Sir Stirling Moss on the current state of F1

[11tenths]

Here’s an excerpt from an interview I transcribed between Sir Sterling Moss and Peter Windsor at the 2004 Goodwood Festival of Speed. This interview took place during Goodwood Revival Meetings, for the Royal Automobile Club's TT Celebration.

Sterling makes reference to older, pre-traction control, pre-ABS cars in this excerpt, so the setting of the interview is needed to understand the point he is making below:

Peter Windsor:

In the context of your career and the sort of risks you took and the job you did, and the money you earned for that, what do you think of the salaries the drivers are getting today, the Michael Schmachers, the Kimi Raikkonens, the Ralf Schmachers.

Sir Sterling Moss:

Well, I must say I think it’s a shame, I don’t think, I mean, the very best in the world, Michael Schumacher is certainly worth what he can get, that’s the tragedy, he is the best, he is worth what he can get. If he can get $70 million US or $100 million what can one say. I think it's wrong, it’s almost immoral. I think it’s ruined racing not just because of them but because of the technology.

You see, when you get in the car, well these cars particularly, when you get in, the driver contributes 20, 30, 40% of the ‘winningness‘ of that vehicle. And I think the more the driver can contribute, the better it is. If you start bringing things like anti-lock brakes, or traction control, or all these things, then the driver’s contribution is lessened, and his expertise isn’t explored. And I think the whole art of driving a car is being able to hear the message the car is passing to you. Feeling it through the seat of your pants and then taking correction to what it is it's doing.

[Adam43]

11 tenths, do you agree or disagree?

[camcartfan]

Sounds like he's talking about Champ Cars.

[Glen]

If Stirling thinks that F1 has ABS brakes it gives away a fair bit about what he knows.

[ASCII Man]

Mr Moss didn't essentially say that F1 actually has ABS brakes.
I think he's rather talking about the general concept of driver aids in F1...

But nonetheless, i don't think that 'feeling what the car is doing' has disappeared from F1, maybe a bit less than it used to, with all the data presented by sensors and the likes to the driver and team in the pitlane.

[11tenths]

With regard to the the current state of affairs in F1:

The value all attribute to fair competition has been trumped by the cost of victory. Go raise more money, I say to all teams, to your own demise!

All the best to Ferrari, really. They certianly paid for their championships.

Let's tilt the field more towards the level gradient.

Drive to the limit, nonetheless, I say!

[Glen]

He fails to see that the driver contribution isn't so much lessened as altered.

I disagree, by the way, about the ABS, ASCII Man - he pretty clearly lumps those things all together when talking about F1.

I'm sure it gives him comfort to think of today's drivers as being less able than those of his era - but if you think about it that doesn't make much sense... presumably the world human gene pool can still produce exceptional drivers, so why on earth would they not be finding their way to the top of motor racing? In actual fact, as modern life and wealth and opportunities increase (as they have done dramatically since Moss' heyday) the quality of all sportmen increases - to assume that this excludes drivers would require quite a good expanation that I'd like to hear.

[DavidStHubbins]

He's old. That's the problem. Notice how money is something he brings up?! Jealousy!

Has he driven an F1 car recently? As far as I know NO!

Look at what happened to Lauda when he tried out the Jag, he's been a quiet bunny since then hasn't he?!

The cars are still hard to drive and the best rise to the top, the problem is racing or the occasional lack of.

[Russfeld]

My favorite Stirling Moss (what did he do to get Knighted anyways) quote was you cant steer a modern F1 car on the throttle

[Sodemo]

I think people are deluding themselves somewhat if they try and pretend that F1 is alive and well as a drivers sport.

For me F1 no longer became F1 after 1997, when we lost the old technical regulations (wide cars / slicks).
Don't misunderstand me, it had been getting worse each year, but 1997 was the year it really ended for me.

We should be getting back to the kind of cars we had in the 70's / 80's, cars that drivers can powerslide around corners, tyres that don't blister after driving sideways for half a lap.

