86 replies to this topic

[Jerome]

Could Jim Clark have beaten the New Tech Kids on the Block?

I’ll give you the short and the long version.

The short version:

Would Jim Clark (if he had not been killed), however good he was, have beaten drivers like Stewart and Fittipaldi if he, like them, would not have concentrated more on his developing skills? Based on the assumption that from 1966 on, cars got more and more complicated and thus needed more developing work. And that Clark did not particularly like the tech side of driving.

My guess is that Stewart, to my Clarks own bemusement, would have started beating Clark from 1969 onwards. Clark then could have reacted in three ways: defiant (‘I show them tech-kids I don’t need that fancy engineering stuff), agree that even old dogs can learn new tricks, or the last option, retire.

Please discuss.

The longer version:

Jim Clark, according to most the best driver of the sixties, was a natural, fast driver. He arguably was not very into the technical side of motorracing. He was virtually unbeatable in the 1,5 litre F1 cars. Which, perhaps, were not very complicated.

It is my impression (but I can be wrong) that from the arrival of the heavier 3 litre F-1 cars the knowledge about and use of dampers, camber, later the aerodynamic knowledge of wings, etc, etc, was more and more necessary. And it seems that Clark just wanted to get in the car, found out how it was driving, and then drive it. Here is a telling tale from another thread:

Alan McCall, his mechanic, from Thoroughbred & Classic Cars, December 1999:
"Mr. Chapman would just give him a real soft, pliable ultra-grip car and he was about the only guy in the world who could drive that sort of stuff. We only changed Jimmy's new Lotus 49 twice during the whole 1967 season. At the German GP I tightened the very small real bar up half an inch to reduce the understeer. He did one lap, came in, and asked for it to be changed back. At Silverstone for the British GP, it was decided to give the front wheel more negative camber to help him round 180 mph Woodcote where it was pushing out a little bit towards the grass. We went up from a quarter to a third of a degree - that much. (...) I was the first to get to his car after the race and he jumped out and put his arm round my shoulder, but he didn't say hello, good car or anything - he just said: 'That was a mistake, get it out of the front, will you...' And he'd just won the Grand Prix!"

Please discuss.

[Dave Wright]

Rindt wasn't really a technical driver but was fully capable of giving Stewart a run for his money, especially in 1970. I think Jimmy would have done just fine Wasn't Chapman his technical consultant?

The story you include can also be interpreted that Jimmy knew what he wanted in terms of set-up. If he was just content to drive any setup he wouldn't have asked for the changes to be reversed.

[David M. Kane]

So are you saying he was a lot like Ronnie Peterson?

[slucas]

From what I've read it seems the team engineers do all the
talking these days and the young driver is told to drive the car
and keep his suggestions to himself.
I doubt Mr. Chapman would have told Mr.Clark that but it
may be that he would have done just fine.

[TIPO61]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Could Jim Clark have beaten the New Tech Kids on the Block?

Would Jim Clark (if he had not been killed)...Please discuss.

Jerome, he was NOT..."killed."

No one sought him out and "killed" him.

He lost his life in an accident.
You as a wordsmith should know better.
We all should.
Just my coupla pennies.

[Rosemayer]

Considering all the different types of cars Jim drove over his career Ithink he could have won in anything.(Lotus 40 and 30 for examples)

[Twin Window]

It's clear that any reference to Jim Clark guarantees an emotional response, so I will mention early-on that we should attempt to remain calm during his dialogue. Please.

(Remember what happened with the last buoyant Clark thread...)

[Paul Parker]

Comparisons between different eras are almost impossible to define accurately and objectively.

Instead I will offer my inevitably subjective, but I hope, dispassionate opinion on Clark v the rest. I was lucky enough to witness the final years of Moss and onwards so hopefully this will be of interest. JC was the natural successor to SCM and had a very similar driving style, early into corners, possessed of incredible finesse, very easy on his machinery (like Fangio and better than Stirling I believe in this area) and was a superior wet weather driver. He was not in my opinion quite so convincing in two seaters as in F1/F2 and relatively early in his career was not as quick as Salvadori in the Zagato Aston at the 1961 Goodwood TT for instance, I was there as a spectator.

