Why is endurance racing so full of F1 has-beens?

[TomTom94]

This is a question that's been knocking around in my head for a while but it hit full gear with this announcement. Just look at the two ex-F1 drivers in that line-up. And this is Toyota's main line-up - no messing around. This is their advert for their brand.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/97047

Now, I understand Nakajima. He's Toyota's man, and though he never set the F1 field alight he never screwed up per se. But Wurz? Wurz must be nearly 40 by now. In almost any other motorsport that'd be past it.

Yet at the same time, Brundle is going to take to the field this year. HE'S 52! It's really strange because in my experience* the first thing to go as you get older is stamina. Yet the only form of motorsport that surely thrives on stamina - with 3-hour long driving shifts - is the same one that features tonnes of ex-F1 drivers in their early to mid-40s. In fact they're almost a prized commodity. So what gives?

*Football Manager and a decade of watching F1

 

[BrightLampShade]

Endurance racing needs less peak stamina but tends to be in stints two times as long as a average F1 race. I guess its their mental stamina which is their selling point, able to put in consistent laps in for 3 hours, get out, have a cup of tea and go again in 6 hours.
F1 drivers are usually the best out there, or the richest so if they can physically do it then why not, all the young guns are fighting to move into "better" classes so you might as well go for something you know will be consistent

In my opinion

 

[cosicave]

Why is endurance racing so full of F1 has-beens?

Ha! Once one becomes a 'has been' there are few better places to go! (Historic racing is fun but not nearly so seriously competitive).

One of the biggest advantages of advancing years is that whereas physical strength begins to deteriorate after about 'xx' (insert number) years, one's capacity for endurance actually improves, and long-term concentration can be every bit the equal of a younger person. Furthermore, to a point, getting older can help rational, pragmatic thinking, resulting in a more accurate assessment of long-term considerations; since this is necessarily based upon greater experience.

In this sense, Endurance racing is - at least from the old man's perspective(!) - the old man's domain; although of course this does not mean younger top-quality drivers, still at the sharp end of Grand Prix racing can't do it! Besides, what else would you have us old dogs do?

- - - o0o - - -

​

N.B. In only a purely physical sense, I would be interested in your opinion of the age at which you consider a man (or woman) to be at peak "stamina", and consider also the point in life at which peak strength is achieved. You may be surprised that neither of these things coincide with peak fitness!

 

[BrightLampShade]

I'd say your fast twitch muscles peak in mid to late 20's and then your slow twitch in you late 30's. Everyone is obviously (very) different though

 

[cosicave]

It is a common belief that reaction times are all-important in motor-racing*. However, this can be something of a misconception. As is so often the case, comparing extremes can serve as a good tool for understanding, so please consider the following example…

It is likely that at the tender age of 83, Sir Stirling Moss still has far more ability to catch a slide than most road drivers will ever get close to. This has almost nothing to do with reaction time and almost everything to do with understanding and 'feel': in other words, anticipation of what is likely (necessarily experience based) together with drawing upon that almost instinctive 'learned behaviour pattern' which prepares one to deal with what is anticipated as a consequence of specific experience.

A good driver and especially a race driver, is more or less at one with his (or her) machine. This is something which is always learned, even if one's name may have been Jim Clark or today's king of instinct: Lewis Hamilton. (No. This is not a wind-up: he started learning it just after he could walk).

It takes years to become completely at one with the nature of the beast: these metal beasts which live or die on the slip-angles between rubber and tarmac…

- - - o0o - - -

​

*So far as I am aware, the fastest ever reaction time found in any racing driver was Damon Hill. It may be of some interest that this was almost a tenth of a second quicker than Michael Schumacher, who recorded a slower than average reaction time. For what is average, visit http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php. (Bear in mind that the International Olympic Committee consider that a reaction time faster than one-tenth of a second (0.100) is physically impossible and is therefore disqualified, and that for practical purposes all results under 0.200 should be considered anomalous).

 

[cosicave]

… I understand Nakajima. He's Toyota's man, and though he never set the F1 field alight he never screwed up per se. But Wurz? Wurz must be nearly 40 by now. In almost any other motorsport that'd be past it…

Alex Wurz is one of the most consistently metronomic drivers ever to have got into something with four wheels. As such, he is recognised as being amongst the best test drivers - ever. Above all else, this is what is required in Endurance racing. By 'consistently metronomic', I mean in terms of accuracy of car placement at every corner, lap after lap, day or night, hour after hour; to the inch - literally - together with an innate ability to sense how a car evolves over time due to losses and tyre wear.

Some may be familiar with my occasional criticism of Bruno Senna. Now, I have never questioned or criticized his speed, but this is very much only a part of the equation…