My response to the argument that, racing drivers of the past would be effortlessly beaten by the most 'basic' of racing drivers of the modern era.

In summary, yes - however, that argument is incomplete without acknowledging any form of context

(7)

1. The level of expertise involved with motor racing in the contemporary age has developed to a level significantly higher than that of era's that precede us (be it fitness, technology, growth etc), and I imagine 30 years from now, the same might be acknowledged.

2. However, the level at which the best drivers of their era's performed, was as the maximum of what was known and made available at the time - as what we witness today from professional racing drivers. No one can know what is not known, yet.

3. If you invented a time machine and put any generic modern F1 driver (with the knowledge, skills & expertise that they have) - to the 50s, 60s, 70s etc - it is likely that they would beat any driver. Simply due to the advances that have been made in the last 50 + years.

4. Equally, if you took the modern pool of knowledge in that time machine, there is no guarantee to say that the great names that we praise would not be better than they were or would continue to be fantastic drivers.

5. Lastly, if you brought Clark or Fangio in the time machines and put them in the W11 - they would naturally be uncompetitive. But if they grew up with the knowledge that most F1 drivers do now, a different picture may be painted.

6. We aren't going to see Fangio vs Hamilton or Clark vs Schumacher or Moss vs Verstappen - and to contrast the drivers, and their periods of time is a bit awkward. Kind of like discussing how good would your ancestors be at texting or making Tiktoks.

7. To conclude, its a great point to highlight how fine tuned the concept of driving a car fast has come - but the argument is limited and shouldn't really be used to nullify the achievements made by drivers of the past, because it doesn't, when it is holistically viewed.