Jump to content


Photo

Senna on Jim Clark "he was the best of the best"


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#1 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 17,096 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 11:47

I think it's about time to resurrect a old favorite, who's the best of all time?

I think Jim Clark along with Schumacher. I remember Senna talking about Schumacher's corning technique, very early on, Senna knew Schuey was something special early on. But Clark's career already was done and dusted to be talked about properly at the time. I wish Senna was alive to have commented on Schumacher's career after his retirement, I think Senna knew who were the best of the best, because he knew his limitations very well.


I was reading up on Jim Clark, and then found this article:

http://www.telegraph...5/sophil125.xml


Quote

For what it is worth, I believe Jim Clark to be the Greatest Sporting Scot of All Time and to back up my case call upon the late Ayrton Senna who, shortly before his death, commissioned an oil painting by the Mexican artist Hugo Escobedo.

The canvas depicted Senna's ultimate 'fantasy' Grand Prix; an impression of the starting grid at Monaco featuring all of the greatest drivers in Formula One history.

Juan Fangio sits talking to mechanics at the wheel of his 1950 Alfa Romeo 158... alongside the Argentinian, Stirling Moss is seen climbing into the great hump-backed whale that was the Vanwall.... Jackie Stewart, all Sixties sideburns, pulls on his helmet in the cockpit of his Matra-Ford... Emerson Fittipaldi, the first of the great Brazilians, is there in an early McLaren... Niki Lauda in the classic Ferrari of '75... and Senna himself, of course, squeezed into the all-conquering McLaren-Honda with which he won the 1991 world driver's championship.

Senna made only two stipulations: a) there was to be no trace of Alain Prost, his bitter rival; and b) Escobedo could place the drivers in any formation he chose, providing Jim Clark filled pole position. "After all," said the Brazilian in a rare moment of modesty, "he was the best of the best".


Fangio and Moss worshipped him as a young god, while Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin said by way of introduction: "I suppose you will be in awe of me, just as I am in awe of you."



Thus in my opinion, Jim Clark and Schumi are the best of the best. Although even as a die hard Schumi fan, I think Jim Clark was like Schumacher of Scotland in dangerous times with the best tracks and hardly no safety, I give Jim Clark 10 out of 10 for that, and put Schumi at 9.9, simpy because Jim Clark did it first, like Sean Connery did Bond in the 60s :p


I would like to see that Fantasy Granx Prix painting Senna comissioned, wonder where it is.

Advertisement

#2 GeoffR

GeoffR
  • Member

  • 696 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:01

Quote

As we approach the 35th anniversary of his death



Article dated 12 April 2008; Jim Clark died 7 April 1968 - I think that should be "as we approach (or pass) the 40th anniversary.."

I would be interested to know if Senna actually did commission such a painting.

#3 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 64,995 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:09

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen

Thus in my opinion, Jim Clark and Schumi are the best of the best. Although even as a die hard Schumi fan, I think Jim Clark was like Schumacher of Scotland in dangerous times with the best tracks and hardly no safety, I give Jim Clark 10 out of 10 for that, and put Schumi at 9.9, simpy because Jim Clark did it first, like Sean Connery did Bond in the 60s :p

Dr Mike Lawrence pointed out elsewhere that Jim Clark won the equivalent of 68 Grands Prix...taking into account non-Championship races, Tasman, F2 and ChampCar, when the best of the best competed in all those formulae. In 8 seasons.

That puts Schumacher's 91 in nearly twice that time into a bit of perspective. Only Schumacher did not win the DTM in his weekends off.

I think I have to concur with Ayrton...

#4 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 17,096 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:13

Quote

Originally posted by GeoffR


Article dated 12 April 2008; Jim Clark died 7 April 1968 - I think that should be "as we approach (or pass) the 40th anniversary.."

I would be interested to know if Senna actually did commission such a painting.




In some respects, Jim Clark's era with Lotus and Lotus boss Colin Chapman is kinda like a dream team that Schumacher made with Todt and Brawn/Bryne.

Quote

Jim Clark was an intuitive racer, competing in all classes and disciplines. He won four straight Belgian GPs at the tremendously difficult Spa-Francorchamps circuit, a track he despised, and was masterful in wet conditions. His dominant 1965 season in the Lotus 33 — in which he led every lap of every race he finished — is unmatched in F1 history.


Jim was great in the wet like Schumacher as well, both great at Spa, plus he set some amazing stats for his short career.

http://www.f1-grandprix.com/clark.html


I'm not sure where to put Fangio, but I'm starting to think it's Clark, Schumacher and Fangio/Senna and the rest is conjecture.



Quote

Originally posted by ensign14

Dr Mike Lawrence pointed out elsewhere that Jim Clark won the equivalent of 68 Grands Prix...taking into account non-Championship races, Tasman, F2 and ChampCar, when the best of the best competed in all those formulae. In 8 seasons.