In 1962 of course the unwieldy development Zagato got the better of him during the 1962 TT and he took out Surtees in the Ferrari GTO right in front of me at Madgwick. In 1964 Brabham pressured him into a mistake at the Aintree 200 and at the 1965 Brands Hatch ROC he crashed trying to stave off Gurney's Brabham, something I also witnessed. He was not apparently as bomb proof under extreme pressure as say Moss, Surtees or later Stewart.

He had a very real advantage with the Lotus 25 and its successors that put their power down better than the opposition, plus the Climax FWMV had superior torque. Nevertheless he was the star performer and would have won the 1962, 1964 and 1967 World Championships as well if his cars had not let him down, although I believe that Surtees would have been a permanent threat had he been driving an equivalent car (when JC first drove the Lotus 18 in GPs during 1960 he was not as quick as Surtees who would have won the 1960 Portugese GP but for a fuel leak that caused him to crash).

By the time of the 3 litre formula Clark had arguably reached his peak, indeed years later Amon opined just this in an article (can't remember where now). However I think he had enough in reserve to match the younger Stewart, although sometimes I think JYS is not given enough credit for his amazing versatility and speed in everything he drove.

The problem remains however that latter day motor sport has become very narrowly focused as we all know and the technicalities, extraordinary braking and general performance levels have increased so exponentially in the intervening period that a 1960s driver even at their very best would find it hard to cope. Notwithstanding this I think a Clark could still cut the mustard (sorry for the cliches).

It is a matter of opinion and perhaps a little personal prejudice as to whether our modern heroes would manage so well with the period Spa, Nurburgring et al as their illustrious predescessors.

[ex Rhodie racer]

It is absolutely impossible, perhaps even foolish, to compare different generations simply because of the technical developments that influence our sport. At the end of the day though, any of the champions, past as well as present, would have excelled, irrespective of which generation they were born into.
With a man like Colin Chapman behind him, it was fairly irrellevant whether or not Clark understood the technical side of things. He didn´t have to. He obviously knew when a car wasn´t doing what he wanted it to do, and how to convey that imfomation to Chapman and his mechanics.
I watched Jim Clark on several occasions when he came out to SA and I was always of the opinion he was head and shoulders above the others of his generation. Had he not lost his life that fateful day in Germany, he would have ruled for many more years, with one proviso, that he raced with people who understood his interpretation of things. In other words for Chapman.
That would have been the key I feel.

[Jerome]

Thanx for the reply's.

For clarity's sake: I don't think Jim Clark was seriously lacking in the technical department. He was a smart man. I just wonder if he would have the tenacity to do lap after lap after lap to make the car quicker, comparing tyres, spring ratings... In a way, I compare him to John McEnroe. He was the best tennisplayer of his time, but he got regularly beaten by guys he knew had less talent than him, like Lendl, Gilbert, and who he loathed, but they sat more in the gym than he.

Back on Clark: I never met Clark, never saw him race, only know him from second hand courses. So I try not to sound to conceitfull when I say: He just did not seem someone who would have enjoyed and excelled in extensive testing. But perhaps others here can make me wiser.

Good night for now

[MPea3]

To my mind who knows and who cares. Every generation has drivers who rise to the top in the conditions they raced under. The great ones made the most of the situation that the sport presented them. Whether Clark would have been the best in the pre-WW1 cars of the earlier pioneers, or the Auto Unions and Mercedes cars of the 30's, or today's high tech machinery doesn't matter to me. He established his greatness in the cars of the 60's, and how he would have done in another time is of no interest to me.

[ex Rhodie racer]

I don´t know why you bother replying to this thread if it is of no interest to you.

[lil'chris]

Originally posted by David M. Kane
So are you saying he was a lot like Ronnie Peterson?

EXACTLY what I thought as I read Jeromes post

[Jerome]

No, another time for Clark is not what I am thinking about. His career, though, was cut short. And I am curious how he would have fared in 1970, for example. He could have made that, couldn't he?

I just thought of another point to make my deliberations more clear, at least to the people who have read the Unfair Advantage by Mark Donohue. If you read some chapters in there about the misery Donohue put himself through to get a car right... and then just imagine Jim Clark being thrown into the equation.... Again, I've never met Clark, so perhaps I am very much mistaken. But in my imagination I can see him raise a suspicious eyebrow.

