. In Formula 1 this limitation is more obvious and more drastic than in other sports, but the records are still very meaningful. For instance, the fact that Hamilton has the most points in history does not necessarily mean that he's the best driver in history, but it definitely says a lot about his quality as a driver.

Take athletics, for instance. Jesse Owen set the world record for 100 m in 1936 with 10.3. Usain Bolt put the mark in 9.58 a few years ago. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean Bolt is a better runner than Owens was. After all, Bolt has access to diets, training facilities, advanced sports materials, etc. that Owen couldn't even dream of. Does that make Bolt's record meaningless? Certainly not. It just makes its meaning somewhat limited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 509
Alonshow wrote:
These records, like the records in any other sport, have limited meaning and "validity", but they're most certainly not meaningless. In Formula 1 this limitation is more obvious and more drastic than in other sports, but the records are still very meaningful. For instance, the fact that Hamilton has the most points in history does not necessarily mean that he's the best driver in history, but it definitely says a lot about his quality as a driver.

Take athletics, for instance. Jesse Owen set the world record for 100 m in 1936 with 10.3. Usain Bolt put the mark in 9.58 a few years ago. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean Bolt is a better runner than Owens was. After all, Bolt has access to diets, training facilities, advanced sports materials, etc. that Owen couldn't even dream of. Does that make Bolt's record meaningless? Certainly not. It just makes its meaning somewhat limited.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
lamo wrote:
Blake wrote:
lamo wrote:
Great list!

I can see the podium record at least being equaled by Vettel or Hamilton. Hamilton already equaled it last season with all those problems and with there being 20 races it easier than Michael getting 17/17

It's a shame the new points system has ruined that statistic.


The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless. With 7-9 races a season and about 40% of the points for a win that the winner gets now, drivers from the '50s have to hope that people still remember how good they really were, as their records will be easily overcome from even mediocre drivers. The drivers of the 80, 90s, and 00s have less of a disadvantage perhaps but definitely when it comes to points, their records will be overcome as well... it is like a winner today gets 2.5x the number of points. To get a real idea, let someone figure out how many points Schumi would have scored with 25 points for a win, and the added points for positions down the line... it would be staggering.



Wins per season are closer, but still with 20 races per season for today's driver compared to 16-17 for those even 10 years ago. it is better than a 10% advantage with 20 or more races.

Going to be even harder to compare records from here on out.


It should be easier to compare points in a few years. Provided that they keep this points system, we currently have drivers who raced both 10-8-6 and 25-18-15 but it won't be long (2011 on wards) before we get drivers who only raced the new system so a simple divide by 2.5 will but them in the old system.

Once all the drivers who raced both systems retire we can calculate their and all drivers who raced in the past into the new system and then use that for direct comparisons to the modern drivers. Before then its quite a messy calculation.


Why will it be easier in a few years, Lamo? I am not sure that is going to be the case, as I suspect that the drivers of the past will be pushed out of mind as the media and the younger fans won't bother to factor to calculate to the newer point standard the older drivers. Hell they don't even do it now, instead there is a few in here who disregard virtually all drivers not currently on the grid. How many times have you seen some post that today's drivers are the best of all time... all of them! I Know I have argued against that line often. 10 years down the road, assuming nothing has happened to how things are scored now, we will be seeing fantastic point totals, win totals, pole totals touted to enforce the greatness of those who hold the records... and I fear that they won't be qualifying it with an asterisk or even mentioning that Fangio never had more than 10 races in a season.

More recent than that will be Schumi, as it will be ignored that the most points he could gain by winning a race was 10/12. I think it is all too easy for those who were not around in the 50s, 60s, 70s, even 80s & 90s, to dismiss the vast advantages that today's drivers have when it comes to statistics, other than percentages...

I know will just brush off my concerns as the rantings of a bitter old fart, and dismiss them as having little to no value. However, as there are fewer and fewer of us "old farts" around who remember the beginnings of F1, or even "lived" it... those who are here still may just have to beg the newbies forgiveness for our defense of times past.
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
Blake we appreciate old farts in here. ;) Also I don't think anyone argues that modern drivers are better based on stats. They usually argue it based on the fact that the talent pool is deeper, the drivers start younger and the training/diet programs are far more advanced (not to mention the fact that chain smoking, drinking and other forms of recklessness have fallen out of fashion in the paddock).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
And once again.. if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al. As for the talent pool... I am not convinced... the key word being TALENT. Are there more bodies? Yup. Are there more opportunities? Indeed. That does not mean that they are automatically more talented.

