Team radio .... stop it ?

I think just the opposite.

For me, it's a drivers championship first and foremost, to determine who is the best driver every year. But you may find that silly.

That's why it was created back in 1950 as the World Drivers Championship.
The team plays an important role in designing, building, preparing and bringing the car to the grid; and that's where its role should end.

Once the red lights goes, it's supposed to be a race between drivers, and with no other assistance. That's the way it was conceived as a championship, and I still cling to that notion.

The constructors obtained from the FIA the creation of a World Constructoirs Championship later (I think it was in 1959), which I consider was wrong. In fact it should have been a Team Championship, since several private teams and individual entrants used customers cars then.

Personally, I am more interested by the individuals in F1 than by the teams/constructors.
I have followed some drivers moving from team to team (Surtees, Ickx, Andretti, Lauda, Prost, Rosberg, Perez, etc...) and never been fan of any particular team.

 

Totally agree.

And I think that's pretty much where we are today. No "coaching", no "times relative to the others", no "he's gotta pit soon", etc allowed.

Cheers,
Ian

 

There are so many things wrong with F1 right now. Radio communication is hwaaay down the list. I vote "no" to the ban. Let 'em talk about whatever they want. Fix the other stuff.

 

the driver coaching was getting ridiculous

 

+1

 

+2

And Charlie addressed it.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The then named "International Cup for F1 Manufacturers" was introduced in 1958, with Vanwall wining it.

 

You´re following the wrong series, you should watch a single-make championship, where all the cars are the same. In F1 and in most important motorsport championships, the result is more determined by the quality of the car than by the quality of the driver, and it has been like that since a long time ago. Fangio already said: "son carreras de autos", "these are car races".

Sometimes a good driver can make a difference, just like a good goalkeeper can save the day for his team, and that´s when the individual is important too. That´s the beauty of team sports for me, and motorsport is the ultimate team sport, with hundreds of players in each team.

 

And how many of those drivers paid the ultimate price because they either made an incorrect assessment of the condition of their cars, or were caught out by faults with their cars that they were unaware of, such as suspension failures, deflating tyres, brake problems etc., etc?

Take brake failures for example, back in those days, the first time a driver knew he had a major brake failure was when he came to use the brakes for a high speed stop and found the brake pedal went to the floor out of the blue, or he pressed the pedal and the car simply didn't slow down at all and so the driver simply carried on to the scene of the accident.

These days, the engineers can warn the drivers of overheating or severely worn out brakes long before the driver will realise, and long before it could cause a major accident.

(How would Charlie Whiting be able to tell a driver that he's at serious risk of an accident due to an impending brake failure if he's the only person allowed to radio the driver? - The team have to contact Charlie first so he can pass the message on? Yeah! - That's safety progress isn't it! )



Drivers aren't always the best placed person to know if a car is in a dangerous condition or not - More often than not these days, the engineers can tell from the sensors and telemetry that there's a severe problem with the car long before the driver knows, and the sooner you can let the driver know that there's an issue, the sooner you can keep him safe!

 

You could be right that the world best driver should be determined in a single-make championship, but F1 isn't.
I have nothing against single-make championships per se (GP2, Super Formula, etc...) apart that they are mostly used as a springboard for F1, and rarely any driver makes a long career in any of them. Also, they don't attract established drivers.
So F1 is where the best drivers end up, but the chances to prove themselves depends to much from what car they drive, for my taste.

Since you mention Fangio, he was able to win on many different cars (Alfa, Maserati, Ferrari, Mercedes), so I suppose that he owed his success to his talent more than to the cars he drove. Also, in reach team he drove for, he quickly imposed himself as the leading driver. His team mates had the same cars, but none of them obtained the same success; proof to me that the result was more determined by the quality of the driver than by the quality of the car!!

At the time, a talented driver could overcome the handicap of an inferior car in the past (Stirling Moss did it several times - 1958 Argentine GP, 1961 Monaco and German GPs ), because his skill could make the difference. That, I am afraid, is near impossible now. Regretably, I must say.

As for motorsport being a team sport, it never was, and it never will be; there is only one person at the wheel at anyone time. They others have just a supporting role in preparing and servicing the car.
Calling F1 a team sport is a bit like calling golf a team sport because each player has a caddy !! Really ...

 

I don't know if comparing to other sports is applicable. But what if a horse jockey had a helmet radio and the trainer type managed the race/horse? Or coaches were allowed to engage during the match in tennis? Or a running back/quarterback in football could be told that a tackler is coming from his blindside? In the case of American football you could definitely make the case that that info is a safety issue.

If not an analyst(s), why not have a computer manage a competition for the sport? I suspect it is because most of us don't have much interest in watching what is increasingly becoming a computer game.

I think about why I admire the people that I do. I don't care if it is a naval aviator, golfer, or race car driver. All the practice in the simulator or on the practice tee/track can duplicate the cauldron of stress when you have to land on that pitching boat deck, execute the critical shot for the win, or react in a split second to other drivers. It is those individual human triumphs when it can be most costly that motivates us as spectators. I guess it is just human nature.

I suspect that most of the competitors would agree that what makes it most exciting to watch is also what makes it most exciting to compete.

Teams prepare the car. Once given the car, let the drivers race them. Until writing this, I was a keep the radios person. But I conclude that banning them is better overall for the sport.

 

+1

 

Certainly Fangio was the best driver out there but one of his talents was to foresee which was the car to have in the next year. Fangio did not win 5 WDC although he was driving in 4 different team but BECAUSE he was driving in 4 different teams. None of these team alone would have given him the same success if he stayed there.
Some say that he is the opposite of Alonso (who many believe beeing the best out there) who had a far worse timing choosing his teams...