[Simpson RX1]

I don't really know how qualified I am to reply to this thread, but I'll have a go.

I just missed out on remembering Jim Clark as a contemporary and have only seen him on film or read about him, but I get the impression he was the kind of driver that knew what he wanted from a car and, as long as he got it, he was competitive.

I think he could've remained at the top of his game well into the 70s, when aerodynamic aids were less about the overall performance of the car and more about the personal preference of the driver; had he not died, then his career in F1 would've been coming to an end around the same time as Graham Hill, and before the sport became more about technical advantages than driver input.

What he would've done with turbos/ground effect etc isn't worth the speculation, because even if he'd lived, he wouldn't have been driving then.

[canon1753]

Jimmy Clark would have done just fine against Emmo and JYS at the height of his powers. Jim, like all of the greats, had what it took to adapt to the new technologies. He drove blindingly fast while not being hard on the equipment, which will win WDCs in the 60's or 2007.

The only question would have been about his own motivation. Would he have retired in, say 1972 after winning the WDC for the 7th time? We'll never know and that is the pity of it.

[ovfi]

I totally agree with canon1753, and I'm brazilian... Emmo was a fabulous racing driver, but Clark was much more than fabulous, he could make things that no other driver could, things like to make a pole with a car that Peter Arundell couldn't even classify (and Arundell made 2nd place with Clark's car), or to control a spinout at near 200 mph at Indy and continue to race without stopping the car (I love to see this movie), the list is huge...

[David M. Kane]

The better question is, how would Michael Schmucher do in the Lotus 25 IF you could talk him into getting into it?;)

BTW, I agree wit Ovfi 100%...

[ovfi]

The better question is, how would Michael Schmucher do in the Lotus 25 IF you could talk him into getting into it?

I think Schumacher wouldn't be a challenge to Clark, both driving Lotus 25, but Senna...Senna was very similar to Clark, he could drive well on bad cars too, was faster than everybody in the rain (like Clark), and loved to take racing risks that discouraged other drivers (again , like Clark).
There's another driver very similar to Clark and Senna, the trio were so similar that all of them ended their lifes racing; this guy is Alberto Ascari, I didn't saw him racing (I was a little child in his time), but my father told me a lot of stories of him, all very similar at what I saw from Clark and Senna.

[supergrobo82]

In the right car, Jim Clark would be just fine. Like Senna at his peak, he had that ability to take the car by the scruff of the neck and get the best out of it.
It's quite difficult comparing other drivers from different F1 periods, but Jim Clark is one of easier ones due to his sheer speed and ability.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by slucas
From what I've read it seems the team engineers do all the
talking these days and the young driver is told to drive the car
and keep his suggestions to himself.

Reminds me of Keke Rosberg and Juan Pablo Montoya... Both of these excellent drivers "failed" with the same team - McLaren.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by ovfi


I think Schumacher wouldn't be a challenge to Clark, both driving Lotus 25, but Senna...Senna was very similar to Clark, he could drive well on bad cars too, was faster than everybody in the rain (like Clark), and loved to take racing risks that discouraged other drivers (again , like Clark).
There's another driver very similar to Clark and Senna, the trio were so similar that all of them ended their lifes racing; this guy is Alberto Ascari, I didn't saw him racing (I was a little child in his time), but my father told me a lot of stories of him, all very similar at what I saw from Clark and Senna.

I totally disagree.. Schumacker would have challenged anyone, including Clark and Senna in anything that remotely resembled a F1 car. In fact, I have always thought he already had Senna´s measure before he died.

[SpitfireJEJ]

Actually in the article referred to, Amon said that Clark was "slightly past his best" by 1967. However, we know that Jim adapted his style with the fragile Lotus 49 in order to garner some reliability out of it so I wonder if Amon was factoring that into his opinion? I have no doubt that Clark would not have been lacking in testing miles. I believe one of Doug's books mentions that Jim sometimes found it a chore - but nonetheless he was competitive to his fingertips and would have done all that was necessary - and more - to maintain his edge. With regard to how he would have faired in the radical Lotus 72, well, if Rindt could make it work, so surely could Jim. That said, I believe he would have moved on (to Brabham or McLaren as discussed elsewhere) or retired by the end of 1971 or so. Sheer guesswork of course.