This comes up every year... and my belief is that there are but a few in each generation who are truly GREAT. I also believe that those "greats" would have been great in whatever generation had they but the opportunity. It works both ways too... as I think a Schumi or Alonso would have faired well in the 50s & 60s if we could transplant them into that time. What I am saying is that I believe talent above numbers.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake we appreciate old farts in here. ;) Also I don't think anyone argues that modern drivers are better based on stats. They usually argue it based on the fact that the talent pool is deeper, the drivers start younger and the training/diet programs are far more advanced (not to mention the fact that chain smoking, drinking and other forms of recklessness have fallen out of fashion in the paddock).


On a side note... perhaps if the drivers of the 50s had better than a 50% chance of survival, they might not have smoked or drank as much!!! And... perhaps if the drivers of today, Schumi and Alonso as the example I used in the above post, were taken back in time to 1954, they would have said "No way" and run for the hills! Probably a smart move,

;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19168
Blake wrote:
And once again.. if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al. As for the talent pool... I am not convinced... the key word being TALENT. Are there more bodies? Yup. Are there more opportunities? Indeed. That does not mean that they are automatically more talented.

This comes up every year... and my belief is that there are but a few in each generation who are truly GREAT. I also believe that those "greats" would have been great in whatever generation had they but the opportunity. It works both ways too... as I think a Schumi or Alonso would have faired well in the 50s & 60s if we could transplant them into that time. What I am saying is that I believe talent above numbers.

Yes I fully agree with the talent thing. I've never understood why some seem to want to just teleport a driver over from era X into era Y without any kind of temporal adjustment and try to make the comparison then. Seems really weird to me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
And once again.. if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al. As for the talent pool... I am not convinced... the key word being TALENT. Are there more bodies? Yup. Are there more opportunities? Indeed. That does not mean that they are automatically more talented.

This comes up every year... and my belief is that there are but a few in each generation who are truly GREAT. I also believe that those "greats" would have been great in whatever generation had they but the opportunity. It works both ways too... as I think a Schumi or Alonso would have faired well in the 50s & 60s if we could transplant them into that time. What I am saying is that I believe talent above numbers.

Yes I fully agree with the talent thing. I've never understood why some seem to want to just teleport a driver over from era X into era Y without any kind of temporal adjustment and try to make the comparison then. Seems really weird to me

It's more about numbers and probability. Is it possible that there was as much talent on the grid at a time when there were just a few hundred people in the world who even participated in motor sports? Sure that possibility exists but it's far more likely that today, when there are tens of thousands of participants and extensive infrastructure to identify and support the most talented prospects from a young age, there is more talent at the highest level than there used to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
And once again.. if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al. As for the talent pool... I am not convinced... the key word being TALENT. Are there more bodies? Yup. Are there more opportunities? Indeed. That does not mean that they are automatically more talented.

This comes up every year... and my belief is that there are but a few in each generation who are truly GREAT. I also believe that those "greats" would have been great in whatever generation had they but the opportunity. It works both ways too... as I think a Schumi or Alonso would have faired well in the 50s & 60s if we could transplant them into that time. What I am saying is that I believe talent above numbers.

Yes I fully agree with the talent thing. I've never understood why some seem to want to just teleport a driver over from era X into era Y without any kind of temporal adjustment and try to make the comparison then. Seems really weird to me

It's more about numbers and probability. Is it possible that there was as much talent on the grid at a time when there were just a few hundred people in the world who even participated in motor sports? Sure that possibility exists but it's far more likely that today, when there are tens of thousands of participants and extensive infrastructure to identify and support the most talented prospects from a young age, there is more talent at the highest level than there used to be.


That does not guarantee that the TALENT at the top is any better. It only says that there are more people in this world who might be good. Greatness is a whole different thing. There is no guarantee that any one generation is going to have athletes who are better than the BEST of a previous generation. You can talk all you want about the 1,000s vs 100s... I am talking of the ultimate talents. Drivers with the skills that aren't inherited, that aren't a result if a fitness regime or dietetic advantages... drivers who have those special skills that set them apart from the others in a way that cannot be bought by one's modern advantages.