That puts Schumacher's 91 in nearly twice that time into a bit of perspective. Only Schumacher did not win the DTM in his weekends off.

I think I have to concur with Ayrton...


:up:

Yeah I think Jim Clark is probabley the greatest due to everything he competed in. Senna's opinions I usually have remembered and valued, I still wonder though if you switched Schumacher to Clark's era and Clark to Schumi's era, you'll have the same sort of result, but dominated in their eras, but Schumi probabley would of died young like Clark did.

#5 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:17

Clark was probably the ultimate driver - whatever he drove, he was fast in. On the other hand, he belong to a different era when it was enough to drive fast. He never knew enough about his cars and it probably killed him in the end (I'm not sur who said that, IIRC Stirling Moss). A very important matter here is that his career was cut short when he was still at his best.

In any case, I would restrain from making comparisons between Clark, Schumacher and Fangio.

Of course, today he would be accused on achieving all his wins and titles with one team/designer without ever having a strong teammate (Graham Hill being a sole exception).

#6 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 17,096 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:21

Quote

Originally posted by pasadena


Of course, today he would be accused on achieving all his wins and titles with one team/designer without ever having a strong teammate (Graham Hill being a sole exception).


:up:
A little like Schumacher wouldn't you say. :D

Clark maximised his Lotus era as MS did with Ferrari.

Lotus was like the Ferrari of England.





#7 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 17,096 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:27

Quote

Originally posted by jokuvaan
http://forums.autosp...p?s=&forumid=10



I know, but since Schumacher is still a advisor to Ferrari and is apart of this discussion, I would prefer the young f1 fans of today reading about comparisons to Clark's era and the modern one, as everyone in the Nostalgia forum probabley would protect that era more then the modern one, plus you get alot more reaction from f1 fans who are new here.

Jim Clark as much as Senna and Schumacher are modern day f1 iconic benchmarks that will always figure in to modern day discussions, it's nostalgic to a extent but not fully, my case.;)


Besides it's been a while since we did a all time f1 thread choice. And the next GP is a while away.



This article speaks highly of Clark and Schumacher, but puts Prost, Senna and Fangio under the light.
Article also menstions that Fangio thought Clark was best also.


http://www.sportingo...-who-formula-no

#8 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:39

Senna and Clark certainly do it for me.

Being from the Senna era I had always held Senna in higher esteem than Clark. Probably just because he was in F1 when I started watching it. I wasn't born for another 8 years after Clark was killed.

I've been in the presence of and touched more than one of Senna's cars and it's always a special feeling to be near his cars. Something I've never had when I've seen for example Prost or Mansell's cars. But I got to see one of Clark's cars for the first time ever at this years Autosport International. Without being melodramatic about the situation, I don't mind to admitting I had an emotional moment when stood there, something I haven't had with any of Senna's cars. Maybe it was because Clark was not from my era, all I have known about Clark is from the history books and old videos. I have lived Senna. I have only studied Clark. So it turned out to be a much bigger thing for me to be in the presence of Clark's car. Finally here I was touching the car, touching the steering wheel that the master from the past had once touched and driven.

I don't know what was bigger however, my amazement or my disappointment that almost literally nobody else at all at that show seemed to have any interest whatsoever in Clark's car. Fair enough it didn't have big banners announcing it's presence, but a 1960's Lotus F1 car in Lotus livery.....is hard to miss.

I can't help but feeling Autosport missed a trick in not having a 40th Anniversary stand for Clark. It's too late now, they can't exactly commemorate the 41st Anniversary of his passing.

I have yet to step inside the Jim Clark museum, despite it being only one hours drive from where I live. I managed to get all the way up to the door once, whilst on a drive up to Edinburgh, only to find out it was not opening for a few hours more. I didn't have time to hang around in Duns for a few hours and then go into the museum so I just hit the road again.


It should happen soon though. I have some time off work after next week so I think I'll have a blast up there and see if I can finally get in! It'll be a nice double whammy as I am led to believe the actual guest book Senna signed on his visit is on display, so it should be nice to not only walk around the museum but to also know I am standing where Senna once did.

What can I say, these guys are big heroes.

FOOTNOTE:

I'll never talk about any racing driver in terms of best of the best though. There's no such thing in a technical environment that is metaphorically built on forever shifting sands. Different cars, different tracks, different regulations, different eras etc etc etc.

#9 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:47

It's hard enough comparing drivers of the same era (even the same season) compared to drivers of different eras. There's no best in my opinion, just alot of greats who had what it took to get it done in their respective era, and a bit of luck along the way as well.

#10 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 17,096 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:49

Quote

Originally posted by Imperial
Senna and Clark certainly do it for me.

Being from the Senna era I had always held Senna in higher esteem than Clark. Probably just because he was in F1 when I started watching it. I wasn't born for another 8 years after Clark was killed.