Slightly off topic. I wonder how really effective the original wings actually were? They were, after all, largely tagged onto existing designs rather than the whole car being planned around them as in later years. Then when the high wings were banned, the engine cover style replacements could not have been very effective, at least initially surely? Ergo, was the 1969 version of the Lotus 49, fundamentally, all that different to the original? Wouldn't tyre progress and slightly higher engine power have accounted largely for the diminishing lap times around then? If that is the case, Jim Clark could have dealt with anyone - including the excellent Sir JYS - who I recall has himself stated that he felt that only in 1969 would he have been ready to mount a serious challenge had Clark lived. What a season '69 would have been with Jim in the mix.

[James Page]

Originally posted by ovfi
I think Schumacher wouldn't be a challenge to Clark, both driving Lotus 25

And I don't imagine Clark would instantly be on Schumacher's pace in last year's Ferrari. But herein's the problem of comparing drivers from different eras. As has been mentioned countless times before, it can't really be done.

The job of being a racing driver might well have changed over the years (from the variety of cars they used to have the chance to race, to the recent rise of telemetry, onboard electronics and the obvious change in driving ethics), but I don't think you can say Schumacher, Alonso or whoever is any less talented because of it.

[James Page]

Originally posted by SpitfireJEJ
I wonder how really effective the original wings actually were? They were, after all, largely tagged onto existing designs rather than the whole car being planned around them as in later years.

In the old BBC series 'The Power and the Glory', there's an interview with Jackie Oliver about Rouen in 1968 (?), and he said the difference between using the wings and not was astonishing.

[ian senior]

Originally posted by SpitfireJEJ
What a season '69 would have been with Jim in the mix.

That's the interesting bit for me, but it would have depended on what would have happened with the development and introduction of the Lotus 63, which as we know distracted Lotus to the point where they didn't produce a completely effective challenge to Stewart and the Matra. If Jim had been around, and had told Chapman early on that the car was a waste of time, would Chunky have abandoned the 63 earlier? Or would Jim simply have got on with the job and tried to drive around the car's problems?

The 63 was an interesting technical diversion, but one that wasn't really needed - the 49 was still on the game in 1969, and would have been ever more so with Clark at the wheel.

[Ray Bell]

I don't buy this suggestion that Jim Clark didn't care to sort cars out...

It simply doesn't make sense to me. A car has to be at least somewhere near its finely tuned best to be competitive.

Look at the times. Tyres were changing rapidly, wheel sizes expanding exponentially. Somebody had to be taking it to the circuit and getting it near its best or it wouldn't be a winning car.

In short, Chapman might have been a genius, but I don't think he could work miracles without some Clark input.

[ensign14]

He was fast in front-engined sports cars, fast in front-engined touring cars, fast in 1.5l rear-engined GP cars, fast in 3l rear-engined GP cars, fast in rear-engined Indycars. No reason why he wouldn't've been fast in wingy cars.

[Limits]

One quote from Fangio, when he was talking about his famous race at the Nordschleife, made me realize one huge difference between yesterdays racing and today:

Very often I realized that if you really were in a hurry you could sometimes take some curves a gear higher than usual. Risky, but effective. You didn't get that comforting sensation of grip, but you went in much faster and came out like a gunblast if you chose the line properly.

http://nurburgring.org.uk/fangio.html

What it means, to me, is that as motorracing has evolved, as the cars has become safer, the drivers have simply started to drive on the physicals limits of the cars rather than on the mental limits of themselves. You don't see anyone passing on the outside these days and the drivers does not only know what gear to use, but also exactly what revs "Then we take the fourth corner at third gear in 162km/h". There is not room for "If I am in a hurry I use the fourth gear instead".

It does not make Fangio and Clark any lesser as drivers, it was just simply different realities.

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Ray Bell

In short, Chapman might have been a genius, but I don't think he could work miracles without some Clark input.

That's true, but to a great extent, you could also replace Jim's name with Andretti, Fittipaldi and several others in that sentence. I saw Chapman talking to drivers, it was like a Vulcan mind-melding experience from Star Trek, they seemed to know each other's thoughts. As Ensign says, Jim was an all-rounder in much the same way as Sir Stirling, he was the best of his generation, and would have coped with anything that came along.

[Ray Bell]

Who was it used that term?