I know that you don't agree with me as we have had this discussion often in the past... probably too often for the good of the forum. However, I am resolute in my belief that we only see a select few geniuses in fields in our lifetime... be it the arts, athletics or other endeavors.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
And once again.. if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al. As for the talent pool... I am not convinced... the key word being TALENT. Are there more bodies? Yup. Are there more opportunities? Indeed. That does not mean that they are automatically more talented.

This comes up every year... and my belief is that there are but a few in each generation who are truly GREAT. I also believe that those "greats" would have been great in whatever generation had they but the opportunity. It works both ways too... as I think a Schumi or Alonso would have faired well in the 50s & 60s if we could transplant them into that time. What I am saying is that I believe talent above numbers.

Yes I fully agree with the talent thing. I've never understood why some seem to want to just teleport a driver over from era X into era Y without any kind of temporal adjustment and try to make the comparison then. Seems really weird to me

It's more about numbers and probability. Is it possible that there was as much talent on the grid at a time when there were just a few hundred people in the world who even participated in motor sports? Sure that possibility exists but it's far more likely that today, when there are tens of thousands of participants and extensive infrastructure to identify and support the most talented prospects from a young age, there is more talent at the highest level than there used to be.


That does not guarantee that the TALENT at the top is any better. It only says that there are more people in this world who might be good. Greatness is a whole different thing. There is no guarantee that any one generation is going to have athletes who are better than the BEST of a previous generation. You can talk all you want about the 1,000s vs 100s... I am talking of the ultimate talents. Drivers with the skills that aren't inherited, that aren't a result if a fitness regime or dietetic advantages... drivers who have those special skills that set them apart from the others in a way that cannot be bought by one's modern advantages.

I know that you don't agree with me as we have had this discussion often in the past... probably too often for the good of the forum. However, I am resolute in my belief that we only see a select few geniuses in fields in our lifetime... be it the arts, athletics or other endeavors.

Even if truly brilliant talents are rare, the likelihood of finding one increases dramatically when exponentially more people get to try the sport. Surely you must realize that. If you buy one lottery ticket you have less odds of winning than if you buy 1000.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
To be honest, sandman... I don't think numbers enter into the kind of greatness I am discussing. To me, there is no guarantee of that kind of talent in a generation, no matter how many are involved. Nor is inconceivable that there could be more than one "genius" in a generation, again, regardless of the numbers.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
^^^^
In order to avoid de ja vu, let's just agree to disagree. We don't think about this the same way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 10885
I don't think you have to worry about drivers from days of yore being disregarded. Generally a list of the top ten drivers will be tilted in favour of those from the 50s and 60s. Fangio, Ascari, Moss, Clark and Stewart almost alwaýs featuring. That's 50% for the first two decades and 50% for the next 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:01 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1396
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake we appreciate old farts in here. ;) Also I don't think anyone argues that modern drivers are better based on stats. They usually argue it based on the fact that the talent pool is deeper, the drivers start younger and the training/diet programs are far more advanced (not to mention the fact that chain smoking, drinking and other forms of recklessness have fallen out of fashion in the paddock).

One of the reasons the telent pool is deeper is that we don't have driver fatalities constantly thinning out the talent pool. So the early 70s - where your world champions were Stewart, Fittipaldi and Lauda - was missing arguably the greatest of them all (Clark) and Rindt. Likewise the early to mid 80s - where you had Piquet and Prost emerging as championship winners/contenders and saw Senna and Mansell debut - lost Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve and Stefan Bellof. Even Schumacher's Bennetton years, arguably a very weak era for Formula 1, missed Senna (and arguably Bellof who would have been a 10 year veteran by that point.)

Macabre as this is to think, but transport today's grid back 50 years and there's a good chance that at least one of the leading lights would have died on the racetrack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
GingerFurball wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Blake we appreciate old farts in here. ;) Also I don't think anyone argues that modern drivers are better based on stats. They usually argue it based on the fact that the talent pool is deeper, the drivers start younger and the training/diet programs are far more advanced (not to mention the fact that chain smoking, drinking and other forms of recklessness have fallen out of fashion in the paddock).