I've been in the presence of and touched more than one of Senna's cars and it's always a special feeling to be near his cars. Something I've never had when I've seen for example Prost or Mansell's cars. But I got to see one of Clark's cars for the first time ever at this years Autosport International. Without being melodramatic about the situation, I don't mind to admitting I had an emotional moment when stood there, something I haven't had with any of Senna's cars. Maybe it was because Clark was not from my era, all I have known about Clark is from the history books and old videos. I have lived Senna. I have only studied Clark. So it turned out to be a much bigger thing for me to be in the presence of Clark's car. Finally here I was touching the car, touching the steering wheel that the master from the past had once touched and driven.


:up:
Jim Clark is like essential reading for a serious f1 fan, it's good to look back and discover great magic. I had to look back at Senna's career while I watch Schumii, there are still many races and fia video reviews I have to watch, when I get the time.


GP Oulton Park 1963 - Jim Clark VIDEO ONBOARD





Listen to the LOTUS, onboard with perhaps the Best.

Clark on a great drivers track



IMOLA 1963
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

#11 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 68,652 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 13:29

Quote

Originally posted by HoldenRT
It's hard enough comparing drivers of the same era (even the same season) compared to drivers of different eras. There's no best in my opinion, just alot of greats who had what it took to get it done in their respective era, and a bit of luck along the way as well.


:up: My personal choice would be Mario Andretti, if only because he offered so many points of comparison to drivers of many different disciplines and eras, and was shown up by none.

It's a shame, with retrospective Europe-goggles on, that AJ Foyt never felt the need to prove himself in Formula One. Maybe the hold of seeing Alberto Ascari was indeed great on Mario, but for someone without a similar background, for AJ to have taken what may have been seen as a step down would've been something special.

#12 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 9,677 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 12 April 2008 - 14:27

Quote

Originally posted by ensign14

Dr Mike Lawrence pointed out elsewhere that Jim Clark won the equivalent of 68 Grands Prix...taking into account non-Championship races, Tasman, F2 and ChampCar, when the best of the best competed in all those formulae. In 8 seasons.

That puts Schumacher's 91 in nearly twice that time into a bit of perspective.


Clark's cars were somewhat less reliable than Schumacher's too.

To me, one of the most telling Clark statistics is that he only finished 2nd once in his WDC career. In fact, he finished second in the Indy 500 more times than in World Championship Grands Prix!

#13 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 April 2008 - 14:57

This has come up many times previously. I even posted the result of a very serious statistic analysis based on hard data.

What comes up is that the most dominant driver was Fangio; Ascari and Clark come just after the Argentinian.

Clark's main shortcoming was that when he was pressed by another driver he was prone to mistakes (just like Ascari); he solved that by opening an enormous gap in the first laps. Surtees says that Clark was not very good when everything was not right. I do not exactly know what he means by that, but he should know.

I think that in F1 results speak for themselves: you get the best car by being the best driver; after that you win more than the others.

If we believe in results, then Fangio is still the best.

Of course you cannot compare different eras; but you can compare success in different eras. That is really the only answer to the question of who was the best.

#14 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 4,749 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 12 April 2008 - 15:27

Ah but on one occassion, Clark came back from something like a lap down to win - how that can be classed as anything other than 'winning from the back' I shall never know.

#15 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 April 2008 - 15:51

Quote

Originally posted by RSNS
This has come up many times previously. I even posted the result of a very serious statistic analysis based on hard data.

What comes up is that the most dominant driver was Fangio; Ascari and Clark come just after the Argentinian.

Clark's main shortcoming was that when he was pressed by another driver he was prone to mistakes (just like Ascari); he solved that by opening an enormous gap in the first laps. Surtees says that Clark was not very good when everything was not right. I do not exactly know what he means by that, but he should know.

I think that in F1 results speak for themselves: you get the best car by being the best driver; after that you win more than the others.

If we believe in results, then Fangio is still the best.

Of course you cannot compare different eras; but you can compare success in different eras. That is really the only answer to the question of who was the best.

While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past, and I think that it is actually disservice to them to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect.

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.

#16 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 12 April 2008 - 16:11

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen


[b]GP Oulton Park 1963 - Jim Clark
VIDEO ONBOARD





Listen to the LOTUS, onboard with perhaps the Best.

amazing to see the trees along the circuit within 2 meters of the drivers. But also interesting to see back then heel-toe footwork. :up:
thanks for posting, i might spend an hour or so looking up J Clark videos

#17 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 16:16

Jim Clark was the cleanest a fairest driver I have ever see race.
:up:

Senna was a tantrum throwing whinger who resorted to running another driver off the road to win a championship -- :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:

#18 DOHC

DOHC
  • Member

  • 12,405 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 April 2008 - 16:19

Valen :up: :up: :up: excellent topic to discuss!

There just was no driver like Jim Clark!

#19 Gary Davies

Gary Davies
  • Member

  • 6,779 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 16:24

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
....neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past...