"Races seemed to surrender to Jim Clark."

Limits... I think you're transgressing realities there...

[Jerome]

Aha,

This thread is alive and kicking. Thanx for the responses. Now some further remarks (and answers to some 'questions' of sort)

Yes, Clark won in front engined, mid engined, rear engined cars, and he even would have won in a soapboxrace. But... It is fascinating to see in Mark Donahue's career and book The Unfair Advantage how in the midsixties the cars got more complicated, the drivers and engineers more knowledgeable, and the development of cars more timeconsuming.
Clark would have tested, I'm sure, I'm sure he could have sorted cars out rather nicely. But...

If Clark and Stewart would have jumped in the same car, and drove away, I'm sure Clark would win 7 out of 10.

But now.

Imagine Clark in the Lotus Ford 49b. And Jacky Stewart in the Matra-Ford, but then something designed by a young engineer plucked away from Lotus. Say the car is a Matra 72. Complicated, very complicated, and in essence and unset up a dragon to drive. Say Stewarts sorts the car out, reaches it full potential... he would beat Clark. Not dramatically. But in a convincing way.

What I mean to say is that from about 67 on, the second best car on the grid with the best driver (with or without a good setup) could win a race, but not the championship anymore (bar accidents of the driver in the best car, ofcourse).

Two posters mentioned Ronnie Peterson. Ofcourse I thought of him when I started this thread. I just want careful not to place items in this thread that would make this thread go screamingly off topic.

But now that he is mentioned:

Peterson was very similar, indeed, only not of Clarks class. Say he was a Clark Minor. Look at his career. Did not take it very long for him to actually win a Grand Prix? Did his career not stall at Tyrrel?
And furthermore, I know about the teamorders at Lotus, and for a long time I have believed that 'poor old Ronnie' was held back in favour of Andretti. I am wiser and older now and I believe that when Lotus would not have had teamorders in 1978, Andretti would have beaten Peterson in the worldchampionship. I rate them about as equal, but Andretti was much better at developing and setting up cars. And when they would have had the liberty to do battle, Andretti would have held back a lot of knowledge to himself, wisely.

Ooh. Now I hope I won't get flamed....

[kayemod]

Big flaw in your argument I'm afraid. Chapman & Jim could communicate to perfection, but Chapman and Peterson couldn't, at least they never could about car development. Team loved Ronnie, but they despaired of him in equal measure. Jim was the perfect round peg in a round hole.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Limits... I think you're transgressing realities there...

On the contrary. I think limits has hit the nail on the head. Technology had advanced to the point where the driver is no longer the most important part of the package. Whereas, in Fangio´s, and to a lesser extent, Clark´s period, they most definitely were. I didn´t understand what limit meant at first, but after giving the matter a bit more thought, I agree wholeheartedly.

[rl1856]

I feel that Clark would have remained superior to his competion for at least several years more had he remained alive.

His dislike of testing was well known, yet take a look at the 49. Hill tested and developed it into a raceworthy vehicle. At it's first race, Hill did outqualify Clark, but Clark had essentially stepped into it "cold" on the first day of practice. If testing gives one an advantage, then why were Clark's results in 1967 so much better than Hill's, in the same car ?

Some have said that Clark may have felt more comfortable in a lower powered car. On the other hand look at his performance at Indy.... In 1963, 64 and 65 Indy cars pocessed 2x the HP of a 1.5L F-1 car, yet we now how well he did there. In 1963 he did have a much better car. By 1964 and certainly by 1965, the top teams had the same engine (Ford 4cam) and roughly equivalent cars. Yet Clark was still the best.

I think it is a given the Clark would have won the 1968 WDC. How he would have faired in 1969 is anyones guess. Certainly the Lotus 63, and attempts at running a 3 car team (Mario Andretti) caused Lotus to loose focus. On the other hand Rindt was a serious challenger to Stewart. If one rates Clark as superior to Rindt, then the differance compared to Stewart/Matra is less and maybe even tipped to favor Clark.

Other issues to consider if Clark had lived: after winning the 68 WDC, would Clark have actually left Lotus ? Probably not. Would Hill have stayed, maybe not. Would Rindt have moved to Lotus, less likely and would have depended on whether Hill stayed or not. Would Fittapaldi have emerged with Lotus in 1970- who knows ?

