planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:05 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2979
Alonshow wrote:
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.


My point was that it wasn't a matter of not wanting to get fitter therefore they wouldn't get fitter now but more it was a case of they didn't want to get fit because there was just no real need to.

We have no idea how a 15yr old Fangio or Ascari would approach a career in Motorsports if they were born in the 80's but it seems daft to assume they'd have just done exactly what they did do in the 50's or 60's.

EDIT: And on Perez, if we sent him back he may well have peed his pants at the thought of it and drove at a snails pace or got himself killed trying to qualify if he made the same kind of errors he was making in this timeline.

This transporting thing is just daft, sorry.

_________________
"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 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 19845
Alonshow wrote:
...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.

This highlights perfectly what I don't understand about these comparisons. Of course if you transplant a current driver, with all the advances made in training, dietary regimes etc, back in time, you'd have them winning almost everything just by virtue of their extra knowledge and training. Likewise if you kidnapped Fangio from the 50s and dumped him in a car immediately before a race in 2017, his neck would probably snap from the g-forces which he wouldn't be used to. But that's not talent, which is what Blake is talking about: that's just conditioning. But if e.g. Pérez was sent back in time to the 50s at birth (well, maybe mid 20s then if he still had to grow up) and then still ended up in F1, but this time following the norms of the day, would he still beat everyone? Blake says not, and I agree with him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3745
The use of Ali helps to drive home a certain point. No one would suggest that any of today's top heavyweights are on par with Ali in terms of talent. Some of them may have more impressive physiques (due largely to advances in strength training and supplements) but none have his skill, speed, reflexes, etc. We can feel confident of this because the talent pool in boxing has not gotten any bigger since the old days. Boxing (especially in the heavyweight division) actually had more participants in the old days than it does now!

By contrast, motor racing piqued in participation in the early 00s (actually there is slightly less participation today for economic reasons). During the 50s and 60s it was basically a pastime for the rich that was not available to the masses at all. It was also so totally unsafe as to make courage/insanity and not talent the main requirement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Lotus49 wrote:
they didn't want to get fit because there was just no real need to.
Certainly. Getting fit would have made them far more competitive, but was there a real need of being competitive? They were a bunch of millionaires enjoying a very expensive pastime for the thrills. They didn't take it very seriously, obviously. Why would they take the big effort of becoming fit? That would have defeated the purpose of the whole thing, which was just to have fun.

Lotus49 wrote:
And on Perez, if we sent him back he may well have peed his pants at the thought of it and drove at a snails pace or got himself killed trying to qualify if he made the same kind of errors he was making in this timeline.
Pérez saw first hand how one of his friends lost his life in a horrible accident in Suzuka 2014. Didn't seem to me that he peed his pants. Neither did it look like he started to drive at a snail pace after that.

Lotus49 wrote:
This transporting thing is just daft, sorry.
Might be. You might want to tell Blake rather than me, though. He's the one who introduced it in the conversation. I'm just following the (off) topic.


Last edited by Alonshow on Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
Zoue wrote:
Alonshow wrote:
...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.

This highlights perfectly what I don't understand about these comparisons. Of course if you transplant a current driver, with all the advances made in training, dietary regimes etc, back in time, you'd have them winning almost everything just by virtue of their extra knowledge and training. Likewise if you kidnapped Fangio from the 50s and dumped him in a car immediately before a race in 2017, his neck would probably snap from the g-forces which he wouldn't be used to. But that's not talent, which is what Blake is talking about: that's just conditioning. But if e.g. Pérez was sent back in time to the 50s at birth (well, maybe mid 20s then if he still had to grow up) and then still ended up in F1, but this time following the norms of the day, would he still beat everyone? Blake says not, and I agree with him.
I kind of agree with Lotus49 that this time travel experiment is a bit daft, but anyway, for the sake of the debate:

If Sergio Pérez was in the 50s and devoted every minute of his life to become a better driver just like he does nowadays, if he used all the resources available in the 50s to get fitter, quicker, more mentally focused, etc., then at the race day you would have an worldclass elite professional competing against a bunch of amateurs who wouldn't even care about training. The result, obviously, would be that he would mop the floor with all of them. Fangio and Ascari would probably finish second and third ten laps behind Pérez.

