neil-h

The fundamental difference is the fact F1 is far safer now than it was in Laudas day. The tracks are safer, the car safety requirements are higher and the drivers PPE is of a far higher standard. It's been 20 years since we saw a death on a race weekend and it's not just because the cars have less power.

http://www.f1complete.com/records/f1...rmula-1-deaths

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

Schumacher didn't change the game. F1 drivers have been amazingly fit for years before him.

This is what F1 cars looked like back in the day.

Tony Trimmer in 1975


This is one of the main reasons F1 was so dangerous back in the day. I wouldn't want to drive it round the car park!!

P1Fanatic

Agreed height and strength are not directly related and the latter is extremely hard to quantify. But I find it extremely hard to believe that drivers like Prost & Senna were any stronger than the current crop.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

May I ask how old you are P1fanatic?

Serious question no ulterior motive.

Senna was very slim but quite broad chested. Prost is/was the same. Mansell was a big lad. Modern F1 drivers are really petite by comparison

Carnut

The cars are not physically more difficult than years gone by as I have said but for this season over last season they are more difficult in terms of handling, not me but the drivers opinions related to the high torque. (not physically)

p.s whats this armchair bull **** for, I am a big big fan and like to share opinions?

Carnut

Yes I know but my post was a response to Lauda saying we should have over 1000bhp. The points you raise are quit right.

Carnut

I am sorry but Schumacher DID change the game and in more ways than just fitness. Sticking with fitness he was the first driver to do things such as have blood test before and after the race to look at his levels but that is just a small part of the changes that he made.

Mansell was a big git though and I doubt we will see someone of his size race in f1 again.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

We'll have to agree to disagree with that.

You're wrong about the blood tests too.

neil-h

I know, I was just challenging your assertion that having cars with >1000bhp with big wings/tyres would lead to more deaths in F1. Which is something I'd argue given the points I raised earlier.

Carnut

Why am I wrong about the blood test?

I would think there were drivers before that would of had blood test for different reasons but Schumacher was the one to introduce it as part of his health and fitness routine .

The understanding of the human body develops year on year so they just simply did not have the knowledge back in the day as they do in modern f1 in terms of driver fitness, not strength but overall fitness.

Drivers used to drive round the track pissed in the really early days and even more current time saw the drivers staying up all night with the ladies having a good time.

At what time did fitness make big improvements in your opinion? (Again, not strength but overall fitness)

Carnut

But you agreed that in part it is due to power which I then agreed with you on and now you disagree with me agreeing with you.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

It has nothing to do with how much power the cars have it's down to safety improvements in the cars construction and track design.

Chip

F1fan's prediction is looking rather stupid now.

Carnut

Steps have been made in f1 to slow cars down for safety. It obvious that if cars in recent years had been given 1000bhp and massive down force etc the lap times would be mental. In 2014 the new power units have green fingers and are there for reasons other than safety so not relevant.

But well done for side stepping my question and jumping on another band wagon.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

Senna had blood tests as part of his "health and fitness regime" way before Schumacher. Schumacher was only one of many who really got into keeping super fit around the same time.

Do you seriously think that before Schumacher all the drivers sat around chain smoking, drinking and eating pies?

What do I know anything about motorsport anyway?

neil-h

This is what I meant, when i said 'its not just because the cars have less power' I was referring to my interpretation of your earlier post.

A high power/downforce car built and raced under todays safety specifications would be far safer than one built and raced under the safety specs from the 80's.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

I'm not sure higher downforce cars are the way to go. They'd corner faster.

neil-h

It would require tracks to have proper run off areas and to bin those sausage curbs (they're lethal, i'm sorry but they are) but it wouldn't be that bad. whether or not it's the way to go racing wise (probably not) is a different issue, I was simply using Carnuts example.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

I agree about those Kerbs. They're ridiculous!!

Giving tracks even bigger run off areas is doable on some tracks but would require major reworking on others and the tracks can't afford it to be honest.

Look how far back the crowd is now at for example Silverstone. You need a bloody telescope to see it properly nowadays.

neil-h

Not necessarily bigger, just given them something that will actually stop a car in a safe distance. F1 seems to have made a move away from gravel traps these days (not entirely sure why) but it's a pretty good way to take the energy out of a stray car.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

They moved away from gravel traps for a few reasons.

If you go into a corner too fast and lose control (for example) with a gravel trap you lose any control you had and you don't necessarily slow down or stop!! I've seen cars skim over the top of gravel traps like a stone on a pond.

Once a car is in a gravel trap there's little chance of it getting out on it's own so you need a ****** vehicle to go trackside to pull it out. (We all know only too well the possibilities that can lead to)

If you have a tarmac run off area any car running wide is still under control and can use it's brakes to stop/gain control.

It's also a real pain cleaning all the gravel out of a race car once it's been returned to the team. F1 teams hate gravel traps for that reason.

Carnut

I'm not saying there was no fitness before Schumacher just that Schumacher made a step up.

Yes in some cases where the space is available a run off can be a safe option for the reasons mentioned, ie the car has the opportunity to regain control. The down side however is it allows the drivers to push until they go off in order to find their limits and takes some of the skill out of it.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

Yes but the point is that they can go off and come back on. Going onto a run off area doesn't get you an advantage and can cost you a penalty if you do.

I don't see how it takes some of the skill away. It just means you can continue in the race. This isn't just in F1 this is all types of circuit racing.

Carnut

In the practice sessions they can find the limits of the car with out consequences. They can push through the race knowing that if they push too hard there is a safety net there to save them should their talents run out.

This is ONE of the reasons drivers hold Monaco with such high regard, its a circuit for the driver that has big ***** and the ability to drive on the edge with NO run off.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

It was done in the name of safety.

There are run offs at Monaco. Ask Nico Rosberg.

Carnut

I know why it was done, I was pointing out a side affect as you did saying how the teams like them because they have no need to clean gravel from out of the car, not the reason for but a side effect.

Your being picky and silly now, of course Monaco has SOME run offs and safety measures but are you saying you disagree about Monaco being a ballsy circuit?

Drivers find the limits by pushing each lap safe in the knowledge that should it go wrong on a lot of tracks there is now big run offs. At Monaco there is less opportunity to do this and favours the driver that has the ability to understand his and the cars limit though their natural ability.

If you have a counter argument then lets hear it but this picking is nonsensical.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

You said there weren't any run offs at Monaco!! How is that being "picky"?

Do you want circuits with NO run offs? Circuits that are really dangerous should the driver make an error? Forced or otherwise?

I really think you don't understand anything about circuit safety or the reasons behind it.

Carnut

Your putting words in my mouth now, of course we want track safety and I'm not against big run offs, it's a balancing act for many different reasons. You mentioned how the big run offs means that comprises had to be made in terms of the spectators having to stand further away. I didn't then patronise you and say you know nothing of saftey, you were merely pointing out a down side as was I.

Rescue Dude

iTrader: (11)

It would be quite funny if you had said I know nothing about circuit safety.

Let's see if we can find some common ground.

Circuits need to have run offs in the name of safety?

Driving off circuit onto a run off area is NOT the fastest way round a circuit? (this is just common sense though)

Ok so far?

Carnut

Perfect

And seen as though we're being nice I would like to point out that it doesn't go unnoticed the great work marshalling does for our sport, if I could I would.