One of the reasons the telent pool is deeper is that we don't have driver fatalities constantly thinning out the talent pool. So the early 70s - where your world champions were Stewart, Fittipaldi and Lauda - was missing arguably the greatest of them all (Clark) and Rindt. Likewise the early to mid 80s - where you had Piquet and Prost emerging as championship winners/contenders and saw Senna and Mansell debut - lost Ronnie Peterson, Gilles Villeneuve and Stefan Bellof. Even Schumacher's Bennetton years, arguably a very weak era for Formula 1, missed Senna (and arguably Bellof who would have been a 10 year veteran by that point.)

Macabre as this is to think, but transport today's grid back 50 years and there's a good chance that at least one of the leading lights would have died on the racetrack.

This is true but, above all, the landscape of the sport has simply evolved. Back in the 60s it was a fringe sport for enthusiasts (most of whom were wealthy adults) that had few fans and fewer sponsors. Fangio was 40 years old when he made his F1 debut and Jim Clark was 18 when he started racing cars (debut in F1 at age 23).

The modern landscape of thousands of young kids karting from the time they are in elementary school with the best of the best getting sponsorship to move up the ladder is a massively different reality. There are just far more people competing and they are honing their skills from a much younger age and against much tougher competition. It's much more of a meritocracy than it used to be (although money still plays far too big of a role). Back in the day it was a bunch of crazy rich guys risking their lives on the weekends and partying/womanizing/getting high in between races. To be brutally honest there is no comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
Baloney...

Some pretty wild stereotyping going on here... and it is grossly infair to a good number of drivers

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
Baloney...

Some pretty wild stereotyping going on here... and it is grossly infair to a good number of drivers

To be fair, there was some of that going on in the 50s and 60s and up into the 70s - a fair number of Grand Prix drivers weren't what we would consider professionals by today's standards, and they did take things like fitness and race preparation far more casually than you could get away with today. That much is hard to dispute, and there certainly aren't any today.

However, I also think it's irrelevant to the point Blake is making about talent. I think there's no realistic question that in terms of total product, a modern athlete is capable of achieving a higher standard than the same athlete from half a century ago. That's true of any field, any sport. The modern athlete has massive advantages his earlier counterpart can't hope to match, not least of which is directly benefiting from the body of work of that older athlete.

But, that's not talent. You can't compare the physical state of a driver like Verstappen - who is as close as you can get to being raised in a tank to race cars - to that of someone who drove cars enthusiastically from the age he was able (probably late teens) and then naturally made his way into faster and faster cars, eventually arriving in Formula 1. Someone like Jim Clark didn't have simulators - but I'm sure he could have benefited from them if he did. They didn't have modern diet or fitness - but they could have. The point is, if you're comparing the driver and not just the time, you have to look beyond the inherent advantages of the modern age or it's a meaningless comparison. Of course Verstappen is 'better' than Clark. Is he more talented, though? That's a very different question.

All that aside, as of now I don't think there's any danger of 'classic' era drivers being forgotten in favor of the current crop. For as long as I've been around, Fangio, Moss, Clark and Stewart have always been talked about among the best of all time, and the advance of decades has done little if anything to dull that. It's certainly pushed the lesser drivers into obscurity, but the true greats I think will continue to live on in discussion, regardless of stats.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
Exediron wrote:
Blake wrote:
Baloney...

Some pretty wild stereotyping going on here... and it is grossly infair to a good number of drivers

To be fair, there was some of that going on in the 50s and 60s and up into the 70s - a fair number of Grand Prix drivers weren't what we would consider professionals by today's standards, and they did take things like fitness and race preparation far more casually than you could get away with today. That much is hard to dispute, and there certainly aren't any today.

However, I also think it's irrelevant to the point Blake is making about talent. I think there's no realistic question that in terms of total product, a modern athlete is capable of achieving a higher standard than the same athlete from half a century ago. That's true of any field, any sport. The modern athlete has massive advantages his earlier counterpart can't hope to match, not least of which is directly benefiting from the body of work of that older athlete.

