75 replies to this topic

[Atreiu]

What did anyone of them done of noteworthy in 2012?

[DutchQuicksilver]

Well, Ricciardo is being hyped and all, but in the end Vergne scored more points and seems to be more of a racer to me.

[Longtimefan]

I really haven't followed much what happens at the winter tests. Last season took much of my interest away, IMO it was the worst season I've seen. Hopefully 2013 will be a better season and I get my interest back. But if it turns out to be another 2012, I'm afraid my interest will fade away completely.

If you think 2012 was a bad season, think yourself lucky you didn't see 1996. lol

I think the worse seasons I've seen (imo) are 1996 and 1982, possibly also 1979.

[Sin]

I'm serious. Montreal and Valencia were the two most terrible races I've ever seen, decided by crap tyres.

valencia was decided by a failing alternator

[August]

If you think 2012 was a bad season, think yourself lucky you didn't see 1996. lol

I think the worse seasons I've seen (imo) are 1996 and 1982, possibly also 1979.

Then thank God the first season I watched closely was '98.

valencia was decided by a failing alternator

Failing alternators were the best thing of Valencia, at least we had technical retirements reminding of the great pre-00s F1.

Edited by August, 12 February 2013 - 22:39.

[Wander]

I don't know how the hell you can think of 2012 as the worst season since 98. I guess it depends on your preferences, but even so...

E: Oh, you actually think having technical retirements is a good thing. Right. Uh... Yeah...

Edited by Wander, 12 February 2013 - 22:46.

[ryan86]

I didn't think there was much wrong with the tyres in Canada. They lasted 40 laps before going over the cliff. Alonso and Vettel tried to make them last 50 and paid the price.

Edited by ryan86, 13 February 2013 - 02:18.

[Myrvold]

E: Oh, you actually think having technical retirements is a good thing. Right. Uh... Yeah...

It is. It shows that cars and equipment are being pushed to the limit, and it opens up for more interesting results.

[August]

I didn't think there was much wrong with the tyres in Canada. They lasted 40 laps before going over the cliff. Alonso and Vettel tried to make them last 50 and paid the price.

Unpredictability was one of the problems of those Pirellis. When those tires went over the cliff, you suddenly lost five seconds a lap. And it was so difficult to predict when that performance drop will happen. Alonso and Vettel felt their tyres will last until finish but they didn't.

It is. It shows that cars and equipment are being pushed to the limit, and it opens up for more interesting results.

Yep, with more tecnical retirements you don't have crap tyres to mix results.

[SophieB]

It is. It shows that cars and equipment are being pushed to the limit, and it opens up for more interesting results.

Exactly. The large percentage of cars on the grid going 'phhht' as they collapsed into sad, smoking, spluttering heaps at the edges of races was one of those things I never really appreciated until it stopped happening so much. Back then, turning up the wick for an overtake was excitingly risky stuff. Oh, the lost simple joys of seeing some poor soul's car's engine explode and then half a lap later seeing the car in front conk out because they'd turned up the wick too to keep in front. Pushing design to the limit is very different from deliberately adding random elements like those tyres.



(edited because SophieB doesn't type very carefully)

Edited by SophieB, 13 February 2013 - 13:47.

[Wander]

Tyres and technical retirements are separate issues, though. The increase of technical retirements only reduces the influence of tyres to mix the results in the sense that there are fewer cars running, so I don't have any idea what August means by that comment.

I also believe that people credit the tyres too much for the results we've had. I don't believe the tyres necessarily have a much bigger effect than ever before, but it only seems that way because all the cars are otherwise so close to each other.

I am excited for 2013, however, I am even more excited for 2014, cause there is simply no telling what's going to happen.

[William Hunt]

still I miss the '80s, F1 was better then imho, not as much money in the sport as now (which is a good thing), much more cars & drivers and especially: more charismatic drivers

[noikeee]

If you think 2012 was a bad season, think yourself lucky you didn't see 1996. lol

I think the worse seasons I've seen (imo) are 1996 and 1982, possibly also 1979.

I'm watching since I was a toddler (around '89/'90 or so) and the worst for me were pretty comfortably 2002 and 2004 - 2004 I actually stopped caring and watching the races because I just couldn't bear a repeat of 2002 all over again. 96 was pretty bad too I'll give you that, I think I missed a few races later on due to boredom as well.

[Slackbladder]

2012 the worst season you have seen? either you are trolling or.... I dont understand you

2012 was a good season..

2011....not so much.. Red Bull too dominant that year.

[juicy sushi]

If you think 2012 was a bad season, think yourself lucky you didn't see 1996. lol

I think the worse seasons I've seen (imo) are 1996 and 1982, possibly also 1979.

Pretty much 1998-2004 were rubbish for me. Terrible cars made for even worse racing.

The name stuff is fun and I whole-heartedly encourage thread drift for entertainment purposes.

[MP422]

2012 was a good season..

2011....not so much.. Red Bull too dominant that year.

Yea for sure.

[Dino2000]

Any season that it's decided on the last race, has to be a good season. 2012 was up to the wire and I enjoyed quite a lot also the greater number of race winners and the impredictability of the early part of the season (bar the Ferrari low performance).

For 2013 I'm also excited, but yes, I have been excited before the beginning of every season!

I've been watching F1 since 1976, and the most exciting season I remember was 1986.