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.


I'll concede that the points you are making are respectful of Clark and Fangio but the argument becomes somewhat obscure doesn't it.

See, on the other hand, one might observe that Michael Schumacher is on record, I believe, as saying that the cars of earlier eras were unacceptably dangerous in his view. And they were, unspeakably dangerous. So one imagines that were you to put Michael Schumacher into a time machine and plonk him into a Ferrari Super Squalo of 1955 or a Ferrari 156 of 1963, his horror at those cars' inherent danger might well have resulted in him not getting out of the pits at all! (And who could blame him.)

You might also say that had Jim Clark and Juan Fangio been born in 1969, they would have been, at least, formidable rivals for Schumacher... again, because they'd have been used to that type of car.

The point is, in all these arguments, it's impossible to be definitive; statistics only ever tell us so much when we try to debate a topic covering human frailties, machinery and time. In the end, comparisons of drivers of different eras are jolly good fun over a couple of pints, but nothing is likely to be proved one way or the other.

Advertisement

#20 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 April 2008 - 16:25

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past, and I think that it is actually disservice to them to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect.

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.


QFT.

How on one hand in your first paragraph you say "to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect" but in your second paragraph claim that you could in all likelihood prove that "Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher"?

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

How, if comparison of different eras would result in a suspect outcome, could you prove that drivers of one era are a "joke" in comparison to a driver of another era?

Am I misreading your whole post and that is not what you're actually saying? I'm confused as you seem to be giving 100% kudos for the job Clark or Senna did in their eras but that they as drivers are a "joke" compared to a driver from another era?

If I'm reading that correctly then I already find your claims nonsensical (meant in the purest meaning of not making sense, rather than being derogatory and saying you're talking nonsense), for the simple reason that Senna didn't enter F1 until 14 years after Clark died and the cars, tracks and regs had changed immeasurably in just that time alone. Furthermore Senna's career spanned 10 full seasons and entered an 11th in which he died. Even in that time things changed a huge amount. I think it can be comfortably said that Senna's career actually overlapped easily more than one clearly defined era of F1.

Anyway, if I am understanding you correctly then please don't hold back on your analysis out of respect for dead men. They willingly entered into a sport with recorded statistics. The raw facts are there for all to analyse, it's public property. If you have a system to prove what you claim then I'm genuinely very interested to hear what it is and to see your results from this system.

This topic could become incredibly interesting if you can give us a good analysis and report. :up:

#21 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 64,995 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 12 April 2008 - 17:32

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident.

Wow.

Clark won in touring cars, Fangio in rally cars, both in sports cars. Why wouldn't they cope with a Playstation?

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

No you couldn't. Even if you ignore the truth behind the statistics, their statistics are somewhat astounding. Fangio has a 50% hit rate in major races at a time when cars actually retired and when Swiss lawyers could buy the exact same car as Fangio to compete with him. And Clark won nearly ever race he finished. Their statistics are pretty much impregnable.

#22 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 12 April 2008 - 18:27

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past, and I think that it is actually disservice to them to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect.

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.


I cannot diasgree more.

the cars were much harder to drive than today. No traction control nanny, no aero to keep the car planted over hills, no engineers talking you through things on the radio, no short sprints with low fuel loads, no safety fencing to keep you alive when you get it wrong, no soft tires (they were so hard they frequently used the same tires for most of a season)...yet you were still regularly going 180+.


Drivers of the past would have a hard time getting thier head around the electronics and the aero but they would have plenty of chances to adapt. MS would get on chance to get it wrong and he would be dead. No way he survives his Silverstone crash for example. In short, todays F1 is like a video game. Very clean, everything is opptomised instead of the driver having to drive around the car to make it fast. There is a recent interview where one of the engineers stated that current drivers don't really know how to make changes to make the car better like they did 15 yrs ago.


Additionally, because there were no re-feuling stops, you had to start with a very heavy car and take it to the end...this means your ride hieght and suspension and handling characteristics change the entire race.

As to Senna, if you think he is a joke you obviously never saw him race....

#23 pedrovski

pedrovski
  • Member

  • 576 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 18:31

As I get older I think Alain Prost was the best. When I was young it was Senna Senna Senna, but Prost was the most successful Gp driver ever when he retired and he did it all with relatively low risk, very few accidents etc. It takes an awful lot of talent to drive at the limit and practically never make any mistakes. He also had very competitive teamates 3 world champions and Rene Arnoux was no slouch either. Senna was the only guy quicker than him. The first driver ever to score more than 100 points in a season etc., food for thought.

#24 flat-16

flat-16
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 April 2008 - 18:54

Wasn't there a famous quote, where Froilan Gonzales was introduced to Schuey at a Ferrari press event, whereupon - in recognition of how dangerous racing in the fifties era was - Schuey said to the Wild Bull, "I couldn't possibly have raced the cars you drove..."

