car calendar next to me with a picture of a gorgeous 1961 Ferrari Testa
Rossa. Damn I want to drive that thing!
The cars don't drive themselves, but it's also true that the driver
makes less of a difference than he has at any point in the history of
motorsport, with F1 being the worst possible example you could have
given. In the front-engined era, it was common for the top drivers to
win races in backmarker equipment. It became less common after the
switch to mid-engined cars, but it was still very possible for a
Surtees or a Stewart to win a race in a car that would've been off the
pace in many other driver's hands. Since Colin Chapman decided to
bolt a wing on his 49, the difference a driver makes has deteriorated
further.
Does that mean that a modern F1 car doesn't require any skill to
drive? No, it means that, in a modern F1 car, the difference between
a great driver and a good driver is much less than it was in a 50's or
60's F1 car. I think it could be argued that Schumacher is a better
driver than Clark, Stewart, or Fangio were, but it's really a moot
point since there are 19 other drivers in F1 who could be winning
races in his equipment anyway.
Jason
> >There are quite a few people planning modern cars as their own
> add-ons - but
> >I'm sure that once the beta is up and running with the '49 - then getting
> >the licences for more modern cars will be easier and thus they will
> follow.
> I want cars from the late 60's. Big growling sports cars. I want the
> GT40, Chaparral 2F, and Ferrari GTO. I want 1967-1976 F1 cars in
> their entirety. I want cars whose performance is still heavily
> dependent on the driver rather than the car itself. A 50's sim would
> be fantastic as well, particularly 58 when the mid-engined revolution
> began.
> Jason
Glenn
"Careful Hack
If you have a big Bear problem, what do you do? Get a bigger Bear....If
there is a field of Chapparal Suckers...then a certain twin Turbo might be
the answer. Then we'd have to ban TWO cars!
dave henrie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.441 / Virus Database: 247 - Release Date: 1/9/03
Not until he gets an equal driver in his team, showing he's not so superior
and "legend-like" then we might think.
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...
> >Of course. The cars these days just drive themselves. Michael
Schumacher's
> >no better than you or I - he's just been lucky to get the right cars
> >throughout his career. </sarcasm>
> I dont' agree with the "no better than you or I" part but the "just
> been lucky to get the right cars" part is pretty spot on. Do you
> honestly believe Schumacher would be taking poles and winning races
> driving for Minardi? Likewise, do you really think if Mark Webber
> were given a ride in Ferrari it would take even a full season for him
> to win a race?
> The cars don't drive themselves, but it's also true that the driver
> makes less of a difference than he has at any point in the history of
> motorsport, with F1 being the worst possible example you could have
> given. In the front-engined era, it was common for the top drivers to
> win races in backmarker equipment. It became less common after the
> switch to mid-engined cars, but it was still very possible for a
> Surtees or a Stewart to win a race in a car that would've been off the
> pace in many other driver's hands. Since Colin Chapman decided to
> bolt a wing on his 49, the difference a driver makes has deteriorated
> further.
> Does that mean that a modern F1 car doesn't require any skill to
> drive? No, it means that, in a modern F1 car, the difference between
> a great driver and a good driver is much less than it was in a 50's or
> 60's F1 car. I think it could be argued that Schumacher is a better
> driver than Clark, Stewart, or Fangio were, but it's really a moot
> point since there are 19 other drivers in F1 who could be winning
> races in his equipment anyway.
> Jason
Seems like what you say doesn't hold up.
Also, I'll remind you of how poorly Nicki Lauda did when he tried to drive
one of the new Jaguars recently. Not easy to drive at all.
Jackie Stewart says that times weren't much different back in his day, and
also thinks that the way things are now is the way they should be.
In an interview with The Times, Stewart said: "Let's get real. They've just
won for three years. Before that, they hadn't won for 21 years. This is
sport - things don't always go the way you'd like them to. It would be nice
if a different person won every race; it would be nice if different
manufacturers won every year. But sport isn't fair.
"The job of sport is not to share the honours out equally. The job of sport
is to find the strongest, fastest, highest, longest, whatever. In 1971, I
won six out of the first eight races. It was OK then, no one said a word
other than to congratulate me. Today, the public, apparently, demands fair
competition and that means everyone coming up to the line together does it?
And a different driver winning every time?"
"I believe Schumacher is still on the way up," added Stewart. "If he's got
five world titles to his name already, I could see him getting another three
or four, maybe more. I would not be at all surprised if the nonsense over
the past few months has made him even more determined to stay at the top for
longer."
David G Fisher
> Anyway, since it "should" be open, you'll be able to put in any car model
> you want.
> > BTW, isn't Michael Schumacher a legend right now?
> Not until he gets an equal driver in his team, showing he's not so
superior
> and "legend-like" then we might think.
David G Fisher
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:28:52 +1000, "Damien Smith"
> > >Of course. The cars these days just drive themselves. Michael
> Schumacher's
> > >no better than you or I - he's just been lucky to get the right cars
> > >throughout his career. </sarcasm>
> > I dont' agree with the "no better than you or I" part but the "just
> > been lucky to get the right cars" part is pretty spot on. Do you
> > honestly believe Schumacher would be taking poles and winning races
> > driving for Minardi? Likewise, do you really think if Mark Webber
> > were given a ride in Ferrari it would take even a full season for him
> > to win a race?
> > The cars don't drive themselves, but it's also true that the driver
> > makes less of a difference than he has at any point in the history of
> > motorsport, with F1 being the worst possible example you could have
> > given. In the front-engined era, it was common for the top drivers to
> > win races in backmarker equipment. It became less common after the
> > switch to mid-engined cars, but it was still very possible for a
> > Surtees or a Stewart to win a race in a car that would've been off the
> > pace in many other driver's hands. Since Colin Chapman decided to
> > bolt a wing on his 49, the difference a driver makes has deteriorated
> > further.