And you mentioned Moss: Moss is a good example that a good driver did make the difference on on side but on the other side one can say that just as today even a great driver like Moss was not able to win a single WDC when not sitting in the right car at the right time (apart from having Fangio as team mate in case he was in the right car)...So Moss is both an example pro your point but also contra at the same time...

Fangio is also a reason why I never got the argument that winning WDC in different teams (like Hamilton) is woth more than winning in the same (like Vettel or Alonso). It only depends on whether you have the best car or not, be it the same as last year or a different one. Always was and always will be....

 

I am not quite sure about that.
His detractors spread that theory about Fangio, Enzo Ferrari included.
Fangio couldn't foresee that Mercedes was going to withdraw suddenly at the end of 1955.
It came as a suprise to him, and the only berth available was at Ferrari.
Fangio didn't enjoy driving at Ferrari in 1956 (there was a personality clash between him and the Commandatore) and decided to jump ship for the following year, although he took the title.
Fangio landed a drive at Maserati for 1957 because Moss was leaving for Vanwall; that was almost the only drive available to him, so not really a choice.
The 1957 Ferrari was probably better than the Maserati 250F at that stage, but infighting between drivers at Ferrari split the points gained by the Scuderia, and let Fangio score his last championship.
It looks to me that Fangio was head and shoulders above the opposition in the 50s, and capable of incredible performance, regardless of which car he was driving.

 

Keep the radios but make them only for safety announcements and penalties. Let the FIA have control over them if need be.

 

Interesting, if somewhat OT debate.... 'Carry on'....

Returning to topic, I've gotta say I'm surprised at the results of the poll.

As already noted, I think this is a pretty 'knowledgeable' (& opinionated ) bunch. That we're split about 50/50 is, I suspect, the same problem the TWG/SWG's often encounter.....

Cheers,
Ian

 

OK.

What about telemetry coming off the car?

Cheers,
Ian

 

The fact is that Moss "won" the 1958 WDC on the track, but lost it because of his sportmanship. He won 3 GPs that year, against 1 to Hawthorn who lifted the crown.
In the last GP, Hawthorn was disqualified for driving against traffic in the race after a spin. He appealed the decision, and Moss (the winner, and WDC at that point) pleaded in his favour. Hawthorn was reinstated, and Moss lost the championship by ONE POINT!!
Call it stupidity or absolute integrity towards another competitor, the fact is that Moss' intervention to clear his friend cost him the title. I cannot imagine that happening now!!!

That aside, apart from 4 GPs at Maserati in 1954, 3 seasons as work driver for Mercedes, then Maserati and finally Vanwall, Moss mostly drove for private teams during most of his career because of contractual reasons. Moss had signed a long term contract with British Petroleum, which barred him from most factory teams sponsored by Shell, Esso, or AGIP.

In fact, Moss very often drove last year's cars, entered by Rob Walker or BRP, and beat factory teams. Cooper and Lotus were prevented by their backers to provide Moss with their latest cars. Of course, Moss would never want to race for Ferrari following a snub at Bari at the begining of his career.
Moss won the first F1 GP for Cooper in a year-old car entered by Rob Walker, beating the Cooper works team, and Ferrari, and BRM, etc...
Moss also won the first F1 GP for Lotus in a year-old car entered by Rob Walker, beating the Lotus works team, and Ferrari, and BRM, etc...


Apart from the 1955 British GP at Aintree, most of Moss' victories were achieved against superior cars; that's the proof that a skilled driver at the time could overcome the deficiencies of his mount. That is near impossible now.

 

+1

 

No one has mentioned my beef.....regardless of how MUCH communication there is between driver and pit, so very little of it is shared with fans. Now, more than ever, it is a 'show'(with driver's saying "hope we put on a good show"), so share the info!

 

As already mentioned above, Fangio drove the best cars available most of the time, and do you know what: he sucked in his last season when the Maserati 250F was outdated. He even didn´t bother to do the complete season.

Had Fangio suddenly forgot how to drive? Nope, it was the car!

Completely disagree here.

You are not comparing the complexity, cost, technology and ammount of know-how needed to design and build a golf club and a Formula 1 car, aren´t you?

The same driver in a different car can perform in a VERY different way, and good pit stops and strategy can make a huge difference between similar cars and drivers. So the crew and the car are part of the game. Actually the most important part nowadays.

And if you still are not agreeing with what I´m saying, think about this: you can´t race without cars but with the current technology it would be possible to race without drivers!

 

Fangio retired at the end of 1957.
In his last season, he won 3GPs and the world championship.
At the Nurburgring, he defeated single-handed the Scuderia, in spite of an unscheduled pit stop, in what must be the race of his life. In spite of a huge deficit, he caught and overtook Collins and Hawthorn, and they were never able to follow him.
I don't think I would call that "sucking".

Maserati withdrew from competition at the end of the year, financially broke.
Fangio's decision to stop racing was taken after the German GP and is not related to Maserati's decision.
At that point, Fangio was 47 years old , remember !! People tend to forget that the Argentine arrived in F1 at 38 !!

Fangio didn't want to race anymore, but accepted to do 2 guest appearances in 1958 onboard private Maseratis, Argentina and France. The cars were by then outdated (they were 5 years' old cars!!), and Fangio never intended to do the whole season.

 

This is what is going to happen if we let unbridled technology to creep in more and more.

 

It makes you wonder why some teams pay up to $40M a year their drivers, if they are just jockeys controled from the pits!

 

In the first place, there are many things in this world that are overpriced. Frank Williams agrees with this.

Second, drivers are not just drivers but a very important PR tool.

And third, the driver still is the single person with more relevance in the final result. The car is more important but it's designed and build by hundreds of guys. And then, just a single brain fade by the driver can ruin all that work. As I´ve said, sometimes individuals have a very important role in the team work and I see beauty in that. But still it's team work.