On the other hand, if he "followed the norms of the day", including eating, drinking and smoking as he pleased, not exercising and not training at all... I don't know, I guess he would end up scoring a win now and then. But that wouldn't really be Pérez because he (nor any of the other current drivers) is not the kind of person who behaves like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5632
Location: Nebraska, USA
🤣

Will respond when i get home...hate working with the phone

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8007
sandman1347 wrote:
The use of Ali helps to drive home a certain point. No one would suggest that any of today's top heavyweights are on par with Ali in terms of talent. Some of them may have more impressive physiques (due largely to advances in strength training and supplements) but none have his skill, speed, reflexes, etc. We can feel confident of this because the talent pool in boxing has not gotten any bigger since the old days. Boxing (especially in the heavyweight division) actually had more participants in the old days than it does now!

By contrast, motor racing piqued in participation in the early 00s (actually there is slightly less participation today for economic reasons). During the 50s and 60s it was basically a pastime for the rich that was not available to the masses at all. It was also so totally unsafe as to make courage/insanity and not talent the main requirement.

Sample size is very important in F1, the sample size is still currently tiny but back in the 1950/60's it was ridiculously small.

3 of the last 10 drivers to win the WDC were the son of an F1 driver and Max will likely add to that. That tells you all you need to know about money, nepotism and sample size. I follow Football (soccer) very closely too, as that is a pure sport - if you are good enough you will make the top, no place to hide. I can't think of a single top player in the last 50 years who's son was anywhere near as good. It doesn't hold in any other sport but in F1 it does because the sample size is so small, money and coaching can take you almost all the way. If it was truly competitive (like Soccer) we wouldn't have seen a WDCs son win a WDC yet, let alone 3 from the last 10.

Just look at last years grid - Magnesson, Rosberg, Sainz, Verstappen and Palmer. Nearly 25% of the grid were racing drivers sons.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2979
Alonshow wrote:
Certainly. Getting fit would have made them far more competitive, but was there a real need of being competitive? They were a bunch of millionaires enjoying a very expensive pastime for the thrills. They didn't take it very seriously, obviously. Why would they take the big effort of becoming fit? That would have defeated the purpose of the whole thing, which was just to have fun.


You're missing the point, they were more than fit enough to get the job done and excel at their chosen sport so there was no need for it. They were already the best of the best. You could make a case for some of their rivals I guess. Maybe they could have bridged the gap talent wise with getting fitter, who knows.


Quote:
Pérez saw first hand how one of his friends lost his life in a horrible accident in Suzuka 2014. Didn't seem to me that he peed his pants. Neither did it look like he started to drive at a snail pace after that.


He wasn't driving in an era where this was common, or on tracks like the Green Hell and old Spa and in that era's cars. Bit different. The idea you'd drop him in and he'd approach it like a modern GP is equally daft. Have you heard these guys on the radio when there's drizzle in the air?. We don't know what he'd be like in those conditions.

But of course he'd just drop in and start lapping people like Clark 5 times because he's fitter.



Quote:
Might be. You might want to tell Blake rather than me, though. He's the one who introduced it in the conversation. I'm just following the (off) topic.


I'll tell everyone.

It's daft.

_________________
"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 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3745
lamo wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The use of Ali helps to drive home a certain point. No one would suggest that any of today's top heavyweights are on par with Ali in terms of talent. Some of them may have more impressive physiques (due largely to advances in strength training and supplements) but none have his skill, speed, reflexes, etc. We can feel confident of this because the talent pool in boxing has not gotten any bigger since the old days. Boxing (especially in the heavyweight division) actually had more participants in the old days than it does now!

By contrast, motor racing piqued in participation in the early 00s (actually there is slightly less participation today for economic reasons). During the 50s and 60s it was basically a pastime for the rich that was not available to the masses at all. It was also so totally unsafe as to make courage/insanity and not talent the main requirement.

