the good old days ??

[nameless]

yesterday i watched the 1993 portuguese grand prix (yes i accept this is not all that old to some, but is still considered a better era for the sport) and the race had a very familiar ring to it. Schumacher took the lead through the pitstops and for the rest of the race there was no overtaking (except hill coming fromt he back) as it simply wasnt possible to overtake, even when schumacher certainly didnt have the best car. The point i am making here is are we viewing the past through rose tinted glasses and remembering it as more than it was, admittedly this race may not be a fair representation, i dont know, but do we really want to make rule changes to return to similar spec to that time, to return to 'what acing should be like' or should we look back and realise it wasnt all that good actually and try and come up with solutions relevant to today.
any thoughts ??

[RWC]

Well '93 may not nessesarilly be the best choice of what is possible.....
Basically f1 NEEDS:
Getting rid of max & bernie- really i can hardly begin to explain the problems these two bring on f1!! Greed vanity,corruption ,living in the pockets of disgusting industries when the rest of the world has moved on and lack of interest in real racing are a start

Change the cars,do whatever it takes(it could very well be done by simple means)-not being able to get close enough to pass on most corners of most tracks is just unbelievably pathetic!
I mean if they can't change something this simple,why does anyone still believe in bernie and max?????

Setup some rules that may allow technologies to be developed that do good for the future of cars
(no i don't mean electric race cars or mandating brake energy recycling allthough they aren't bad)

And other stuff...
as you can see there's not alot worth saving in the current abortion of a race series

[Mattracer]

I've been watching the 1988 and 1989 seasons again this week, partly because of the possiblity of simialr car specs to return in 2008 or earlier. Sure, Mclaren-Honda were dominating the races much like Ferrari are now, but the racing was just more "interesting" for some reason, hard to say exactly why. It couldn't all be down to the lack of TC, launch control and the widespead use of the manual gearchange, but I bet it had a large part in it.

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by RWC
Well '93 may not nessesarilly be the best choice of what is possible.....
Basically f1 NEEDS:
Getting rid of max & bernie- really i can hardly begin to explain the problems these two bring on f1!! Greed vanity,corruption ,living in the pockets of disgusting industries when the rest of the world has moved on and lack of interest in real racing are a start

Change the cars,do whatever it takes(it could very well be done by simple means)-not being able to get close enough to pass on most corners of most tracks is just unbelievably pathetic!
I mean if they can't change something this simple,why does anyone still believe in bernie and max?????

Setup some rules that may allow technologies to be developed that do good for the future of cars
(no i don't mean electric race cars or mandating brake energy recycling allthough they aren't bad)

And other stuff...
as you can see there's not alot worth saving in the current abortion of a race series

Max is changing the rules to help the racing - and all he gets is stick from people saying F1 should be high tech and racing doesn't matter!

Damned if you do.....

[climb]

Basically people tends to miss the good old times, forgetting that those past times weren't that different.

[gomick]

i've been watching f1 since 1986 and there has only ever been 1 or 2 team dominating each year..... is it possible in f1 for each team to have the same chassis but different engines - ie, a lola ferrari, williams lola bmw, mclaren lola mercedes etc.... simplistic, but

[nameless]

1999 was the last year i can think of where we had a fairly even fight with not one team dominating and there were regular victories for teams outside the top 2. what was the situation in this year that led to this occurence (other than the absence of schumacher), was there anything in the rules in 99 that particularly led to a more even battle or was it purely the absence of schumacher that put focus on the rest of the field - as im sure now outside of ferrari the racing is as good as it has been for a long time only we dont appreciate it as it isnt for the race wins. If this is the case then no matter what the rules are, what the technology of the cars are, we will always have the same situation as schumacher is clearly the best and will dominate whatever. so until we get someone to match him, or he retires, then any radical changes will be arbitrary. you can call for a return to the racing of the past if you wish but i dont feel it is going to happen soon because we dont have the driver mix of the past. I hope im wrong and things can be done without having to rely on the retirement of schumacher but im not full of hope

[EERO]

Yes its true that often one team has dominated a season in the past, but never the same team so convincingly for so long as we have seen recently.

The rules are such that we cannot see a technological innovation give a new team a leg up and Ferrari's budget is such that they have both speed and reliability.