The earlier point about current cars allowing the driver to race much closer to their personal limit is instructive. While the cars now are mindbogglingly advanced, it is really no different than in Clark's era: a better car has a higher theoretical limit and the best driver is the one who can get consistently closer to that higher limit than his competition. In my mind Clark demonstrated this ability time and time again.

I have no doubt that had Clark lived to voluntarily retire from raceing, he would have retained his supperiority for many years after 1968.

Best,

Ross

[Wolf]

I would raise the point whether things are really that simple as we like to think of them- whether setups and driver-car interaction really became much more important, or just more talked about. Moss in one of his books writes how he liked to set up his car to give him best lap time, even if it meant that it had embarrassing understeer on the corner in front of grand-stands (I would *ass*ume he would be speaking of Spa- last corner being the only slow corner of the lap). And, of course, that anecdote with Jaguar mechanics and adjusting tyre pressures when he joined the team.

Just search for Doug's excellent post on BRM setups and the remarkable difference between Hill's and Ginther's setup, for further proof of that. I would venture to guess that it has been norm that drivers set up the car to their liking, only not much attention has been paid to it (a chore, as Clark might have thought of it, or 'mundane').

[Glengavel]

Originally posted by SpitfireJEJ
Actually in the article referred to, Amon said that Clark was "slightly past his best" by 1967. However, we know that Jim adapted his style with the fragile Lotus 49 in order to garner some reliability out of it so I wonder if Amon was factoring that into his opinion? I have no doubt that Clark would not have been lacking in testing miles.

I thought Graham Hill did all the testing on the Lotus 49? In fact, I've just checked Eric Dymock's book and he says that Clark first saw the car (never mind drive it) at the Dutch GP meeting!

[fuzzi]

Graham Hill did all the initial testing of the 49 because Jim Clark was living as a tax exile in Paris and could not come to Britain for more than a few days in the year.

My own biased view is that Clark's natural curiosity about racing cars would have meant he was able to continue to get more out of any car than others. That being the case I'm sure he would have sailed through the early wing era and blitzed the field in the Lotus 72.

He was quoted by Denis Jenkinson as asking "Why are the others so slow?" not in any arrogant way but from sheer puzzlement. He was so far ahead of the rest that he was on his limit for only a tiny proportion of the time.

[Limits]

Originally posted by fuzzi
He was quoted by Denis Jenkinson as asking "Why are the others so slow?" not in any arrogant way but from sheer puzzlement. He was so far ahead of the rest that he was on his limit for only a tiny proportion of the time.

There it is again. "on his limit for only a tiny proportion of the time.". That means that his car was driven nowhere near it's limits. I am a great fan of Jim Clark, but I am quite sure that any, all, of todays F1 drivers are a lot better than Jim was from a pure technical driving point of view.That is how it evolves. A club level motocross rider of today is propably faster than the World Champion 1968. Fangio, Clark and the others set borders for others to reach. Then came JYS and set new benchmarks, then Lauda, Gilles, Prost, Senna, Schumi.... Clark would not have been as fast as he was had Fangio never existed and without Clark, JYS would have been a bit slower...

[Jerome]

Ooh Limits, that's a big risk you are taking there. I wait with baided breath.

And, Limits is perhaps right when he writes: I would raise the point whether things are really that simple as we like to think of them- whether setups and driver-car interaction really became much more important, or just more talked about.

But I still believe otherwise.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Limits
There it is again. "on his limit for only a tiny proportion of the time.". That means that his car was driven nowhere near it's limits. I am a great fan of Jim Clark, but I am quite sure that any, all, of todays F1 drivers are a lot better than Jim was from a pure technical driving point of view.That is how it evolves. A club level motocross rider of today is propably faster than the World Champion 1968. Fangio, Clark and the others set borders for others to reach. Then came JYS and set new benchmarks, then Lauda, Gilles, Prost, Senna, Schumi.... Clark would not have been as fast as he was had Fangio never existed and without Clark, JYS would have been a bit slower...

Jerome didn't have to wait long!

I think that this statement ('on his limits for only a tiny proportion of the time') is a relative thing, and that it's not reflective of the car's limits at all.