> > Does that mean that a modern F1 car doesn't require any skill to
> > drive? No, it means that, in a modern F1 car, the difference between
> > a great driver and a good driver is much less than it was in a 50's or
> > 60's F1 car. I think it could be argued that Schumacher is a better
> > driver than Clark, Stewart, or Fangio were, but it's really a moot
> > point since there are 19 other drivers in F1 who could be winning
> > races in his equipment anyway.
> > Jason
> Over the past two years, Ralf Schumacher in a Williams is tied with the
> second Ferrari driven by Barrichello for the second most wins in F1, with
> four. Montoya in the second Williams has 1 win. Michael Schumacher has 19
> wins.
> Seems like what you say doesn't hold up.
> Also, I'll remind you of how poorly Nicki Lauda did when he tried to drive
> one of the new Jaguars recently. Not easy to drive at all.
> Jackie Stewart says that times weren't much different back in his day, and
> also thinks that the way things are now is the way they should be.
> In an interview with The Times, Stewart said: "Let's get real. They've
just
> won for three years. Before that, they hadn't won for 21 years. This is
> sport - things don't always go the way you'd like them to. It would be
nice
> if a different person won every race; it would be nice if different
> manufacturers won every year. But sport isn't fair.
> "The job of sport is not to share the honours out equally. The job of
sport
> is to find the strongest, fastest, highest, longest, whatever. In 1971, I
> won six out of the first eight races. It was OK then, no one said a word
> other than to congratulate me. Today, the public, apparently, demands fair
> competition and that means everyone coming up to the line together does
it?
> And a different driver winning every time?"
> "I believe Schumacher is still on the way up," added Stewart. "If he's got
> five world titles to his name already, I could see him getting another
three
> or four, maybe more. I would not be at all surprised if the nonsense over
> the past few months has made him even more determined to stay at the top
for
> longer."
> David G Fisher
John
Anyway, ask Eddie Irvine or Jacques Villeneuve if the car or driver is
more important in F1. I'm sure they would have some interesting
insight on the subject.
Jason
> >Over the past two years, Ralf Schumacher in a Williams is tied with the
> >second Ferrari driven by Barrichello for the second most wins in F1, with
> >four. Montoya in the second Williams has 1 win. Michael Schumacher has 19
> >wins.
> And this proves what? That Schumacher is a better driver than
> Barrichello? No shit. I personally believe Schui is the greatest
> driver to have ever driven an F1 car, but I'm also certain if he had
> spent his career driving for Shadow and Minardi his career would be
> viewed significantly differently.
Irvine is an excellent driver who is about to retire, but he had his chance
to beat MS and he couldn't. He constantly says MS is the best, and doesn't
feel bad (and shouldn't) about doing so. That he couldn't beat MS proves
once again that the driver does make a big difference. Yes, JV has wasted
some time in his career, but there were also talented drivers in EVERY
single era who wasted time in weaker cars. As Damien alluded to, fading
memories make the "Good ole days" seem different than they really were. Ask
Stewart about '71.
Of course MS wouldn't spend his career in a Minardi because his talent would
be recognized instantly and he'd move up to a better car. That's just the
way it works it every sport. You want all cars equal apparently. I noticed
you didn't reply to any of the quotes I gave from Stewart who thinks
completely the opposite of you. He also said things weren't any different in
'71 then they were in 2002. No comment?
David G Fisher
--
Gunnar
Cougar#02748 #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
"a language is a dialect with an army and a navy"
> There are no hard numbers. We dont actually know if it'll be 50 or 500.
> But you're right - it's not for your counterstrike fragmeister ***ager
> Doug
So that'll be 3 more wins than Montoya, then. Very significant <g>.
What's the deal with belittling JPM and rating RS so highly? FWIW of
the two drivers, I reckon only JPM has a championship in him. RS is a
bit of a DC IMO. I think Coulthard is competent and very quick on his
day, but can't put a season run together. Don't think either DC or RS
has the mental capability.
Here's the thing:
ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
And I am more that prepared to eat humble pie.
Let me say I rate MS extrememly highly as a driver. But I don't like
him...
So long as he has number one status in the team and has effectively a
co-driver to help him along the way, his "records" mean little to me.
He may well have hit the targets he's hit without the help, but the
team's structure diminishes their relevence to me. I remember an
interview with Johnny Herbert - when he joined Bennetton it was all
smiles, but as soon as he started posting laptimes close to MS the
"shutters came down". From that point on there was a one way flow of
information, and it wasn't from MS to JH.
According to EI, MS was the best, followed my EI (uh-huh), then the
rest. What's he gonna say? He was thrashed. He wouldn't say that
the driver who had done that was merely pretty good.
The driver can, of course, make a difference within his own team.
There are always gonna be faster and slower teams, but there's less
scope for driving ability to shine past the limitations of the car
IMO.
Semi-auto gears, traction control, these things take away from a
drivers ability to rise above his competitors.
We have no way of knowing this.
I know you weren't addressing me, but, yes, I prefer to watch one-make
series. I couldn't give a monkey's about the actual technology of the
cars. Technology showcase, my arse. I wanna watch motor racing...
Stewart was talking about domination in sport, not how much difference
a driver can make. I was 2 in '71 so don't know, but perhaps Stewart
was the best driver in the best car, hence domination. Had Stewart
been in a lesser car, and a lesser driver in the top car of the time,
Stewart may well have been able to claw back some of the disadvantage
through his driving talents. More so than would be possible in a
similar situation today.
Please note that at no point above did I say that drivers of
yesteryear were any better than todays drivers. Nor did I imply that
driving an F1 car of today is in any way easy or easier than it used
to be.
Regards,
Mark