As long as the rules exist in their current form, the richest team will dominate.

I suspect that soon, the Majors will abandon F1 as the bean counters can no longer justify subsidizing second tier teams. Ford will scale back, and TOYOTA will spend until they win it all and then leave. Honda will deprst and eventually BMW and Mercedes will as well.

It will be up to the Garagistes to resurrect F1.

[krt917]

Originally posted by nameless
yesterday i watched the 1993 portuguese grand prix (yes i accept this is not all that old to some, but is still considered a better era for the sport) and the race had a very familiar ring to it. Schumacher took the lead through the pitstops and for the rest of the race there was no overtaking (except hill coming fromt he back) as it simply wasnt possible to overtake, even when schumacher certainly didnt have the best car.

To be fair, it was a bit different to now. Michael stopped early for tyres, planning to come in again. When he saw that he had the lead after Prost's stop, he stayed out and defended from Prost (who I think also clinched the championship that day) to take the win. It was close and quite a good race, though not an absolute classic. And, though I'm an admirer of Prost, he wouldn't be the man I'd pick to take on Schuey in the closing laps of a GP (that man was in the States at the time!).

I do believe, however, that you have a point when you say:

Originally posted by nameless
The point i am making here is are we viewing the past through rose tinted glasses and remembering it as more than it was.

But we can still look to the past for inspiration and information (and, as RWC said, 1993 might not be the best choice).

I also think we need to make a distinction between the two reasons why people tend to find modern F1 boring.

The first is that Ferrari are doing most of the winning. Although I'd like to see them challenged, I don't really have a problem with them winning if they are doing the best job. Domination is not new and it does NOT require rule changes.

The second reason is the lack of overtaking (and to some extent, all the gizmos). This is caused chiefly by technical aspects of modern F1 cars and is also due to fuel strategy. The fact that Schuey couldn't (or wouldn't) pass Trulli on the track at Barcelona shows that this is the area which DOES require rule changes.

I'm not a fan of Bernie or Max and some of the proposed rules are not to my liking, but it does appear that F1 may be taking a step in the right direction. At least they are all taking the problems more seriously now.

[NiceGuyEddie]

All in all, the racing itself today isn't that much worse than it was 10 years ago. Big difference is that Schumacher stands out so much. 1992 was an awful season if you didn't care much for Mansell (as i didn't) but the 1991-season was a great fight between Senna and Mansell (only for Mansell losing it in a big cloud of dust when he spun of at Suzuka) and in 1993 Mansell wasn't even competing in F1.

Would we even be comparing 2004 to the awful 2002 when this year it was -lets say- Montoya who won al races up to now? Then we'd be rooting for the new star in town. I suppose...

[nameless]

i think youre right, people tend to get bored of seeing the same winners time and time again and enjoy change, and of course your perception is changed by who you support, you are always going to enjoy your driver winning all the time. so seeing the same person winning yet again is always going to cloud a persons view on the sport in general and i suppose up till now, more often than not there has been more than one driver challenging so no-one has been as dominant for so long as schumacher is now and so did get so bored with the results

[Armco Bender]

1976 now that was a great season

[Bononi]

Any 70's or 80's are great seasons, and if you compare to now, it's not the same formula.

[Knowlesy]

The thing about 1993 as well was there was still some semblance of personality in the drivers. Senna and prost being prime examples of this. The cars were more spectacular to watch and the tracks were still fairly dangerous and exciting. The sparks and the sounds were great too. From the point of view of watching cars going round a track it was pretty good. Not much racing but still very compelling.

[ralf fan]

i think the thing about those seasons like 92 and 93 was that eventhough Williams were dominant the reliability was not as great as the Ferrari reliabilty... hence you were gaurenteed a new race winner once in atleast 3 or 4 races...

and plus you have to say Senna was a genius who could give you a few race wins no matter how tough the opposition was..
if MS was say in a Williams and someone like Raikkonnen in the Ferrari i think wed have a better title fight... because MS like Senna can produce even when his car is not good

[NiceGuyEddie]

But does a great season mean that it had great races? Take 1991 again for instance. The story of the season was great in the sense that McLaren/Senna were on top the first part of the season, but once Williams got their gearbox going, they quickly caught up with Mansell, only to loose it at Suzuka. But what races stand out in the 1991 as truly memorable races? The Spanish GP was definatly good, but whatelse? What I mean is, when the hunt for the championship is any good, that doesn't mean it consists of truly good racing.

