Science proves that Fangio was the greatest F1 driver of all time - Mathematical modeling confirms m

That's the third best post of the thread.

 

We got one riled up boys! Don't hold back now Manu, tell us what you really think

 

That's the 37th best post I've read today.

 

Even on 89 season Senna was better than Prost. But Senna have had failures of engine and the car. The FIA, the television put all the lights on the Suzuka race, but the true is that Senna didnt have the most reliable engines that season.

 

Did the global warming scientists get bored or something? you can bend math into any shape you want, if you have a preset agenda you want to try prove or justify. Even better when you dont show any of the data and call it science.

 

Here's your math

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/01/...a-beat-ten-world-champions-in-identical-cars/

 

Senna was not as gentle with the car as Prost.... who was a master at doing just enough to win. If Honda was favoring anyone--- although they probably were not--- it would have been Senna.

Senna was faster most days on a given lap. But give Prost his due. Look at his results overall vs his teammates: Senna, Mansell, Lauda and Piquet. Who ever did so well against so many. World Champion teammates?




Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk 2

 

Interesting, but certainly not decisive in the matter.

 

the way I see it, the requirements on todays athletes are way different to what those were back in the days, and in that logic the old legends can't measure to the young ones, because simply today the requirements are way higher and therefore if those drivers were put into nowadays cars, they would probably have hard times

or are you telling me that someone like Carl Lewis was better runner then Usain Bolt ? ( and it's only thanks to more modern development in shoes/clothes and what not that Bolt is faster?)
Or that WW2 fighter pilots would out-class modern dogfighters ??

yes technology makes certain things easier, but then you have other things to worry about too, and to me - through common sense logic - formula drivers of this generation are simply level above what those guys did back in the days.

amazing things about those older guys were the circumstances in which they did it, but I really don't agree that if you could put them into today's machines, they would do as well
they didn't start in 3 years in go karts, did they ?

and the endurace/stamina that you need to have to work in 6 g forces, etc. ... you simply can't compare imo

 

Training your body isn't exactly difficult tho... Having talent, the right mindset and balls is much harder to going to the gym.

To add to that; if you're taking drivers level exactly as they were in their time, then yeah, older ones would have a hard time physique wise. But then modern drivers would all be dead if you went the other way around.

 

Prost won so many champioships, but also, lost too. Too many times because not reliable cars. I dont disagree about his quality as a pilot. But, Senna have had 5 retirements before the race of Jerez, 5 wins. Before Jerez, Prost had 4 wins, all of them on races that Senna retired and only 1 retirement. That was he won that champioship. Overall, it was a disaster year for Prost, himself felt this and signed a contract with Ferrari before the end of champioship. Numbers dont lie, when the Senna have had the car to complete the race, he won almost the times against Prost.

 

yes, some would, just like many did in those years

and it's not just physics, how much training is there for mind. Drivers these days communicate with pits, tweak things one the fly, adjust to strategy .. back in the days they "just" drove

I really think you can't compare it and perhaps closest comparison would be WW2 figther pilot vs F22 Raptor pilot. Yes the F22 raptor pilot doesn't perhaps needs certain skills because computer does a lot of work for him, but the amount of technical/strategy information that he needs to have is completly elsewhere then those pilots in WW2 had

plus in those days, this was pretty much sport for the rich, so it could be possible that many of the really great talented drivers didn't have money to actually try it out, in which circumstances good driver could easily be champion with no competition
whereas these days there's so much competition so that you really have to prove yourself to get a shot at something more serious

when I think of pinnacle of racing as in "man and machine" that would be perhaps Group C rally, those guys had balls that those of Fangio could only dream off - imo , and their machines were out of this world compared to those back in the days

 

Eh.... No, sorry. It's still a rich guy sport, whether it's sponsorship or just money. And the cars Fangio drove were deadlier than Group B cars (which I assume is what you meant, Group C was sports cars: 956/962, C9, 787B, etc), by far. Because they were basically **** boxes on bicycle tyres... Developing 500hp and going over 180mph. With no seatbelts. Seating in the fuel tank.

As for strategies, it's really not that hard, you just listen to your engineer, that's it. The only thing that's annoyingly complicated today is ERS preservation. The rest is pretty straightforward really.

 

In every generation the top racers have had to develop their skills to the maximum. Those skills do vary but if you'd drop senna in 1950s and let him grow up there chances are he would still be a great driver. Of course if you take senna from 1992 and drop him in the 1950s his skillset is simply wrong for that era. It is not the fault of the driver if the cars of his era are more or less technical, more or less reliable, more or less harder to drive or tactically more difficult. Or if the gap between the cars is bigger or smaller. Or if the sport is more or less dangerous. Or if the general skill levels are higher in that era. It is not really the drivers' fault if the technology is primitive either. Being the best is always difficult, no matter if it is 1950 or 2050. But is it equally difficult nowadays as it was 50 years ago? I don't know.

If you dropped senna or prost from 1990s in 1950 to drive those widowmakers they would of course find it very dangerous. But if they had grown up in that era they'd just get on with it. Just like if you take the modern drivers and drop them in 1950s f1 cars they might be uncomfortable. But had they been born and lived in that era they'd not know any better and would race like the drivers in those days did. Some people like to call modern race drivers primadonnas because they have far less danger. It is kinda stupid argument because the drivers have 0 control about what kind of cars they drive in f1, lemans or anywhere. You have got what you have got and it is the best we can do in 2016. Not the best of 1950s, 1970s or 2050s.

I think one if the issues some people especially get wrong all the time is that the great drivers somehow had a skill to avoid accidents. I think that is just down to luck. There have been countless great drivers in f1 who died simply because their cars broke down unexpectedly. Some died for making mistakes while others survived, like fangio in 1952. It is just luck. Just like jim clark just had bad luck so had francois cevert. Both probably capable of winning championships but because they died the first one stays legend because he died after winning. The latter never got his chance and is as such forgotten.

 

Nigel Mansell (F1)and Ari Vatanen(overall) are my favourites, next are Prost, Piquet and Randy Pobst lol.

Todays generation: Kimi and Vettel, Verstappen off course (Loeb trumps them all though)

Cheers
Robin

 

Thank you, I always wanted to see full video !

As for comparing new to the old. I would say that not everything is easier today or moving from past to present not everything was getting easier, drivers nowadays probably has to concentrate much more because of much greater response of steering inputs and shorter braking distances and keeping car near to its limit.

Asking myself when it was most up the driver, and not up the car and team ? Can't answer. Maybe hardest for driver was turbo era.

 

Imho, you're all wrong. Best driver was Alex Yoong.

 

Actually, the cars Fangio won 4 championships in had less than 300 bhp. The fuel tank was typically behind the driver in this era - it was the 60s when drivers were basically sitting in the fuel tank. They were dangerous because the cars had no protection and the tracks had no protection but they were not particularly difficult to drive.

 

I couldn't give a flying..........