But, that's not talent. You can't compare the physical state of a driver like Verstappen - who is as close as you can get to being raised in a tank to race cars - to that of someone who drove cars enthusiastically from the age he was able (probably late teens) and then naturally made his way into faster and faster cars, eventually arriving in Formula 1. Someone like Jim Clark didn't have simulators - but I'm sure he could have benefited from them if he did. They didn't have modern diet or fitness - but they could have. The point is, if you're comparing the driver and not just the time, you have to look beyond the inherent advantages of the modern age or it's a meaningless comparison. Of course Verstappen is 'better' than Clark. Is he more talented, though? That's a very different question.

All that aside, as of now I don't think there's any danger of 'classic' era drivers being forgotten in favor of the current crop. For as long as I've been around, Fangio, Moss, Clark and Stewart have always been talked about among the best of all time, and the advance of decades has done little if anything to dull that. It's certainly pushed the lesser drivers into obscurity, but the true greats I think will continue to live on in discussion, regardless of stats.

I agree that the drivers of today owe much of their ability to those that came before them and basically wrote the book on how to do it. Great talent is hard to find but, like anything else, the larger the sample size of people, the more of it you'll get. It's my belief that many of the drivers from the past who we view as gods would be basically of average talent by comparison to the modern grid.

If we had a motorcycle race between all members of the forum I think I would win. I've been riding for almost 20 years and I'm pretty confident that I'm the best motorcycle racer in the forum. That being said, if I lined up on a MotoGP grid, I would get lapped by the end of the 5th lap (if I didn't crash out before then). But against the forum alone, I would appear to be a freakish talent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5463
Location: Nebraska, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree that the drivers of today owe much of their ability to those that came before them and basically wrote the book on how to do it. Great talent is hard to find but, like anything else, the larger the sample size of people, the more of it you'll get. It's my belief that many of the drivers from the past who we view as gods would be basically of average talent by comparison to the modern grid.


Perhaps you are a bit too generous on the subject of "talent", sandman. Obviously, that is a major difference between us. I don't deny the advantages that the modern drivers have... but that does not mean that they are more Talented then the greats of yore. Today, with the larger numbers to draw from, perhaps you do have more numbers of talented drivers.

However, to this quote of yours...

Quote:
Great talent is hard to find but, like anything else, the larger the sample size of people, the more of it you'll get.


I think you sell the term GREAT talent, pretty cheaply. One more time (I thought we agreed to disagree on this earlier, but you brought it up again)... I am of firm belief that there are those drivers, other athletes, artists, and other walks of life where there are some whose talent is at another level... One certainly cannot guarantee that every generation will have even one such great talent, much less multiply the numbers of great talents by the additional number of people in the sport or such. Just because there might be 1000 potential F1 drivers today compared to 100 of them in the 50s (just an example, nothing firm), you have no idea if even ONE of them will be a greater talent than a Jimmy Clark for example.

I have run out of ways of trying to explain what I mean, and obviously, I am not convincing you on my point... hopefully some of the others understand what I am trying to say, perhaps one of them can explain it better than I.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
I have run out of ways of trying to explain what I mean, and obviously, I am not convincing you on my point... hopefully some of the others understand what I am trying to say, perhaps one of them can explain it better than I.

I think I get what you're saying, so here's my best attempt at explaining it to someone who seems to be coming at it from a very mathematically/statistically grounded approach like sandman is:

All-time great talent, such as that possessed by a driver such as Clark (or Senna, Schumacher, and any others one personally puts in that highest category) may be so rare that the increase in sample size is functionally meaningless to producing more of it. I believe that what Blake is arguing is that it's so improbable for a driver to be at that talent level that even in the much larger pool of today it's still unlikely that any driver will have that level of talent at a given time. If you're dealing with odds of one in a billion, it doesn't matter much if you throw the dice a hundred times or a thousand, to use a simple example.

NOTE: I actually think that drivers of true top level ability are more likely to be discovered today, which is why we have potentially as many as four of them in the same field right now. I don't think they occur any more often, just that previously some portion of them would have never had the opportunity to take up motor racing, whereas that will be many fewer in modern times. I do, however, hope the above is a correct way of restating Blake's position.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3701
Exediron wrote:
Blake wrote:
I have run out of ways of trying to explain what I mean, and obviously, I am not convincing you on my point... hopefully some of the others understand what I am trying to say, perhaps one of them can explain it better than I.

