1069 replies to this topic

[Ben24]

At the risk of repeating something that has already been mentioned in the last 20+ pages, I'll say that the most popularly stated myth is that Schumacher made up for a lack of outright pace by being such a well rounded driver. The reality is that whilst he had solid race craft, the thing that really made him stand out was relentlessly quick outright pace. The reason that this myth exists is mainly because he drove through a period of tyre wars - where he was much more often than not on tyres that were better in race pace than qualifying pace - and then through a period of qualifying on race fuel - where he undisputedly qualified with more fuel than most of the drivers ahead of him and missed out on a lot of poles.

 

I think that by far Schumacher's biggest strength was his outright speed and if he had driven in almost any other era he would have broken pole records before he broke race win records. If you compare his quali pace vs his team mates I think only Senna and maybe Verstappen really have an argument to be considered better qualifiers than him over the last 40 years.

[Grippy]

Found this chart on Reddit

 

from here

https://www.reddit.c...n_safety_in_f1/

 

I don't know if there are any charts for career ending injuries which I assume would be a lot higher.

 

edit; for clarity, the blue points are deaths each year and the red markers are when the safety feature was made mandatory.

edit-edit; Driver deaths.

Edited by Grippy, 11 July 2024 - 17:00.

[Collombin]

1 death in 1960?

Interesting to see it use intervals of 0.5 deaths on the y-axis.

[Ben24]

Found this chart on Reddit

 

from here

https://www.reddit.c...n_safety_in_f1/

 

I don't know if there are any charts for career ending injuries which I assume would be a lot higher.

 

edit; for clarity, the blue points are deaths each year and the red markers are when the safety feature was made mandatory.

edit-edit; Driver deaths.

Are you suggesting that the myth is that certain safety features reduce the fatality rate? If so I think you need to at least standardise it to deaths per race for a fair comparison considering that seasons are now 4x as long as they were to begin with.

[Grippy]

1 death in 1960?

Interesting to see it use intervals of 0.5 deaths on the y-axis.

 

Looking at Wiki there should be 2 for 1960, so now i'm doubting the veracity of the rest of the data...

 

The Reddit thread says the graph automatically added the 0.5 when the poster increased the height of the vertical axis.

[Grippy]

Are you suggesting that the myth is that certain safety features reduce the fatality rate? If so I think you need to at least standardise it to deaths per race for a fair comparison considering that seasons are now 4x as long as they were to begin with.

No, sorry, I was posting it in response to the Jackie Stewart quote about the dangers during his time racing, but it took me so long to post (because this site doesn't accept .PNGs) that I forgot to explain why I was posting.

[Collombin]

now i'm doubting the veracity of the rest of the data...

As Siffert and De Angelis don't seem to count, it's bound to be WDC (1950s Indy is clearly included) deaths in practice and race. That seems to fit, though I'm struggling to think of a second death in 1974. If they've included Revson then that's inconsistent.

[garoidb]

As Siffert and De Angelis don't seem to count, it's bound to be WDC (1950s Indy is clearly included) deaths in practice and race. That seems to fit, though I'm struggling to think of a second death in 1974. If they've included Revson then that's inconsistent.

 

Yes. For our purposes, in pondering Jackie Stewart's statement (which I realise wasn't the intention of whoever made the graph), all deaths in the top-line motorsport events and tests that Jackie and his peers tended to participate in would count. That would include non-championship F1 races, F1 tests, Tasman series and even Le Mans and Can Am accidents (although I can't think of any). I don't know if he would include the US Indy 500 drivers, but he probably did count Mike Spence. I am just putting myself in his shoes and imagining that he was interested in the overall risk of death from all his racing and testing activities, rather than just in one series.

[eibyyz]

As Siffert and De Angelis don't seem to count, it's bound to be WDC (1950s Indy is clearly included) deaths in practice and race. That seems to fit, though I'm struggling to think of a second death in 1974. If they've included Revson then that's inconsistent.

 

Koinigg.  Gruesome.  And after Cevert the year before, negligent.

[Grippy]

Looking at Wiki there should be 2 for 1960, so now i'm doubting the veracity of the rest of the data...

 

The Reddit thread says the graph automatically added the 0.5 when the poster increased the height of the vertical axis.

A quote from the Reddit thread

"

calvins48

• 3y ago• Edited 3y ago

It's worth noting that the dates shown are not always when the safety mechanism was first introduced, but when it became mandatory. For example, Fire-resistant Race Suits were around before 1975, but that was the year they became mandatory.

I know I've missed a lot of other safety innovations, such as removable steering wheels, but I didn't want to overly clutter the whole graph. Post-1993 gets a little busy.

EDIT: In response to others, sorry for the 0.5 increments. The chart added them automatically when I increased its size.