To which Gonzales responded, "I couldn't race your car - I've never been able to work a computer" :p


Justin

#25 sterling49

sterling49
  • Member

  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 12 April 2008 - 19:19

An excellent thread Sean, I see from your profile that you are of an age where you would have missed Jim racing, except of course on recorded media. I think you have formed some valid opinions and I convey my agreement. However, if someone asked me who was the best ever driver, without hesitation, I would fire back JC, same answer for, my favourite driver, most gentlemanly driver (closely followed by Gentleman Jack, and NGH :up: ) most sporting, most wins in varied cars and disciplines,highest "strike rate", the list would go on and on. I was fortunate to watch Jim on many occasions at Brands Hatch, and saw Jim in a plethora of different Lotus models including, 25,33,30,40,Elite,Cortina, and a one off drive in Mac Daghorn's(or was it Peter Westbury's car?) Felday-B.R.M. There are perhaps some that I have overlooked (I cannot remember what the model number of the 1 Litre Lotus Cosworth SCA Ron Harris F2 car was). My point being, seeing Jimmy on the day was amazing, he was relaxed, would drive the pants of everyone, and would be ebullient in the process of annihilating his opposition. I only ever saw Jim under pressure once, by his great friend Dan Gurney,who was driving a Brabham in the 1966 Race of Champions at Brands, Jim made an uncustomary error and crashed on Bottom Straight in the 2nd heat of the race, after winning the 1st heat. Watching Jim drive the Cortina was poetry in motion, he made it look so easy, with the car at ridiculous angles, front wheel cocked in the air, and Jim smiling behind the wheel stroking it along at a pace that not many competitors could keep up with. One race (IIRC) Jim had a puncture in the Cortina and was black flagged, and after changing the wheel and losing any chance of a good position, he went for fastest lap. It was awesome, on three wheels at Bottom Bend, two wheels at Bottom Bend :eek: and going for broke at entertaining the crowd, how could any spectator, not least a fresh faced twelve year old, not love this so modest of guys. Both Alain Prost and JYS, I believe, cite Jim's influence on smooth and fast driving, Jimmy did that often and and in the most winning and self effacing way imaginable, in cars that had to be driven, with none of the tricks and toys of the modern era. Drivers in Jim's day, sat in a seriously fast petrol tanks, I remember the breakthrough when "bag tanks" became mandatory. The tracks were "real" too, Spa,Rheims,Rouen,Nurburgring,Zandvoort,Brands Hatch, Silverstone (with the 150mph plus Woodcote :up: ) no run off areas back in the day, the grass at Paddock Hill Bend helped the cars into the wall of BR Railway Sleepers much faster.......... Still missed after 40 years, no one else franky comes close, no one in my humble opinion.Others in the record books may have achieved more, but the core values that Jimmy stood for, make it all the more honourable.The man. End of story.

#26 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 19:46

Both Clark and Fangio (and lets not forget Moss) could jump into any type of car around in their eras and from and be immediately faster than the cars regular driver.

Fangio came to Europe from driving enormous pre-WW2 American "yank tank" stock cars and at an age when most grand Prix drivers have retired went straight to the top F1.

After starting out winning everything in sight in big sports cars (D Types and Astons) Jim Clark went on wining in all manner of Lotuses from Elevens and Lotus Cortinas to the 49 and lets not forget he was immediately competitive on the American ovals both in Indy and in Nascar. Had Chapmans cars not been so fragile, he would have won a lot more, often Clark was the only driver who could a Lotus together long enough to finish.
It is recorded in quite a few magazine articles and biographies that Jim Clark could not resist experiencing any unusual racing car he had the chance of driving and he recorded some stunning lap times in pre-WW2 cars.

Moss would have won everything insight if he had better cars and perhaps not been so deferential to Fangio, but his win over Fangio in the 1955 Mille Miglia is more than proof that he was a least as good as Fangio.

#27 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,683 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 April 2008 - 19:57

Quote

Originally posted by britishtrident
Both Clark and Fangio (and lets not forget Moss) could jump into any type of car around in their eras and from and be immediately faster than the cars regular driver.

Fangio came to Europe from driving enormous pre-WW2 American "yank tank" stock cars and at an age when most grand Prix drivers have retired went straight to the top F1.

After starting out winning everything in sight in big sports cars (D Types and Astons) Jim Clark went on wining in all manner of Lotuses from Elevens and Lotus Cortinas to the 49 and lets not forget he was immediately competitive on the American ovals both in Indy and in Nascar. Had Chapmans cars not been so fragile, he would have won a lot more, often Clark was the only driver who could a Lotus together long enough to finish.
It is recorded in quite a few magazine articles and biographies that Jim Clark could not resist experiencing any unusual racing car he had the chance of driving and he recorded some stunning lap times in pre-WW2 cars.

