I agree, see Gilles drive in the wet at Montreal with his front wing blocking his vision or his battle with Arnoux at Dijon. He's far beyond any current F1 driver in racing toughness, brave is the wrong word here as all F1 drivers are brave.Zack wrote:Nowhere near to Gilles Villenueve ... Bravest F1 Driver ever.
All true !!! Sometimes to be P1 really doesn`t matter, if you`re witnessing something special !swca92 wrote:I agree, see Gilles drive in the wet at Montreal with his front wing blocking his vision or his battle with Arnoux at Dijon. He's far beyond any current F1 driver in racing toughness, brave is the wrong word here as all F1 drivers are brave.Zack wrote:Nowhere near to Gilles Villenueve ... Bravest F1 Driver ever.
Until late 70s i think F1 was an highly dangerous ocupation. I started to watch in 1985 and i don`t think there was the feeling that "F1 IS DANGEROUS" , of course all the risks were there, but only Elio de Angelis died at the time, and it was on private tests, so people almost didn`t gave much attention to it (sadly), in racing there were acidents but nothing serious. In 1990 Martin Donnelly had his HUGE crash at Jerez, everyone said how lucky he was, and it was almost a miracle and so on, the situation itself made FIA to claim that this was also the result of their great efforts to improve safety, wich "we" agreed. I noticed you wrote before 1995, well i can only assume that you didn`t forgot about Imola 94 with great respect i might say, but let me tell you that the general idea or the perspective of safety we had was the same you have today, obviously things are way better now but you get the point, in 1994 you simply couldn`t believe that a driver could actually die in a crash, but it happened twice. As i usually say, F1 drivers are all brave, brave enough to be there, you are right when you say that today is safer, the barriers are better and farer and the mistakes are perhaps more "forgiven", some years ago one driver entered a corner thinking that if there was an acident there at the moment it problably would cost him his own life, today i doubt this happen, but the risks are still there, if you ask me i thimk Kubica is a very lucky guy after Canada, and even Massa could have been a lot worse, that`s why we keep watching the sport, not because it`s dangerous and we want blood, but it`s fast, thrilling and exciting, they are brave, but some are more than othersblizzard wrote:Everyone who raced in F1 before 95 was a brave mofo and some of them were crazy, like Gilles. Fantastic.
Today they know that they can hit a wall with over 200 kp/h and escape unhurt, like Kubica. But back in time, this was very very different. Up to 95 you had to be a brave bastard to drive in F1 :P
.That one got to my mind right away when I saw this thread. But oh man that PC after the quali is hilarious!Totopupu wrote:I watch this video on youtube of Raikkonen quali in spa 2002. Very very agressive and impressive drive.
And in one of his fastest lap, Panis broke his engine, and Kimi keep his speed.
Watch : - onboard view : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emYvs3D- ... re=related
- his full 4 laps quali (amazings laps) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Hz7ItD ... re=related
Definitively, Kimi is a crazy driver
I think there's brave, which they all need to be, and then there's mentally unstable...MP4/4#12 wrote:All true !!! Sometimes to be P1 really doesn`t matter, if you`re witnessing something special !swca92 wrote:I agree, see Gilles drive in the wet at Montreal with his front wing blocking his vision or his battle with Arnoux at Dijon. He's far beyond any current F1 driver in racing toughness, brave is the wrong word here as all F1 drivers are brave.Zack wrote:Nowhere near to Gilles Villenueve ... Bravest F1 Driver ever.
Until late 70s i think F1 was an highly dangerous ocupation. I started to watch in 1985 and i don`t think there was the feeling that "F1 IS DANGEROUS" , of course all the risks were there, but only Elio de Angelis died at the time, and it was on private tests, so people almost didn`t gave much attention to it (sadly), in racing there were acidents but nothing serious. In 1990 Martin Donnelly had his HUGE crash at Jerez, everyone said how lucky he was, and it was almost a miracle and so on, the situation itself made FIA to claim that this was also the result of their great efforts to improve safety, wich "we" agreed. I noticed you wrote before 1995, well i can only assume that you didn`t forgot about Imola 94 with great respect i might say, but let me tell you that the general idea or the perspective of safety we had was the same you have today, obviously things are way better now but you get the point, in 1994 you simply couldn`t believe that a driver could actually die in a crash, but it happened twice. As i usually say, F1 drivers are all brave, brave enough to be there, you are right when you say that today is safer, the barriers are better and farer and the mistakes are perhaps more "forgiven", some years ago one driver entered a corner thinking that if there was an acident there at the moment it problably would cost him his own life, today i doubt this happen, but the risks are still there, if you ask me i thimk Kubica is a very lucky guy after Canada, and even Massa could have been a lot worse, that`s why we keep watching the sport, not because it`s dangerous and we want blood, but it`s fast, thrilling and exciting, they are brave, but some are more than othersblizzard wrote:Everyone who raced in F1 before 95 was a brave mofo and some of them were crazy, like Gilles. Fantastic.
Today they know that they can hit a wall with over 200 kp/h and escape unhurt, like Kubica. But back in time, this was very very different. Up to 95 you had to be a brave bastard to drive in F1 :P
I joke, but some of them have the amazing ability to completely disregard the dangers of the sport and plough on regardless in the wet or dry, round tracks or streets. Villeneuve, I agree (with swca) springs to mind as the foremost of these drivers in terms of braveness, or at least has a great deal of instances of braveness.yes but for me the move was very optimisticSchumacher's shunt was caused by brake failure
What move? He just crashed. End of story. Nothing intentional...MSC II wrote:yes but for me the move was very optimisticSchumacher's shunt was caused by brake failure