EDIT 2: The dates are when the accident occurred that led to the driver's death. I'm aware that some drivers didn't die at the scene, such as Bianchi pronounced dead in 2015 even though his accident occurred in 2014.

EDIT 3: The only deaths included are those that occurred at a Grand Prix. Deaths during Testing and events not part of the World Championship are not included. "

[George Costanza]

At the risk of repeating something that has already been mentioned in the last 20+ pages, I'll say that the most popularly stated myth is that Schumacher made up for a lack of outright pace by being such a well rounded driver. The reality is that whilst he had solid race craft, the thing that really made him stand out was relentlessly quick outright pace. The reason that this myth exists is mainly because he drove through a period of tyre wars - where he was much more often than not on tyres that were better in race pace than qualifying pace - and then through a period of qualifying on race fuel - where he undisputedly qualified with more fuel than most of the drivers ahead of him and missed out on a lot of poles.

I think that by far Schumacher's biggest strength was his outright speed and if he had driven in almost any other era he would have broken pole records before he broke race win records. If you compare his quali pace vs his team mates I think only Senna and maybe Verstappen really have an argument to be considered better qualifiers than him over the last 40 years.

This is excellent insight. However I do believe Mika Hakkinen was faster than Michael over one lap, but on a whole race, Michael was faster. So I think if I were to select drivers that were quicker than Michael over one lap, it would be Ayrton and Mika. That's it. I can't put Max there because it is a different time and era.

[Collombin]

Yes. For our purposes, in pondering Jackie Stewart's statement (which I realise wasn't the intention of whoever made the graph), all deaths in the top-line motorsport events and tests that Jackie and his peers tended to participate in would count. That would include non-championship F1 races, F1 tests, Tasman series and even Le Mans and Can Am accidents (although I can't think of any). I don't know if he would include the US Indy 500 drivers, but he probably did count Mike Spence. I am just putting myself in his shoes and imagining that he was interested in the overall risk of death from all his racing and testing activities, rather than just in one series.

Jackie often also said that he and Helen counted 57 drivers that they knew (not all as friends) that had been killed during his career, with 3 very close friends - which would probably be Clark, Rindt and Cevert.

[DeKnyff]

Found this chart on Reddit

 

from here

https://www.reddit.c...n_safety_in_f1/

 

I don't know if there are any charts for career ending injuries which I assume would be a lot higher.

 

edit; for clarity, the blue points are deaths each year and the red markers are when the safety feature was made mandatory.

edit-edit; Driver deaths.

 

It doesn't count testing fatalities (Depailler, de Angelis and others before)

Edited by DeKnyff, 11 July 2024 - 21:17.

[Bleu]

There was no fuel-saving in the refuelling era.

[PlatenGlass]

That there was a general uptrend Keke Rosberg's results in 1986 once John Barnard had helped him get the car to his liking.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 16 July 2024 - 09:34.

[7MGTEsup]

There was a general uptrend Keke Rosberg's results in 1986 once John Barnard had helped him get the car to his liking.

 

Shame he ran out of fuel more often than not.

[piket]

Shame he ran out of fuel more often than not.

I think this could be defined as a myth. He ran out of fuel one time more than Prost . San Marino or smth. All his other retirements were mechanical trouble , if I am not mistaken.

[7MGTEsup]

I think this could be defined as a myth. He ran out of fuel one time more than Prost . San Marino or smth. All his other retirements were mechanical trouble , if I am not mistaken.

 

I think he ran out of fuel 3 times and had to save fuel towards the end of the race a few times also.

 

It just sticks in my mind from watching a video of the 1986 season that Rosberg ran out of fuel more often than other drivers. It probably is a myth, I will have to go watch the 1986 season review to refresh my memory.

 

It does make me laugh when people think fuel saving is a new thing and drivers drove at 100% from lights to flag in the olden days. Just watch the 1985 race at Imola, nearly everyone ran out of fuel.

[Ferrim]

In the same interview Prost also told that he already decided before the German GP that he would retire at the end of the season. But he didn't want to tell Williams until September to make sure that Williams wouldn't start to favor Hill against him in the Championship fight.

Which ironically is a myth - before the German GP, Prost was a massive 39 points ahead of Hill, with 70 to go. I can believe he came up with that (after all, he still argues that his car wasn't that much better than the opposition...), but it doesn't make it true.

[Henri Greuter]

Which ironically is a myth - before the German GP, Prost was a massive 39 points ahead of Hill, with 70 to go. I can believe he came up with that (after all, he still argues that his car wasn't that much better than the opposition...), but it doesn't make it true.

 

I don't know the margins out of the top of my head right now but in 1983 Prost had quite a margin in point lead over Nelson Piquet, only to see all of that coming apart in the final part of the season, so it was not something entirely new to him to loose a title to another driver despite a massive point lead early on in the season..

BTW, Piquet did something similar with Reutemann in 1981.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 16 July 2024 - 17:02.