After all, look at Black Jack. He drove right through the 1.5-litre formula without winning a WDC race. He won a couple of non-championship events, so he must have still been keen to win. He had extremely good cars, so he must have been capable of getting to the front of the field.

Was he driving off the pace? Hardly!

And he wasn't resting on his laurels, either. After all, he went out in '66 and won the title, he tried to beat his team mate to it in '67 and he was wringing the neck of his car in '70 to do it again.

That statement, then, is only relating to the very tip of the iceberg in Clark's case, emphasising that he was quicker than all the others.

[ex Rhodie racer]

Originally posted by Limits
There it is again. "on his limit for only a tiny proportion of the time.". That means that his car was driven nowhere near it's limits. I am a great fan of Jim Clark, but I am quite sure that any, all, of todays F1 drivers are a lot better than Jim was from a pure technical driving point of view.That is how it evolves. A club level motocross rider of today is propably faster than the World Champion 1968. Fangio, Clark and the others set borders for others to reach. Then came JYS and set new benchmarks, then Lauda, Gilles, Prost, Senna, Schumi.... Clark would not have been as fast as he was had Fangio never existed and without Clark, JYS would have been a bit slower...

Limits. You obviously know what you are talking about. I would love to know who you are because you obviously have a better understanding of racing than most.

[Doug Nye]

From what I recall of JC as a man I just doubt he would have sustained much interest in racing high-tech cars had they fallen into his period, especially with the all-pervasive aura of sponsor-pleasing bullshit which occupies so much of the current drivers' time...and so much of their ambition. It would be good to hear Graham Gauld's thoughts on this. Of us all here present he knew Jimmy best...

DCN

[Wolf]

Jerome, that was me talking about setups. Look at this thread- Doug has different springs, different packers and different roll bar stiffness for Hill and Ginther ('63 Gold Cup race), surely a proof that each of them had a well developed and fine-tuned setup to suit their driving style. I'd be curios to know e.g. what driver input went into creating Vanwall's different setups for different tracks... In that thread I mention that Kieft 500 was quite adjustable (OTTOMH, I'd think it was Moss in 'Design & Behaviour...').

[canon1753]

I guess part of the question really is the Andretti statement "Fast is Fast" true? Jim Clark was the fastest of his era, and made it look almost effortless. With time to acclimate to the new cars, he'd, I'm convinced, be on the pace today. As I stated above, there is no doubt in my mind that Jim would have continued to win.

[dbltop]

If I understand what Limit is saying, it is that todays drivers are on the absolute limit more often during a race then someone in Clark's era or Fangio's era. Fair enough, I would agree with that assessment. But I must add that MSchumacher would not have been on the absolute limit very often in a Maserati 250F or a Lotus 25 in their respective eras. There weren't luxuries like guard rails or sand traps to rely on. A driver at 100% all the time in the 50s and 60s meant a short career.

[Jerome]

Ofcourse the question I'm not putting is: how would Clark have faired in the modern F1 car. Just fantastic, I think. Just as Rod Laver, could he have been cloned to grow up in our own time, would have given Federer a run for his money.

However, Clark against a car like the 72, but then from another team... Sometimes driver live on the edge of a changing era. If they are lucky they cross that line (Clark lost his life before he could). And even stellar talent can't sometimes make up for the changes.

An example. John McEnroe was by far the best tennisplayer in 1983, and also in 1984. It just so happened that 1. Players emerged using the graphite big sweetspot racket. 2. Players emerged who were even stronger fitter than Bjon Borg in his heyday. Mac was just bombed of the court, and he could not change, though he really tried to. He tried bigger rackets, he tried big fysical workouts, it just wasn't for him. Untill 83, the equation was perfect. Anything new to it just diluted it.

[Limits]

Originally posted by dbltop
If I understand what Limit is saying, it is that todays drivers are on the absolute limit more often during a race then someone in Clark's era or Fangio's era. Fair enough, I would agree with that assessment. But I must add that MSchumacher would not have been on the absolute limit very often in a Maserati 250F or a Lotus 25 in their respective eras. There weren't luxuries like guard rails or sand traps to rely on. A driver at 100% all the time in the 50s and 60s meant a short career.

