Jackie Stewart doesn't think MS is one of the greats?

I'll check with the mechanic in Melbourne , I'm sure he said CCBs were the GO

... and get the F40 windscreen for my 308 while I'm at it

 

that might be this guy... www.pless.com.au

Sounds suss to me.

 

+1

In my opinion, 7 WDC's nowadays is equal to 2 WDC's back then. There is no risk now, just chuck the car up the inside and see if you make it, if not you crash ... but so what, you just loose some points, no big deal.

Also Jackie did not drive the all conquering cars like MS did (heck I could have won in some of those Ferraris. Heck if MS was not there Barichello would walked it and he has won how many races? ...).

I've said this for years, MS's best years were 94 to maybe 2000 (2000 on the car was simply winning not MS). In those years he won 3 WDC. One that is debateable because of taking our Hill, thus that leaves 2 ... thus IMO Jackie Stewart wins the comparison with 3 versus 2.
Pete

 

I agree 100% and I don't care if Schumi races for Mercedes now...still has my 100% support because, for me, he is the complete package. Believe that Schumi is caught between the era of the 'everything goes' and the current 'PC' climate. Did fastest lap last weekend before his little 'mishap'. Schumi is not only a Hamilton-style driver, but unlike some of the greats who can only just 'drive' - he is able to be a valuable member of the development team and used to (maybe still does?) read telemetry from his previous races in bed. That is total devotion. OK, having a drop dead gorgeous body and being a devoted family man and husband also ticks the boxes

 

Funny enough Nigel Mansell said the same thing in a documentary about the early Formula One years quote "Michael Schumacher cannot be counted amondst the greatest F1 driver, the years MS won the title, Ferrari had the most efficient car with little or no breakdowns"

 

RedBull then fits the bill this year(car fast, reliable etc) as you post above. So Vettel is what? Great not great? Its just the car? An old woman holding a cat could drive it lol We should accept different era's and performance/risk.

My small input is older gen drivers actually had to drive, with their legs and hands etc. Clutches etc. Now alot is automated and infinitely safer. They pull more Gs though and go faster. Hard to really compare but id say older gen drivers had more demands placed on them in different ways. Same with todays driver. Trains like an athlete to counter the demands of the car as they are now.

Its just progress I guess. The racing goes on. They are all pretty good to be where they are now, or were in the past.

 

You mean like Nigel's 1992 Williams? lol

 

Wasn't Jackie's Tyrrells much the same? I don't buy that argument for a minute.

Now, qualifying an upper mid-pack Jordan 191 at 7th in your first race...that's not a testament to his ability? Finished 5th in his second race - outpacing his teammate (former 3x WDC) Piquet...he's not a hack you know?

And on the subject of Jackie not being able to row a modern F1 car, check out the videos of him driving the Williams FW12C or the Bennetton B187. He's plenty quick, and I believe he could handle a car of today.

 

Patrick Head was quoted as saying the 1992 Williams was 2 seconds a lap faster than any other car on the grid, that is dominance!

 

Better tires makes the cars faster around a corner but it doesn't make them quicker on the straight. The point I was making is that overtaking is more difficult nowadays. Top speeds at the straights were in many occasions higher 40 years ago than they are today, as people (like JS, but that aside) have put in chicanes.

Braking technology has made huge strides. Just jump into a Ferrari Boxer when you come out of a 458 Italia. Or putting it another way: in historic racing the old F1 machines start braking halfway down the straight. A modern F1 car brakes less than 100m before the same corner.

So comparing overtaking under braking with decades ago, modern drivers have the same top speed (or lower) but they have to make the move in maybe a quarter of the distance, and 1/8 of the time the old guys had. Due to the better brakes.

If you combine this with your point about the aero (which I made too), it makes it hard to accellerate onto the straight in the wake of the preceding car as the car is unstable in the corner before the straight. Ergo - more pressure on trying to outbrake the guy in an even shorter distance.

@Julio: you put it very eloquently, I can only agree.



Onno

 

We're *never* gonna agree! [Which is what makes it such a fun debate of course.]

+1 Mansell's always been a jerk and would do well to keep it shut IMO.

+1 to all. He could "handle" it, certainly in his younger years. Could Fangio? Sir Jack? Niki? I suspect, given the requisite luck, the cream will always rise and the best would have been the best in any era.

We can speculate and have opinions, and *may* even be able to agree a list of the top 4-5 guys - But we'll never agree on the *order* of that list.....

FWIW, here's my top 4 - In chronological order! [Hows that for a cop out ]

- Fangio
- Jimmy
- Ayrton
- Michael

Beyond that it gets difficult IMO; The Professor won 4 titles, but he's French, so doesn't count . Sir Jack, Sir Jackie, Niki and Piquet Sr won 3 each - Of those, I'd put Sir Jackie at #5, but suspect the Aussies in particular may differ.......

Cheers,
Ian

-

 

Exactly! OK, braking distance per-se may not be less, but I do know steel wouldn't handle this;

Incidentally, F1 brakes are not the CC things we see on road cars but rather "grown" carbon - More on how they're made is in the same article; http://www.f1technical.net/articles/2

Cheers,
Ian

 

I agree with your overall summary, I think Schumachers acheivement is the absolute dominance over a long period of time... even Stewart is impressed by that.