I think I get what you're saying, so here's my best attempt at explaining it to someone who seems to be coming at it from a very mathematically/statistically grounded approach like sandman is:

All-time great talent, such as that possessed by a driver such as Clark (or Senna, Schumacher, and any others one personally puts in that highest category) may be so rare that the increase in sample size is functionally meaningless to producing more of it. I believe that what Blake is arguing is that it's so improbable for a driver to be at that talent level that even in the much larger pool of today it's still unlikely that any driver will have that level of talent at a given time. If you're dealing with odds of one in a billion, it doesn't matter much if you throw the dice a hundred times or a thousand, to use a simple example.

NOTE: I actually think that drivers of true top level ability are more likely to be discovered today, which is why we have potentially as many as four of them in the same field right now. I don't think they occur any more often, just that previously some portion of them would have never had the opportunity to take up motor racing, whereas that will be many fewer in modern times. I do, however, hope the above is a correct way of restating Blake's position.

The second bolded statement is basically exactly what I'm trying to say. If elite-level innate talent is rare and possessed by very few individuals, then the more people you expose to the sport, the more of these individuals you will find. This is basically not really logically debatable.

With regards to the first bolded part, I don't want to step on toes but I think there is a huge difference between the sport as it is today and the sport as it was a long time ago. It's not just about numbers but the assumption that someone like Fangio is of a supreme level of talent is based solely on the way he measured up to the drivers he competed against (sorry Blake de ja vu is now fully underway). This was the point of my motorcycle racing analogy. If the field is weaker, you appear stronger. If the field is stronger, you appear weaker. It deosn't mean that Fangio did not possess innate ability on par with today's greats. It just makes it extremely unlikely.

I'm sorry, I do not agree with the notion that whoever happened to be the best driver in F1 at any give point in time must somehow have been a 1 in a million natural talent. Especially not when you talk about a time in which participation in the sport was about the same as it is in something like wing suit gliding today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 535
Exediron wrote:
Blake wrote:
The new points system AND the increased number of races make many of the "records" within reach somewhat meaningless. With 7-9 races a season and about 40% of the points for a win that the winner gets now, drivers from the '50s have to hope that people still remember how good they really were, as their records will be easily overcome from even mediocre drivers. The drivers of the 80, 90s, and 00s have less of a disadvantage perhaps but definitely when it comes to points, their records will be overcome as well... it is like a winner today gets 2.5x the number of points. To get a real idea, let someone figure out how many points Schumi would have scored with 25 points for a win, and the added points for positions down the line... it would be staggering.

Wins per season are closer, but still with 20 races per season for today's driver compared to 16-17 for those even 10 years ago. it is better than a 10% advantage with 20 or more races.

Going to be even harder to compare records from here on out.

I've never had the impression that people care a huge amount about career points in terms of placing or remembering drivers. I certainly have no idea what the career points total of a driver like Clark or Fangio was, while I do have a very good grasp of wins, pole positions - certainly championships...

The increased number of races has certainly required one to exercise a bit more perspective when discussing career numbers, admittedly. You'll hear a lot about how Lewis has more poles than Senna when he gets there - which won't be long, one imagines - but less about how many more races it took him to get them. Similarly, Rosberg now possesses win and pole statistics that should put him high among the one-time champions. It's really I think only an issue statistically when a driver gets in a truly dominant car; the impact of a single season on career numbers can be much higher now, but in a competitive year the effect will be less.


Oh this one will hurt a loooot of people If and When it happens..
Blasphemy... How can it be? A rapper besting Senna? As if Senna didnt make most of his poles driving dominant/superfast cars in an era where it was more difficult to "copy" and "paste" your driving style(inputs) into your teammate model unlike today where "dossiers" are very frequent.. ;)

Any era has its pros and cons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3735
Location: Michigan, USA
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
The increased number of races has certainly required one to exercise a bit more perspective when discussing career numbers, admittedly. You'll hear a lot about how Lewis has more poles than Senna when he gets there - which won't be long, one imagines - but less about how many more races it took him to get them. Similarly, Rosberg now possesses win and pole statistics that should put him high among the one-time champions. It's really I think only an issue statistically when a driver gets in a truly dominant car; the impact of a single season on career numbers can be much higher now, but in a competitive year the effect will be less.