[Knowlesy]

I guess it all depends on what you look for in your racing.

[Bononi]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
But does a great season mean that it had great races?

I can only count it as great if it had great races. More than that, there are seasons that you can't forget, that means they were the best ever, like '86, for example.

[Bononi]

...and it doesn't mean that the WDC of that season was the best either.

[GP Racer]

IMO, the good ol days were the good ol days, simply because we were younger then. Everything is fresh and exciting and leaves a lasting impression on us when we're young. As we age we become jaded and lose our naivety, and we tend to have a more critical outlook on most things.

I'm sure a youngster just starting to watch F1 now, will look back and remember these days as "the good ol days" of F1!

[Andrew2001]

Who here has been to a Grand Prix? If so, which one? If not, why not?

To understand why these cars don't race that closely that often, you need to see these things go in real life. It is absolutely bloody unbelievable how fast they really are.
Get rid of Max sounds like a plan, but apparently they may replace him with JEAN TIT! **** in hell I will be VERY tempted to walk away from F1 if he takes over, just imagine it...

[Andrew2001]

Originally posted by ralf fan
i think the thing about those seasons like 92 and 93 was that eventhough Williams were dominant the reliability was not as great as the Ferrari reliabilty... hence you were gaurenteed a new race winner once in atleast 3 or 4 races...

and plus you have to say Senna was a genius who could give you a few race wins no matter how tough the opposition was..
if MS was say in a Williams and someone like Raikkonnen in the Ferrari i think wed have a better title fight... because MS like Senna can produce even when his car is not good

Nar that is not necessary, just hire Villeneuve and tell Schumacher that he can sit on it and rotate if he is going to have any problems with his team mate. Here's the best car on the grid, now USE it.
And use it they would, and therefore, we would NOT have the problem we have now because people would accept Ferrari domination, if there was actual action between the two red cars like we saw when Enzo was around, or when Williams were at their peak, or McLaren, or Lotus.....
And along with all that excitment, we'd see how good schumacher REALLY is at one on one combat. Well since he has never tried one on one combat wth a team mate, and JV being fully used to it, I'd say that Schumacher would be looking pretty worse for wear, especially if he had to go a FULL Season, (heaven forbid!) against his team mate..

[Teretonga]

In 1993 SENNA could win with an inferior car-apart from freak weather (Brazil 2003) that wouldn't happen now. Silverstone last year was a great race but weather and other circumstances affected that happening.
Part of the problem is that racing has become boringly predictable, in 1993 it wasn't anywhere near as predictable and when its an inevitable result and the same thing happens with a monotonous regularity over a period of four or five years people certainly begin to lose interest...

[RWC]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Max is changing the rules to help the racing - and all he gets is stick from people saying F1 should be high tech and racing doesn't matter!

Damned if you do.....

With respect to you ,max's ideas are utter ****
as usual

[Dixie Flatline]

IMHO, the first change that should be made to the cars is to reduce the importance of aerodynamic grip to the performance of the cars and consequently increase the mechanical grip. I recently watched the 1990 Australian GP, and after Senna went out of the race (he was way out in front, having been crowned world champion at Japan the race previous) there was a very interesting duel between Piquet and Mansell for the lead. But the point was that the cars could get close enough to each other to grab a tow which meant that the car behind had an opportunity to overtake. Now, more often than not, a driver who closes in on the driver ahead of him seems to hit a moving wall at around 0.5seconds behind and can't get close enough to get the tow. Consequently, there is very little overtaking, particularly amongst the leading drivers.

IMHO, we then wouldn't need circuit designs like Bahrain, which to me looked like a complete contrivance to put some overtaking into the race (long straight, followed by a sharp corner).

Now that I'm on my high horse, I'd like to make a suggestion that we revert to the classic qualifying style, or at worst, the 2003 style. The current system is boring as all heck.

Oh, and a return to slick tyres. Grooved tyres on the premier motor racing category just looks wrong.