From the Formula One paddock to IndyCar pit lane and the temples of international sports car racing, Stefan Johansson is one of the most successful and respected racing drivers of all time. Johansson spent 11 years (1980-1991) in Formula One, driving for giants including Ferrari and McLaren alongside teammates like Alain Prost and Michele Alboreto and against competitors including Ayrton Senna.

Getty Images | Mark Thompson

Jerry Lewis-Evans @ Flickr

Getty Images | Mike King

Getty Images | Bob Harmeyer/Archive Photos

Getty Images | David Taylor

Getty Images | Bob Harmeyer/Archive Photos

Getty Images | Drew Gibson

Jan Tegler (JT) – Over the course of your three decade-plus career as a top-level professional racing driver, the technology of racing has changed considerably. From the March and Lola Formula 2 racers you drove in the early 1980s through the Ferraris and McLarens you drove in Formula One in the mid-1980s, the Penske and Reynard Indy Cars you drove in CART in the mid-1990s, and the Porsche prototype you won the 24 Hours of Le Mans with in 1997 to the modern LMP2 cars you’ve raced, what stands out as the biggest technological change?

Stefan Johansson (SJ) – For me, it’s the introduction of electronics. That has changed the racing landscape completely from the design of racing cars to how they run and how you drive them. Engine management, traction control systems, differential settings, paddle shifted transmissions, data logging, and what that enables you to do—all of it is now controlled by electronics. Even braking. It’s a different way of going racing, and the introduction of electronics has made the most difference in the drivers’ approach.

JT – When did the big change, the electronics you’re talking about, really take hold?

SJ – The big revolution didn’t really start creeping until the mid-1990s. Even when I won Le Mans in 1997 we still had manual shifting in the Porsche [Joest Racing TWR Porsche WSC-95 with teammates Michele Alboreto and Tom Kristensen] with a gated gearbox. Paddle shifters didn’t really come into use until two or three years later. But I was actually developing paddle shifting transmissions with McLaren and Honda after I drove for them in F1. I was still doing some testing with them in the early 1990s, 1992 I think.

It was just before I joined Bettenhausen Racing in CART. I remember the testing in Japan and going down a straight and all of a sudden the car went from 5th gear to 6th even though I’d selected 4th gear. It was all over the place! There was no security on downshifts. You didn’t know exactly what would happen, and sometimes you’d lay 8,000 more RPM on than you wanted to because the downshift wouldn’t go right, and the engine would just be screaming.

Those were really pioneering days.

JT – When sequential transmissions and then electronically-controlled, steering wheel-mounted paddle shift transmissions first came into racing, many critics argued that the new technology would destroy an important part of the craft of racing. Was there any thought about that while you were developing paddle shifters with McLaren?

SJ – At that point no one gave it any thought. We all thought it was awesome because it made life a lot easier. It’s only later on that you realize that this one of the developments that has taken a huge element out of the driver’s craft. That’s what some of this technology brings with it.

JT – When did you really begin to make use of data acquisition systems?

SJ – I think we started testing with it, the very basic stuff, in 1991. I did a test for Porsche at Magny-Cours with the Footwork Arrows [Arrows made a deal to use Porsche engines 1991 Formula One season] team, and there were lots of guys from Bosch [Motorsport], and they were so proud with a complete layout of the track in their data system.

But while we were testing we pulled up the data, and it basically showed a figure-8 track! Those were pioneering days as well. We didn’t really start getting useful data until 1993 or 1994, just the basics. But data logging has grown so much since then.

JT – Do you think drivers rely on data too much these days? Do they have too much data at hand?

SJ – Yes, but it is what it is. Having said that, I wish I’d had data to look at when I was teammates with [Alain] Prost or [Ayrton] Senna, for example.

These days when you’re driving with a teammate in F1 and you can’t figure out why you’re slower than he is, all you have to do is look at the data. The deeper you dig, the more you find out what it is that the other guy is doing. You can see what you’re missing–all the brake, throttle, and steering inputs. Brake pressure as well.

It’s all the information you’d ever need, and what it means often is that you have to adapt your driving style accordingly. Finding out what you’re missing is easy now. Changing your driving to improve on the one element that’s making you slower–that’s not always easy.

JT – You speak often of the corrosive effect of advancing aerodynamics on racing–how aerodynamic downforce makes overtaking more difficult and racing less competitive, more expensive, and less relevant.

SJ – As I’ve been saying, we’re at the point now with aerodynamic downforce in almost every category of auto racing that people need to realize that it’s ruining the competition. It’s really only serving one purpose–to make a race car go faster. Apart from that I don’t see any benefits to aerodynamic downforce.

It doesn’t really contribute to road car production in any significant way. I read today that Pat Symonds (Willams F1’s Chief Technical Officer) commented that the level of downforce on the 2017 car is going to be “staggering” compared to what we have now with the 2016 cars. Basically that means that drivers will have to literally be in a corner when they hit the brakes.

They’re already almost in a corner when they brake now. How that will improve the racing in F1, I have no idea. It makes engineers happy because they have a whole new area of aerodynamics they can play with. But it will make passing even harder and less frequent than it is today. That doesn’t make for better racing.

JT – Picking up on that theme, as technology evolved which car had the highest level of downforce you ever raced with? Which car had the lowest level?

SJ – It could have been the Porsches [956 & 962. Stefan raced both extensively in Group C and at Le Mans] because they had massive downforce due to the tunnels running right through the bottom of the car, probably more than the Audi R8. The Porsches were pretty amazing to drive. [Stefan raced the original R8, the R8C LMP1 in 1999 at Le Mans, sharing a car with Stephane Ortelli and Christian Abt. Later, he raced the more advanced and very successful open-top version of the R8, finishing on the podium at Le Mans with it in 2003 with J.J. Lehto and Emanuele Pirro].

The lowest downforce cars I raced would probably some of the Ford touring cars I did one-off races in.

Listing image by Getty Images | Mark Thompson