That is exactly what I mean. I remember Senna going side by side long time with Berger at the Canadian GP before managing to pass once (I think it was the Canadian GP anyway) and the commentator screaming "that is a very very brave move". Sure it was, but when Kimi was racing wheel to wheel with Montoya in Hockenheim 2003 or something it was only good racing. No doubt there was some bravery involved, but not at all on the same level as when you know that if something goes wrong it might be the end of your career, the end of your life.

When the cars become safer, and you yourself become older, it is not at all sure that you automatically adjust to the new reality and start going closer to the limit. Your own limit is usually already set when you were a kid and it was set according to the reality that existed then.

Can anyone imagine this being done 1975?

[Huw Jadvantich]

Huw's postulation
To get the best out of anything artisans have to be in a 'trance' like state, totally at one with what they are doing, with no outside influences; every limb of their body is 'wired' to the task. Most racing drivers will have felt in this state often and produced exceptional results.
Those same, lets call them 'very good' racing drivers will however have to work extremely hard on their concentration, in such a way that minor irritants won't spoil this 'oneness' with the car.
I would put the Hills into this category. Others psyche themselves up (Hunt, Ruettemann).
Others still have to get rid of the irritants to get themselves into that plane (Gurney, Watson, Coulthard and most other modern drivers because they are trained to).
Some, like Stewart and Prost I believe had a mind over matter way of doing it, in that they could achieve it even if they didn't like what their bodies and brain was telling them, and would use their brain to improve the car or the situation.

Peterson, Alesi and Villeneuve could do it and didn't give a **** what they were in, they just found the best way to get a car round a circuit and drove the **** off it.

Mclaren, Brabham, McRae etc new exactly what their machinery was doing, what to do to make it better and what its practical limitations were. In that way they could get into 'comfortable trances'.

Fangio, Moss, Clark, Senna and Schumacher I believe were just wired the moment they got into a car. The first three were just so relaxed in the environment that they coaxed the very best out of what ever it was the car had to offer in terms of its limits of adhesion and balance -they just found the sweet spot and stayed in it, but were so relaxed in that state that they were not hard on the car in terms of its gearbox and engine. They just made it flow, just as their state of mind was doing. The difference between them and the last two was their 'state' involved getting the very best out of themselves and the car, whereas the last two, particularly Senna, it was winning that got him into his trance. His point of focus wasn't just getting the best out of himself and the car, it was winning at all costs. Schmuacher I believe had an extra ability of thinking outside the environment to achieve the win.

I also believe the 'trance' wears off with age and experience. The skill and the abilty is still there, but the brain's awareness of risk and the importance of the days excercise gets quietly over ridden.

Thats a long way of answering the question. Fangio, Moss and Clark were drivers. I don't believe they felt any need to take unecessary risk. The later two were different.
I believe Amon was right, but I don't take any of this 'good with small engines' lark, and with the Astons he was - for want of a much better word, lazy: the car or the class wasn't that important to him or wasn't that good and he didn't get himself into the usual state of absolute oneness.
Towards 1967 I think Clark was getting sensible and Stewart and Rindt and Ickx would have had the measure of him by 1970.
In fact I am sure he would have retired from F1 by that time. With regard to car set up, I don't believe it was particularly crucial to Clark, but having a team mate like Hill, Miles or Rindt would have made his cars so near the ball park that it wouldn't have mattered.
Frankly with modern cars, I just don't think he could be bothered with it all. I don't think he would be in something like modern Formula one.

[HDonaldCapps]

Any thread that begins with this in the first posting in this forum.....

Please discuss.

....seems to lead to something such as this later on:

To my mind who knows and who cares. Every generation has drivers who rise to the top in the conditions they raced under. The great ones made the most of the situation that the sport presented them. Whether Clark would have been the best in the pre-WW1 cars of the earlier pioneers, or the Auto Unions and Mercedes cars of the 30's, or today's high tech machinery doesn't matter to me. He established his greatness in the cars of the 60's, and how he would have done in another time is of no interest to me.

I don´t know why you bother replying to this thread if it is of no interest to you.

This is basically Harry Tutrledove territory, in my considered opinion, simply because it never came to be.

I tend to agree with Doug in that I think that some from the Clark and earlier eras probably would have left the scene or not joined it in the first place had the emphasis been so much on the "technical" side. Speculation on my part of course.

The comments speak more of us, the posters, than of those actually on the track.