Moss would have won everything insight if he had better cars and perhaps not been so deferential to Fangio, but his win over Fangio in the 1955 Mille Miglia is more than proof that he was a least as good as Fangio.


For me, that says it all.

#28 lil'chris

lil'chris
  • Member

  • 512 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 20:27

Quote

Originally posted by britishtrident
It is recorded in quite a few magazine articles and biographies that Jim Clark could not resist experiencing any unusual racing car he had the chance of driving and he recorded some stunning lap times in pre-WW2 cars.


His laps before the 1964 French GP at Rouen in Patrick Lindsays ERA being a good example :up:

Whilst Schumi achieved a lot, he always seemed to come second best to Hakkinen mano a mano in my opinion

#29 Michael Oliver

Michael Oliver
  • Member

  • 1,071 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 April 2008 - 21:41

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past, and I think that it is actually disservice to them to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect.

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.


Gentlemen,

You need to get your hands on a new book which has recently come out. It is called 'Analysing Formula 1' by Roger Smith. He has spent his life analysing statistics, working for the well-known research firm AC Nielsen, and has come up with a very interesting set of conclusions, which I won't spoil by revealing on this forum. But he looks at the top guys by every possible measure and then combines it all into an all-time ranking at the end. His results are based purely on facts, not perceptions, unlike another book which has recently come out on a similar theme...

Michael

#30 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 12 April 2008 - 21:44

Of the modernish era, none of the really superstar drivers have really tried to win in everything. JPM and JV won the Indy 500 and the CART champ (JV when it was worth a little more), but both used that series as a steping stone to F1. JPM has won in NASCAR, Sportscars, F1 and Cart but has only one a championship in 1 of those.

Emmo was great in F1 and did very well in CART especially at the age he competed but really the last driver to really excel at multiple series that were open wheel, fenders etc was Mario Andretti. He grew up racing dirt ovals, did European series, Nascar, US open wheels, F1...everything.

Today, drivers have to be so specialized it may be impossible. Senna and Prost did try thier hand a WRC and, infact, Senna was quite fast until he went off. Prost less so but then he did not crash out either.

To me the difference between the newer breed and the older ones are that the new drivers know how to drive a well setup car fast and that is about it. The older generation of drivers never really had perfect cars, usually far far from it and knew how to drive around the car and also knew how to make it better.

A story from the Indy 500, Mears once talked about how during his second 500 win, he had a push during one of the stents so he started taking the car below the lip so that it would heat up the outside tires more and increase the rear stagger that corrected much of the push. Heady stuff.

#31 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 68,652 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 12 April 2008 - 21:54

Quote

Originally posted by jimm

A story from the Indy 500, Mears once talked about how during his second 500 win, he had a push during one of the stents so he started taking the car below the lip so that it would heat up the outside tires more and increase the rear stagger that corrected much of the push. Heady stuff.


Top-level motor racing could really do with some of that improvisational flair and imagination today. The impression of careful micromanagement and procedure given today is anathema to the concept of auto racing as something creative, even artistic.

'We murder to dissect', as one of the Romantics put it.

#32 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 April 2008 - 22:14

Quote

Originally posted by jimm
Today, drivers have to be so specialized it may be impossible. Senna and Prost did try thier hand a WRC and, infact, Senna was quite fast until he went off. Prost less so but then he did not crash out either.

Prost also tried his hand (or legs!) at Tour de France stages...;)

Quote

Originally posted by jimm
A story from the Indy 500, Mears once talked about how during his second 500 win, he had a push during one of the stents so he started taking the car below the lip so that it would heat up the outside tires more and increase the rear stagger that corrected much of the push. Heady stuff.

How do you change stagger out on the circuit? :confused:

#33 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 12 April 2008 - 22:47

These arguments are interesting, but largely futile - if Fangio were racing today, he would have been 'trained' in modern racing cars and would undoubtedly, all other things being equal, have the same capacity to make the best of them, as would Jimmy Clark. In the same way, if Schumacher or Senna had lived in the '50s, having come through a World War where young men died flying aircraft or driving tanks, they would have had the mentality to cope with the inherent dangers of that era.

However, what does it for me is HOW they would win, therefore Clark gets my vote, again and again. I was a huge Senna fan; loved his awesome qualifying laps, etc, but hated the way he would drive other people off the track to win at all costs. Same thing with Schumacher - not only trying to drive people off the track (too many times to recall) but not even having the grace to think he had done anything wrong. I actually think that, even if he was racing today, that sort of behaviour would simply not form part of his repertoire.

I regret having never seen Fangio race although my father did, so I am slightly biased towards Clark. But I would also acknowledge Fangio's own opinion that Clark was the best. I have also not mentioned Moss - if you asked me to really consider this, my top three would consist of Moss, Fangio and Clark, with Clark j-u-u-s-t winning.