Oh this one will hurt a loooot of people..
Blasphemy... How can he? As if Senna didnt make most of his poles driving dominant/superfast cars in an era where it was more difficult to "copy" and "paste" your driving style(inputs) into your teammate model unlike today where "dossiers" are very frequent.. ;)

Any era has its pros and cons.

True, and every driver who has gone on to accumulate record-breaking numbers has done it in similar fashion, when you get right down to it - the best car on the grid, and a teammate they can handle.

I'm not trying to start any sort of debate on whether Lewis is a better qualifier than Senna (I'm not a fan of either driver, although I prefer Hamilton if pressed - I do consider him to be a clean driver, unlike Senna), merely bringing up a statistic that's likely to be reported on and discussed soon. It was even more true when Schumacher broke Senna's pole record the first time - he took even more starts to do it.

For that matter, Rosberg has one more pole than Fangio - from four times as many starts. Future generations may well see the numbers next to each other on a record list and consider them equivalent, when in reality they're not.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Blake wrote:
if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al.
The Formula 1 drivers of the 50s-60s had plenty of training and diets available. They just didn't feel like training or following a diet. This is what a sportsman (Muhammad Ali) looked like in the 50s-60s:

Image

And this is what Fangio and Ascari looked like:

Image

Image

It's not a matter of who has access to training and diets. It's a matter of who trains and follows a diet. Ali was a sportsman. The Formula 1 drivers were not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4295
Maybe try to think of it this way Blake.
How many truly talented individuals were missed out on when the sport was less accessible and drawing from a smaller pool?

There might've been another 2 or 3 people in the world in the Clark, Fangio, Ascari eras who would've matched them but they lived somewhere that had no means for them to even try. Of course that's something that we can't possibly know, but by having a larger pool to draw from allows for those types a talents to be found.

On the other hand with so many more options available to the more well off candidates the next Moss might be a mediocre soccer player who just enjoys whipping up on all of his team mates at the kart track in the off-season.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2753
Alonshow wrote:
Blake wrote:
if one could place a Fangio, a Jimmy Clark, a Moss, a Stewart, and other greats in today they would have the diet,the training, et al.
The Formula 1 drivers of the 50s-60s had plenty of training and diets available. They just didn't feel like training or following a diet. This is what a sportsman (Muhammad Ali) looked like in the 50s-60s:


And this is what Fangio and Ascari looked like:



It's not a matter of who has access to training and diets. It's a matter of who trains and follows a diet. Ali was a sportsman. The Formula 1 drivers were not.


No, they just didn't need to.

If they were racing in later years and wanted to be competitive they would have had to be fit enough to take the demands of the quicker cars.

That wasn't a problem in their day as shown.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Lotus49 wrote:
No, they just didn't need to.

If they were racing in later years and wanted to be competitive they would have had to be fit enough to take the demands of the quicker cars.

That wasn't a problem in their day as shown.
Exactly. They didn't need to be sportsmen at all. The competition was so weak that they could skip training and eat, drink, smoke, etc. all they wanted and still win championships.

Let's see it with (very rough) numbers: Cars with less weight are faster. In today's cars a 10 kg. difference is worth about 3 tenths per lap (source). I don't know the figures from the 50s, but they must have been higher (the cars were lighter and far less poweful). Let's call it half a second (in today's laps).

Ascari was at least 10 kg. overweight, probably more. Exercising would have allowed him to lose 10 kilos and increase his muscular mass. The sheer lose of weight would have made his laps half a second faster. Apart from that, his slimmer, healthier and stronger body would have had a lot of other benefits: he would be quicker, have better concentration, better ability to cope with the car physical demands (which were less, but existed), higher capacity to recover from injuries, etc. All of that is worth at least another half second per lap, probably much more.

These days the level of the competition is so insanely high that one second per lap is the difference between being the champion and being an "also-ran". In the 50s, however, the competition was so weak that Ascari could happily dismiss a solid one second advantage (or more) because getting it would have been too much of a bother (exercising and stuff). As you rightly say, that was not a problem for him because the rest of the field was even less competitive than he was. But if we sent one of today's drivers, say Pérez, back to the 50s, and he participated in one of those races, he would be lapping the field, Ascari and Fangio included, by lap 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GingerFurball, Google Adsense [Bot], Kev627, Rockie, zaar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group