What we need is a revised 1997 set of regulations.
Wider/bigger rear tyres
slicks all round
wider cars
sequential stick shifts
throttle cables
80% cut in aero.
etc etc

[Glen]

I think are deluding themselves somewhat if they insist on living in a misty-eyed past of racing cars that are as they were when they were a schoolboy.

If F1 were not alive and well as a drivers sport the teams wouldn't go to such extreme effort and expense to hire the best drivers, now would they?

[Mathias]

Well, there is a question mark over whether the teams do hire the best drivers, but that's another story.

I have my own opinions about Stirling Moss which I shall keep to myself, but I think he has a bit of a point here.

What I understand he is saying is that there are some drivers who are paid a ridiculously high salary, but that quite a large part of their success is actually down to the team and the car, and not so much to the driver. Now, I'm a relative newcomer to F1 (although, cripes, it's over a decade now), but I've always felt that actually, while F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, it's not really about testing and comparing the best drivers in the world, but about testing and comparing a lot of overall packages of aerodynamics, tactics, engine power, reliability, etc, and the driver, to a certain extent, is only a small part of that.

So, yes, IMO it is wrong and it is immoral to pay hundreds of millions to some drivers (but notably not all). Ross Brawn is at least as responsible for MS's victories as TGF is - is he paid as much? You might say that the drivers are out there risking their lives, but most injuries you hear about these days are to mechanics during pitstops - often the fault of the drivers. And why is MS paid so much more than Rubens? Rubens would have won the championship for Ferrari if MS hadn't been there, so, hmmm?

I'm ranting. Sorry.

[Mathias]

And, hey! If we want to reduce the cost of F1, you could just start with drivers salaries. If they don't like it, for crying out loud, there are plenty of people out there who could do the job as ably, but who'd do it for a lot less.

[Logrence]

Originally posted by The Monster
I think people are deluding themselves somewhat if they try and pretend that F1 is alive and well as a drivers sport.

But the cars wouldn't get awfully far without them...

Moss is as much entitled to his opinion as we are - my opinion is that he's wrong - he's had his day.

He forgets to mention how fantastic the safety advances have been since his day, that a technological showpiece F1 is unrivalled. Or at least has been up until now before the reg changes.

If Stirling was racing today his career-ending accident wouldn't have had the same results...and to decry the sport because the cars are too good and the sponsors too willing to give the teams lots of money?

Don't understand it.

[DavidStHubbins]

Originally posted by Mathias
Rubens would have won the championship for Ferrari if MS hadn't been there, so, hmmm?

Ranting and not thinking!

Hindsight tells us Rubens came 2nd this year, he didn't last year though did he? Can you rely on him like you can MS? Did Ferrari know that their drivers would come 1-2 this year?! Rarely do do they? That is why MS gets so much money, he gets the job done - regardless of what you think of him or how he does it. He does it.

[QuickSilver]

What we need is a revised 1997 set of regulations.

Monster,

I hear ya brother. Trouble is, if you consider how far the technology has moved since 1997, if you put slicks back on F1 cars you'd create death-machines ... plain and simple. Even with thinner grooved tyres the cars regularly break track records.

So while look fondly back to the days when Sir Stirling would corner in 4 wheel drift, I also appreciate that F1 is about beating your competition to the finish. All teams try to gain that edge. Let 'em.

IMHO the regs aren't all that bad in their current state. Take launch control, if the technology exists why not use it? All the cars are at the same advantage/disadvantage so at least it's fair.

My (and others) big beef is the lack of competitive racing, and without being too melodramatic, solving that little issue will improve F1.

'Nuff said.

QS
-

[Rich R]

i think some of you are being quite mean to stirling moss. i've heard him talk about modern formula 1(at a classic car show at birmingham a few weeks ago), and he doesn't disparage the modern drivers skill, he understands it's a different animal nowadays, but different doesn't necessarily make it better, not in in all areas anyway.
he also notes that fangio would struggle to be on the pace in a modern f1 car, but so would schumacher in a 50's car, that doesn't mean he thinks either are less skilled than they are, it's just things change. i get the impression he would just like the drivers to have a bit more direct input in controlling a race car in the areas that were important when he was racing.