#34 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 12 April 2008 - 23:12

Quote

Originally posted by fines

Prost also tried his hand (or legs!) at Tour de France stages...;)

How do you change stagger out on the circuit? :confused:


well, the idea was that during previous practice or during the race (I cannot remember) he had to be careful how far down he went because when he came back over the edge between the aprin and the track, it would heat the outside rear. More heat means more air pressure and a larger tire. As Risil said, very creative and a great example of how drivers used to really have a larger role in the outcomes of races.

Of course it helps that it was Mears who has to be the best US driver since Mario...to bad he decided against F1 after the Brabham test.

#35 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,228 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 12 April 2008 - 23:16

Quote

Originally posted by Risil


Top-level motor racing could really do with some of that improvisational flair and imagination today. The impression of careful micromanagement and procedure given today is anathema to the concept of auto racing as something creative, even artistic.

'We murder to dissect', as one of the Romantics put it.


I was at Indy at turn 1 for Mears' last win. Remarkable as you could tell he was working on the car all day...in fact, almost went a lap down very early (bet Micheal wishes now he had put him a lap down)....the pass around the outside just awesome....especially that year when the cars were not just flat everywhere.

#36 jondon

jondon
  • Member

  • 618 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 13 April 2008 - 03:47

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe
While we killing time and pondering useless issues, let me ask you then; if today's Schumacher gets Clark' or Fagio' cars (as they were raced in those eras), don't you think he would match those two with his skills? In fact I think he would beat them both by a large margin, but neither of those two guys could sit in his Ferrari, and get out of the pits without having an accident. Point is - today's vehicles are beyond reach of men of the past, and I think that it is actually disservice to them to even try to compare results of their era with modern F1, as subjective values at some points must be entered, making comparative analyses suspect.

I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.


You, sir, are talking what we would call in my locality "utter shite"....

#37 Ruairidh

Ruairidh
  • Member

  • 1,074 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 13 April 2008 - 05:17

Quote

Originally posted by MiPe


I am confident and sure that I can develop too some serious statistical analysis which would "proove", that Clark, Fangio, and Senna actually "were a joke", compared to Schumacher.

But, I will not do that from respect to the mmories of them. They had excelled in days they lived, and we will remember them as long as we can, just as we respect our heros of today.


Sorry, but the only joke here is MiPe's post. If he truly believes you can create some "serious statistical analysis" then I have only one thing to say. Go on, do it and post your analysis and findings here.

That would be a lot less disrepectful to their memories than the original post.

#38 Arturo Pereira

Arturo Pereira
  • Member

  • 843 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 April 2008 - 05:34

Quote

Originally posted by Nick Planas
These arguments are interesting, but largely futile - if Fangio were racing today, he would have been 'trained' in modern racing cars and would undoubtedly, all other things being equal, have the same capacity to make the best of them, as would Jimmy Clark. In the same way, if Schumacher or Senna had lived in the '50s, having come through a World War where young men died flying aircraft or driving tanks, they would have had the mentality to cope with the inherent dangers of that era.

However, what does it for me is HOW they would win, therefore Clark gets my vote, again and again. I was a huge Senna fan; loved his awesome qualifying laps, etc, but hated the way he would drive other people off the track to win at all costs. Same thing with Schumacher - not only trying to drive people off the track (too many times to recall) but not even having the grace to think he had done anything wrong. I actually think that, even if he was racing today, that sort of behaviour would simply not form part of his repertoire.

I regret having never seen Fangio race although my father did, so I am slightly biased towards Clark. But I would also acknowledge Fangio's own opinion that Clark was the best. I have also not mentioned Moss - if you asked me to really consider this, my top three would consist of Moss, Fangio and Clark, with Clark j-u-u-s-t winning.


I think that, early in 1958, during a practice session, Fangio noticed the bumpers of his car were not the usual ones. He asked a mechanic why they weren´t using the normal ones, and the mechanic said: "because we are being paid to use these ones". Fangio said this was one of the main reasons he decided to retire from active racing. Times were changing ....

I really doubt that Fangio would be racing nowadays with that way of thinking and, if he wouldn´t have that way of thinking, well, he wouldn´t be Fangio.

#39 Arturo Pereira

Arturo Pereira
  • Member

  • 843 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 13 April 2008 - 05:36

About the topic of the thread, and imho, to compare men like Fangio, Clark or Moss with Senna or Schumacher is out of the question. And this is not a matter of talent. Did Fangio, Clark or Moss have to take a rival off the track to win a single race ?? :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#40 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 April 2008 - 06:47

I think that ignores the overall shifts in society and specifically sport. They didn't invent bad driving, but because they were famous and followed it was tolerated.

I don't like comparing drivers from different eras, because that's the entire point of what makes auto racing so interesting to me. The amount it's changed in even the last 50 years is incredible.

Compare Grand Prix racing in 1966 to now, vs the 66 world cup to now. One is night and day, the other is a little thinner and has more hair gel.