When Jackie was running - the MS80 Matra - he was head and shoulders above the rest of the teams... he also was driving many other cars at the same time... f-2, Tasman, Sports cars, tin tops etc... not like today when the drivers only do F-1, but back then you only had 10-11 races a season...

 

Agree with all of that! But the better brakes is not because of the CF.

 

So is Vettel on course to be one of the great ones? Sure the car is fantastic but Weber doesn't get the same performance out of it as Vettel does.

 

The key point is that ALL drivers are exposed to the modern advantages, not just the champions. There are instances where the car is so dominant (Red Bull in 2010/2011, Ferrari 2002-2005), but at the end of the day the drivers still have to get the job done. Webber did not win the title (though he had the chance). Massa neither (though he came within 1 pt), so having the best car doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

Titles aren't discounted because the competition remains relative. Michael won 7 WDC's, fair and square (not to mention that he actually helped BUILD the championship team...they were crap when he came on board).

 

Steel can easily handle this. Even a normal race pad like a Ferrodo DS3000 has a mu of 0.6.

Yes of course overall performance is increased from CF. Unsprung mass is one of the holy grails. Reduce it at all costs.

 

Understood - But can they tolerate;

?

Totally understand the desire to reduce unsprung mass. I guess we're also reducing the rotational energy that needs to be dissipated - Takes a lot more to slow a 3Kg steel rotor than a 1Kg CF version. [I think?.....]

When F1 rookies are asked what impresses 'em most about F1 cars, it's always "the brakes" - Braking distances are tiny and the G loads immense under braking. I'm just not sure steel would survive a race with those loads/temperatures. (?)

Cheers,
Ian

 

"On course" - Yes, but way too early to tell IMO. It's going to take a few more years, another WDC or two and developing a midfield car into a winner before he gets there.

Many have been anointed "the next Fangio", few deliver.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

yes.

 

my take on brakes ....

The most fundamental concern for brake design is, indeed, heat. The car's kinetic energy must 'go somewhere' as the car loses speed. That kinetic energy is transformed into, and dissipated as, heat in the brakes. Can't get much more fundamental than that

What then is the advantage of Carbon Fiber (or carbon ceramic)? When compared to steel brakes of the same size, or weight, the carbon brakes are much more stable at higher temperatures, and are therefore much better at dissipating heat. For comparable performance to carbon, steel brakes must be much heavier to resist warping, cracking and ultimately fading.

So yes, weight savings is one way to state the advantage of carbon. But that's more of a "dependent variable" in my view, than the fundamental primary variable of better heat dissipation. You see, when you state that weight savings is the fundamental issue, a valid response could likely be : why not make the steel brakes as light as carbon? that way, there's no weight difference? Of course, the answer is that a steel brake as light as carbon would warp, crack or fade quickly under the thermal cycling of a race.

So again, it is indeed heat that is the most fundamental issue ... the car's kinetic energy is dissipated as heat as the car slows down. And, for the same weight, carbon is MUCH better at dissipating that heat while remaining stable. So, as i see it, weight savings is kinda the byproduct of choosing a better thermal material for brakes.

 

A most excellent post. JS is not handling his old age well.

 

Very well said.....

 

a little weird quoting myself, some might say i'm the only one who will listen LOL

seriously, just to elaborate or extend my view ...

If i were designing brakes for a race car, my thought process would proceed along these lines (yes, it's simplified ... but i think the thought process is valid as an outline if nothing else) :

1. How much energy much the brakes dissipate as heat? Start with the kinetic energy of a car traveling at a maximum velocity, say 200 mph. The (approximate) weight of the car will then tell the kinetic energy by 0.5*m*(v^2). Assuming that the brakes must stop the car completely, this tells the energy that must be dissipated by the brakes.

2. Estimate how much time is required to stop the car ... say, 2 seconds. The energy dissipated over this much time tells the power that must be dissipated by the brakes.

3. Through some thermal impedance estimate (?), the power dissipation from the above step will tell the temperature of the brake material.

4. Now is when you might start comparing different materials for rotors & pads. So far, the above analysis is "largely" independent of the brake material chosen. But here is where you will undoubtedly see that Carbon Ceramic (or something similar) can satisfy the power & temperature revealed above with the lowest weight. YES, steel can probably do it too ... but it will need to be heavier to resist warping, cracking and all-out fading while satisfying the power & temp constraints above.

So, the thermodynamic considerations are indeed the most fundamental for any brake design, as i see it. But at the end of the day, yes ... you will choose the material that satisfies these constraints with the lowest possible (unsprung) weight (putting aside cost concerns, naturally)

 

Hopefully this post makes it, seems the moderators on this sight have a nasty habit of changing post when they don't like ones opinion. Jackie Stewart is an excellent driver and I did watch him drive in his prime. However he is not, and never will be in the same league with Michael Schumacher or Fangio. For Stewart to compare his era with that of Fangio's is a massive stretch. Just as it is a stretch to believe is more talented than Michael.