[Seanspeed]

There was nothing random about the tire situation in Canada. Ferrari and Red Bull knew exactly what they were risking by staying out. If they had started that stint with the intention of running to the end, they might have made it, but the decision came after they had already been pushing on them trying to chase Lewis. What they didn't expect was Grosjean and Perez. They figured if the plan didn't work out, they'd at worst come back out in the same spots as they were(2nd and 3rd).

I thought it was one of the better strategy-based races we saw last year. I feel bad for anyone who cant appreciate what they witnessed. And I hope to see more of that in 2013.

[Wander]

Pretty much 1998-2004 were rubbish for me. Terrible cars made for even worse racing.

I have to agree with this to a large extent. The only problem with 96 was the Williams superiority with Jacques not able to mount a really threatening challenge to Damon.

I think the concept of the grooved tyres was stupid. They should have never gone that route to reduce cornering speeds.

Edited by Wander, 13 February 2013 - 19:57.

[George Costanza]

I don't really understand the hating of the seasons of 1998-2000.... You had Mika Hakkinen vs Michael Schumacher at their very best.

They are, espeically the 2000 season, was one THE greatest seasons in the history of F1.

[ApexMouse]

What has long confused me about the 'I hate the 98- 2004' view is two things. Firstly, the rules(bar engines) and the pecking order stayed essentially identical for 4 years afterwards, up to 09 (in fact the small aero changes in 05 made the racing much worse through increased dirty air sensitivity) and as already stated the 98-01 battles of Schumacher and Hakkinen were a golden era.

The 'it was Ferrari winning everything' view holds no water either. The 2011 and 2010 RB's were just as dominant, but less reliable, the only thing that kept the championships at all open. Perhaps people like 2005 onwards because a certain team, popular on this site, could win again...

The cars were a great deal more exiting then as well. There was engine development, up to 1000bhp in lighter chassis, and lap records being smashed left right and center. Yes, the grooves were standard mosley garbage, but the rest of the tech package was amazing. They looked like something else. Nowadays you have spec engines, everybody converging on one aero design because the rules are so strict, and crappy tires and gameboy overtakes in a crap attempt to gloss over the dirty air issue. Which they might have attempted to address further in 14, but haven't bothered their arses because the 'show' is good now.

Even this 'exiting new formula' for 14.... just isn't. In the slightest. Yes all the people 'who are' will talk it up, but the new engines are essentially blueprinted, the power outputs of ER systems limited, and freaking homologation before the first race for the brand new engines. Oh, and they get heavier and retain DRS fpr more Marokart action. Yippee. The ethos of F1 is gone. Theres no ultra-inventive engineering through attacking power, weight, grip, as anything that could give you an advantage gets banned or equalized by rule. Those £50,000 73rd front wing iterations are amazing though!

Diatribe spewing over, please continue fellows. I'll be dribbling in the corner.
Heck, I'm three steps from the nostalgia thread. HELP ME

Edited by ApexMouse, 13 February 2013 - 21:43.

[Jimisgod]

Bad years?

2002, 2004, 2011 for me.

Everything else I've watched has had more than one team fighting for the win.

[ViMaMo]

Pretty much 1998-2004 were rubbish for me. Terrible cars made for even worse racing.

Maybe 1999,2002,2004 were bad because of poor competition.

1998, 2000 and 2003 were good.

[ChiltonsCats]

should be a great season, hopefully it's close and exciting in all areas!

[Sin]

1999 was my favorite season when I watched F1 before quitting to watch for years till india 2011.... I just was so disappointed Jordan fired Frentzen....

[juicy sushi]

To reply, and expand, yes, the V10s of the time were nice, but nothing else about the cars were. The tire regulations were an example of Max Mosley's incompetence on technical matters, par excellence. As were the aerodynamic rules, which made it increasingly more difficult for drivers to go at it wheel-to-wheel. In fact, the year-on-year changes to the front wing rules to "produce more passing" not only did the opposite, but did so in such a clear way it astounded me that no one was willing to point it out.

As a result, there was some good tactical racing between McLaren and Ferrari, but no dicing on the track. I watch to be entertained, and compared to early-mid 1990s CART or 1980s F1, the 1998-2004 period just wasn't very fun to watch. I know how fast the cars were, but the lap time is not the ultimate arbiter for me of what makes for a "good" race car. I'm not on a team, I'm just a fan.

Also, the cars were pretty damn ugly, nice paint jobs aside, and the drivers didn't have the most entertaining personalities to make up for the other flaws in the package. Not their fault, granted, but it was a lot more fun to watch Valentino Rossi in MotoGP than Michael Schumacher in F1. I also didn't like the way Max Mosely seemed to be so particularly biased in favour of Ferrari (not necessarily Ferrari's fault, they needed to reach for every advantage they could, like all teams do).

I like the new engine rules because they are creative and allow the engines to be a key part of the package again (unlike the V8 era). Yes, the core v6 is homologated. That makes sense. We no longer live in a global economy where manufacturers can throw away $500+ million/year on an uncompetitive F1 engine program. Budgets need to be sensible, and as such, making clear rules about where development can be focused makes sense. It allows the manfacturers to get both technical and marketing value from their efforts, without triggering a spending free-for-all which is unsustainable. Blue-sky engineering is fun, but motorsports has passed the point where that is economically viable. Therefore choosing technical battles wisely and letting the manufacturers set their own pace in terms of areas and scale of development is the only way forward.

It's unromantic, but it's the only practical option at this point in time...