Sample size is very important in F1, the sample size is still currently tiny but back in the 1950/60's it was ridiculously small.

3 of the last 10 drivers to win the WDC were the son of an F1 driver and Max will likely add to that. That tells you all you need to know about money, nepotism and sample size. I follow Football (soccer) very closely too, as that is a pure sport - if you are good enough you will make the top, no place to hide. I can't think of a single top player in the last 50 years who's son was anywhere near as good. It doesn't hold in any other sport but in F1 it does because the sample size is so small, money and coaching can take you almost all the way. If it was truly competitive (like Soccer) we wouldn't have seen a WDCs son win a WDC yet, let alone 3 from the last 10.

Just look at last years grid - Magnesson, Rosberg, Sainz, Verstappen and Palmer. Nearly 25% of the grid were racing drivers sons.

And that's today! In the past it was much more about money than it is now. Basically natural talent wasn't even much of a factor initially. If you had the money and were crazy enough to do it, you could get extremely far regardless of your innate ability. That's not the case today but there is certainly not the type of meritocracy you see in football, cricket or basketball, where there are so many participants that the highest levels are populated by people who are basically anomalies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5632
Location: Nebraska, USA
Alonshow wrote:
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.

Do you know as to what a "sportsman" is? As for the competitiion at the time being so weak... once again, you appear to know nothing of the era. I have posted it elsewhere in the past couple of days, but a racing series with the likes of Fangio, Ascari, Moss, Brooks, Gonzalez, Musso, Farina, and more high level drivers is not "weak" except in the minds of those who don't know better. You have stereotyped the drivers of the era as drinkers and smokers without a modern training regiment... and for some of them you are right. However, that doesn't mean that they could not be great talents. BTW, I think we know of a few modern F1 drivers to whom drinking and smoking are not unknown events.

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).

Yeah, the cars were not as powerful (@270hp for a Maserati 250F... and yes, they were slower, though the weights were surprisingly close (Maserati 250F lightweight was (1477lbs to 1548 for a 2017 F1 car). That doesn't mean that the racing was somehow less. It took courage and it took special skills to race those cars. The 50s F1 cars were big cars on very thin tires by today's standards. None of the "lets make it easy for the driver" aids of recent years. They had to DRIVE the cars, often on tracks that were as dangerous as the cars. Yet you claim that they aren't sportsmen? When did you start watching racing that you think that only "fast" modern cars are racing?


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.

You don't know what kind of shape most of those drivers were... sure, some, such as Frolian Gonzalez were overweight, care to show me a picture of Stirling Moss overweight? That said, Gonzalez could drive, as could Ascari... and they were both damned good. so, Doc.... we can only define a sportsman, or a great driver by their weight, their "stronger body"? That it would give them better concentration? Have you an ounce of proof of that? You know that Ascari lacked concentration moreso than the great drivers of today? The answer is... NO, you don't know that for a fact, only that it fits your ideas of what he should have been. Care to talk about physical demands? You say that they physical demands were less back then than today? again, based on what? A.J.Foyt was never a skinny guy, but he could wrestle a big heavy Indy roadster around for 500 miles of often intense racing.... and do it better than virtually any other driver of his time. And... he would drive in other events as well, not stay in the relative safely of a single racing series as many of today's drivers do.

So show me ONE legitimate definition that defines "sportsman" by their fitness regime, I certainly did not find one. Most definitions used outdoor activities such as hunting and fishing as part if not all of their definition. Some added sports participants, including racing definition. Those drivers certainly were racers, despite not fitting your misguided idea of a sportsman. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that fitness isn't a good thing for an athlete, only that it is not the only thing that counts, nor does is it more important than other skills.

Times were different, no question, and the demands were different. That doesn't mean that they were trivial or easy. Those drivers not only had to wrestle big, sometimes heavy, ill-handling cars (by today's standard) around rough tracks, tracks with building and trees lining the course, sometimes even touching the course, often without the benefit of safety barriers. They drove those cars sitting high in the car with chest, shoulders and heads above the body of the car without the benefit of roll-bars in most cases. As they sat high and exposed they could look over those skinny tires on wire wheels expected to take that next rough corner. Those drivers knew that there was a very good chance that not only they may not finish the race, they could likely die. Still they drove, still they raced and then some upstart comes along 60 years later and puts them down in a myriad of ways... making light of a era that he obviously knows little about.