[Knowlesy]

And who can argue with that?

Drivers these days are phenomenally skilled, but their job could be that little bit harder.

[Marbot]

I think the new regs address some of the problems but not all.F1 cars still look like they are (on TV) going very slowly around a scalextric track,barely any movement at all,(unless you drive a Jordan or Minardi)which gives the impression that the drivers aren't trying hard enough,only the odd wheel lock-up giving any impression of speed.Something needs to be done to make the cars look a little more uncontrollable,once a TV audience gets half an impression that driving a formula one car is easy,F1 is finished. p.s. sorry about all the impressions.

[Sodemo]

Originally posted by Glen
I think are deluding themselves somewhat if they insist on living in a misty-eyed past of racing cars that are as they were when they were a schoolboy.

Then again it seems as though only governing bodies like TOCA and the DTM can see that it really was "better in the olden days" and actually put in place some regs that ecompasses some of that.
Maybe the FIA should listen to the people.

Am I the only one who thinks that racing was better years ago?
Let me guess, i'm only "imagining" it was better, when in reality my memories have clouded my judgement?
I watched some F1 from 1984, 1990, 1991 and I think I want to go back in time 20 years.

[Kirk]

Well stated Rich R. And Glen, you sound like you would defend F1 no matter what and have a blind faith to any new technology that is introduced. Stirling is from a different era, no doubt about it, but motor racing roots run very deep and fundamentally the sport remains the same. When the likes of Moss, Emmo, Nigel and their ilk speak, we should all listen to the wisdom.

[gfm]

I’m not sure whether I’m allowed to tell you about this but a few months ago, we had an extremely interesting evening in the BRDC clubhouse where Martin Brundle hosted a chat with Ross Brawn. Sir Stirling was in the audience and it didn’t take long before he was busting to ask Ross a question.

He asked, this is my interpretation of question and answer at least, something along the lines of: OK Ross, what I really want to know about the current driver aids is, if I wanted to, could I ‘powerslide’ a modern F1 car? That is, if I needed to, could I provoke the back to slide under power, wheels spinning, and balance it with the steering lock, opposite of course, exit a corner on such a balanced trajectory?

Ross was well up for this. With a smile on his face, he went into a few sentences about the whole handling package, the whole electronics package, integration, interfaces – with his smile getting bigger all the while. And on a second reminder of the question by Sir Stirling, Ross conceded gracefully, that well, in simple terms, er well, if you put it like that, um, no!

So Stirling, nicely warmed up by this, asked, then what happens exactly as I exit a corner?
I get to my apex and simply floor the throttle and traction control prevents any slip, so there’s no balancing of the steering and throttle, just let the electronics allow maximum traction. As a driver, do I have to do anything else? Is that it . . . ?

Equally big smiles all around, Ross stumbling around with anticipated phrases such as ‘ it’s much more complicated than that’ but broadly speaking, er no, not much more the driver could do.

Moss thanked Ross very much, said he was much enlightened, all to much chortling and applause from the assembled and ribald comments about how much the current superstars earn!

[eatapc]

If Schumacher is overpaid and drivers don't count all that much anymore, Ferrari should do the smart thing and dump Michael in favor of Rubens. DC and Kimi should be getting similar results, so McLaren should do the smart thing and offer lower salaries to both. Obviously, that's not the smart thing, so something is wrong with the premise.

Moss is a mean, old, reckless, jealous bas-tard. (At least, that's what I hear from people who have been run into by Sir Stirling.)

[Kirk]

.... but the money part is not relevant here; most of today's drivers are very well off. But on the racing side, the advice and opinions given by these old-school guys should not be dismissed.

[eatapc]

But the money part is relevant. (I'm a free-market kinda guy.) If drivers weren't crucial to a team's success, they'd be worth squat in a free market. Given the choice of spending an extra $25 million for the best driver or spending that same amount on the car's design and development, I'd spend it on the driver in a heartbeat.