#41 denthierry

denthierry
  • Member

  • 1,494 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 13 April 2008 - 07:01

Quote

Originally posted by jimm


I cannot diasgree more.

the cars were much harder to drive than today. No traction control nanny, no aero to keep the car planted over hills, no engineers talking you through things on the radio, no short sprints with low fuel loads, no safety fencing to keep you alive when you get it wrong, no soft tires (they were so hard they frequently used the same tires for most of a season)...yet you were still regularly going 180+.


Drivers of the past would have a hard time getting thier head around the electronics and the aero but they would have plenty of chances to adapt. MS would get on chance to get it wrong and he would be dead. No way he survives his Silverstone crash for example. In short, todays F1 is like a video game. Very clean, everything is opptomised instead of the driver having to drive around the car to make it fast. There is a recent interview where one of the engineers stated that current drivers don't really know how to make changes to make the car better like they did 15 yrs ago.


Additionally, because there were no re-feuling stops, you had to start with a very heavy car and take it to the end...this means your ride hieght and suspension and handling characteristics change the entire race.

As to Senna, if you think he is a joke you obviously never saw him race....


:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

#42 ghinzani

ghinzani
  • Member

  • 2,027 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 13 April 2008 - 07:40

Clark & Senna were never tainted with the cheating allegations, and indeed bald facts that surrounded Schumacher at BenElton and Ferrari, which is why he cant even be considered as the greatest Ferrari driver let alone WDC. That for me is Lauda, arguably should have been WDC 74 & 76 as well. Senna, Fangio, Clark, Prost, Lauda for me.

#43 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:17

Senna comitted the worst professional foul in professional motorsport, how anyone can praise him is beyond me. Fast yes, and a charismatic man; but a terribly inelegant racing driver.

#44 fines

fines
  • Member

  • 9,647 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:44

Quote

Originally posted by jimm
well, the idea was that during previous practice or during the race (I cannot remember) he had to be careful how far down he went because when he came back over the edge between the aprin and the track, it would heat the outside rear. More heat means more air pressure and a larger tire.

A larger tyre, yes, but not a different camber/stagger. Heating up a tyre will change the contact patch, usually to the point that grip is reduced. If the pressure was too low in the first place, it will increase grip.

If he had understeer/push, he would want the grip in the RF to increase relative to the RR, so he might have wished to induce oversteer/loose to heat up the RR, however if he would have been able to do this by changing his cornering technique, he would have already found a way to combat the push, wouldn't he? Otherwise he'd be heating up both right side tyres and the push wouldn't go away - your story doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid...

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Compare Grand Prix racing in 1966 to now, vs the 66 world cup to now. One is night and day, the other is a little thinner and has more hair gel.

:lol: :up:

#45 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:59

Quote

Originally posted by Michael Oliver


Gentlemen,

You need to get your hands on a new book which has recently come out. It is called 'Analysing Formula 1' by Roger Smith. He has spent his life analysing statistics, working for the well-known research firm AC Nielsen, and has come up with a very interesting set of conclusions, which I won't spoil by revealing on this forum. But he looks at the top guys by every possible measure and then combines it all into an all-time ranking at the end. His results are based purely on facts, not perceptions, unlike another book which has recently come out on a similar theme...

Michael


I think this is the book reviewed in Autosport a few weeks back that got somewhat slated because of it being based solely on statistics, which can never be measurable across eras.

#46 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:01

Quote

Originally posted by jimm
JPM has won in NASCAR, Sportscars, F1 and Cart but has only one a championship in 1 of those.


What sportscars has Montoya won in?

As far as I was aware his only tin-top or closed-wheel venture was in a Mercedes at Silverstone around 1997 or 1998 and he certainly didn't win it.

#47 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 68,652 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:46

Quote

Originally posted by Imperial


What sportscars has Montoya won in?

As far as I was aware his only tin-top or closed-wheel venture was in a Mercedes at Silverstone around 1997 or 1998 and he certainly didn't win it.


Daytona 24h, I believe. Whatever one thinks of the quality of the opposition compared to 30-40 years ago at that race, etc., he won it. :)

#48 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:52

In some ways I think the Daytona 24 is going through one of it's strongest periods.

#49 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 68,652 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 13 April 2008 - 10:52

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
In some ways I think the Daytona 24 is going through one of it's strongest periods.


Certainly things are better than in, say, post-Energy Crisis [OT but I don't think the effect of this on auto racing has been as well-covered as I would like it to have been, especially given today's political climate*]. But winning the 24 Hours of Daytona does not give credit to Montoya as a multidisciplinarian (did I just make that word up? :confused: ) in the same way that it did to Gurney or Andretti.

*Pun or cliché, it's your choice.

#50 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 13 April 2008 - 11:00

But at the same time, given that racing is now such a specialist discipline, I think guys who dramatically change career arcs (ie Montoya going to NASCAR) is an even more impressive now than it was before.