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.

Lapping the field by lap five... Ascari and Fangio included? Sorry, guy, but it would be good if Alonso, Lewis and Seb would even be near the lead by lap 5. There is a very good chance that any or all of them would take a look at the track, the cars and the conditions and "pass" on the opportunity... with even all their fitness advantages. Now, once again, I will say that if those drivers were raised in that era and given the rides, they would have been competitive, but if we are going to allow that, then we have to do it in reverse and I see I am once again being ridiculed for the "time machine' reference, so we will leave it at that.

You have pulled a lot of numbers out of mid-air without a hope of backing them up and you have shown little comprehension of what racing in the 50s and 60s was like, so it is likely that this discussion is going nowhere, but I tried.


_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:09 pm
Posts: 39
I was interested in having an interesting debate among people with different opinions who respect each other's views. As it turns out, some of the participants in this thread prefer to resort to mocking and insulting (daft, upstart, would have peed his pants...) instead of using rational arguments. I'm not interested in having a verbal brawl (I don't know how to do it, anyway), so I stop my participation at this point and leave it to the brawl enthusiasts.

I'll keep updating the records, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
Alonshow wrote:
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.



Could well be the case, but I don't hold it against them. I don't think every driver would translate though in terms of their current psychology and mentality in being able to overcome some extra fears they may have had in times past. I do tend to the general rule (assumption) that taking modern greats in sports to times long past would take a lesser period of adaptation than vice versa. I do believe that sport evolves over time, albeit not necessarily in a linear manner... and in some sports the requirements and circumstances are so wildly different that it becomes hard to make comparisons, especially when people start resorting to using that uncertainty as a defence against certain arguments. That's why it's interesting for me to look at games like snooker and darts; although they haven't been devoid of changes over the years, they've existed in a stable enough stasis that we can compare absolute levels to a good degree over very long time periods. The results in those games are obvious and blatant: clear evolution regarding peak level and depth of competition.

There are some sports that get protected such as boxing because of its weightclass stratifications (albeit with different weigh-in rules in more recent decades and additional classes). As such, I'm more comfortable projecting Sugar Ray Robinson (and SRL) to be the best welterweights even today and with a very short period of adaptation. In fact, I believe one training camp would be enough --- I don't see Keith Thurman or Kell Brook beating these guys. Errol Spence is intriguing but unproven. Sorry for the tangent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1058
Alonshow wrote:
I was interested in having an interesting debate among people with different opinions who respect each other's views. As it turns out, some of the participants in this thread prefer to resort to mocking and insulting (daft, upstart, would have peed his pants...) instead of using rational arguments. I'm not interested in having a verbal brawl (I don't know how to do it, anyway), so I stop my participation at this point and leave it to the brawl enthusiasts.

I'll keep updating the records, though.



You have a good username so you should keep posting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2979
Alonshow wrote:
I was interested in having an interesting debate among people with different opinions who respect each other's views. As it turns out, some of the participants in this thread prefer to resort to mocking and insulting (daft, upstart, would have peed his pants...) instead of using rational arguments. I'm not interested in having a verbal brawl (I don't know how to do it, anyway), so I stop my participation at this point and leave it to the brawl enthusiasts.

I'll keep updating the records, though.


Ah, so insulting Ascari,Fangio and the 50's/60's generation of F1 drivers is cool but don't dare do it to the modern lot or that's out of order.

Got it.

_________________
"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: Tue May 02, 2017 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 3999
Location: Michigan, USA
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.
Exediron wrote:
Based on the pace of the Williams, Stroll really ought to do this
Exediron wrote:
Stroll really ought to do this

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Four races in: it's already impossible. Shows what I know!

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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Kev627, mikeyg123 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