24 replies to this topic

[RSNS]

Hello all

I've watched some races from the 80ies and 90ies recently and I was very impressed by how interesting they were.

Reliability provided some of the spice, but mainly the interest lay in the different moments of the race: each driver had to have a strategy about tires and fuel. And, also, about how to ballance his own physical resistance.

For instance, Senna's strategy seemed to be to take pole and then try to maintain it (he was not notably faster than the other drivers in the race, except in the wet). Lauda's strategy was quite different (as he knew he was no longer the faster qualifier he always attacked in the races with a set up for racing and not qualifying)). Prost was a master on how to break rivals' motivation (he was a very impressive driver overall: fast when needed, nursing his car if necessary, playing a wating game and then braking all opposition).

As the cars were very powerfull and less dependent on aero than now overtaking was possible.

 

Tires might be made to last for the entire race or not, and some magnificent surprises did come up.

 

Also, drivers were well ballanced between them: Lauda, Prost, Senna, Mansell (in the Williams phase) might be expected to match each other.

There were less rules, more excitement, I found myself enthralled in races I had seen the way I no longer do in today's F1.

The problem began with the ideia of groved tires and then Schumacher was so much faster than all the other drivers that the ballance in the Lauda-Prost or Prost-Senna years was lost.

Nowadays drivers seem again more or less well ballanced, but racing is too rigid (mandatory pitstops and too many rules, blue flags and so on).

"So what's your point", you may be thinking? Make rules less rigid, races a bit longer, tires a bit larger and more lasting.
 

Just my opinion.

[Anderis]

80ies and 90ies will never come back.

 

The problem of today's F1 era is that current teams are that good and professional, that they're close to perfection in many details, unpredictability goes down for that reason. We would need really brave set of rules to ensure unpredictability. Things like tyres wearing quickly, which is what some people don't like and call it "artificial". But we won't come back to unpredictability that is not "artificial", because teams are much better prepared that they were 20 or 30 years ago and they don't allow things to surprise them and make things more interesting.

 

Less rigid rules may work and may not work. It depends on what is restricted and what is not. Simply dropping some restrictions in all areas is not going to work IMO. Again, this is not what used to be 20 or 30 years ago, some teams will find a way how to exploit lack of restrictions and dominate the sport others will never stand a chance to match them due to things that are pretty much outside their control, because it's much harder to outsmart others than it was in the past. It's possible to improve the situation if right rules are made less rigid, and some rules are made more rigid, for example those about saving costs.

[Jejking]

So, take away their ability to counter problems and it should be stirred up quite badly. F.e. those computer strategy things have got to go, a bit of a human call would really do wonders for the sport.

 

I think the switchover point to the current crop of cars was around 2001/2002, with engines naturally taking a hit around 2005/2006 and 2009 onwards. Those aerodynamic bricks from 1995 onwards made it quite hard to drive but due to simpler aero also easier to overtake.

[scheivlak]

Nice post, but to me it makes no sense to talk about "the 80s and 90s" as if it was one era!

 

In my perception you had

- the early 80s: a fascinating struggle between 'skirts&tricks' boys (in very sketchy tems: the Cossie/FOCA gang) versus the 'turbo blasters' - funny, wild and dangerous

- mid eighties: turbo paradise, but also: no refuelling, so tyre strategy and fuel strategy were important - Power and The Professor 

- late eighties / early nineties: starting as a gladiator era (the Greats: Senna/Prost/Mansell/Berger etc) fizzling down to a Newey/Renault supremacy (my god, how boring some of those races could be) challenged at times by some heroes if circumstances made it possible

- the mid-nineties: just one real superstar with both the brains and the craft for the sprint/stop/sprint/stop/sprint refuelling GP strategy confronting the often superior Williams-Renaults (in my very personal opinion overall driver-quality wise the low years of F1)

- the late nineties with a full blown tyre war and two clearly superior top teams with unmatched resources

 

As you see, I have a lot of fond memories from the eighties but rather less from the nineties. I rewatched quite a few GP from 1997 recently and my god, how tedious some of them were (everything aimed at getting the fuel strategy right) and what an awful standard of driving overall at times, compared to earlier and later years.

 

 

Edit - in reaction to the opening post: especially during and after the 1997 season everybody felt something should be done about the complete lack of passing in races. Grooved tyres were thought as a panacea for that: less mechanical grip. The result was a) more dependance on aero grip and b) a tyre war.... And one of the main reasons for the lack of passing - you don't have to pass your oppponent on track if you can pass him in the pits - was not challenged. I'm still glad that at least refuelling isn't allowed anymore during races.

Edited by scheivlak, 30 December 2013 - 00:49.

[alfa1]

Tires might be made to last for the entire race or not, and some magnificent surprises did come up.

Also, the introduction of "park ferme" to qualifying, and the banning of "morning warmup" had negative effects.

 

It used to be that you could change the car setup after qualifying to make it better for race conditions. Sometimes it worked, sometimes the team got it wrong.

That meant that there wasn't the tight correlation between qualifying position and race speed that we have today.

[RSNS]

Thank you all for the comments. On the whole I agree with what you say, so perhaps I was just daydreaming a little about the past.
But that said, I do miss the possibility of no pitstops at all and of harder tires.

[rhukkas]

In the 80s, and this was true of most motorsports, the engineers were pushing technical boundaries. Venturing into places we didn't know were possible. Creating power that chassis really couldn't handle. It's obvious why it's such a romantic era.

 

However we are now at a point where we no longer push these boundaries.Technically speaking a lot of what modern motorsport does is well within engineering capabilities. With a few tweaks tot he rules F1 designers could creates 2000+hp. So naturally reliability/drivability improves but not much else really 'has' to in terms of raw performance. F1 cars don't need to be that much quicker etc.... hence why a lot of the romance disappears. 

Edited by rhukkas, 08 January 2014 - 20:37.

[AlexS]

I don't agree with this post. I remember typically in 80's and 90's races with 30 sec 60 sec difference between the first and second or third, besides only up sixth had any luck to get a good show time in TV... 

Today a race with 5 seconds between first and second is a boring race.

 

The only thing i agree is that bad reliability inserted uncertainty in a race, so there were some odds that something could happen.

 

What changed is our perception of entertainment. Now want to be entertained all race. In past  just seeing a race was the entertainment.

 

There is another thing i miss from the old races, the speed sensation. 

 

This speed sensation was do to more open cockpits so we could see a bit of driver body and its interaction ,today we see a helmet nothing more.

Cameras position, today cameras seem to kill any speed sensation. 

Better suspensions and better cars also kill the speed sensation.

[Jejking]

Speed sensation plus going flat out was working like a charm up until 2005, but the increasingly difficult aero made it embarassingly hard to overtake. If only they could solve the disturbances behind the cars, an ugly solution like DRS wouldn't be needed at all.

[PLAYLIFE]

Better suspensions and better cars also kill the speed sensation.

 

 

The problem is not the suspension, it's the billiard-table smooth track surface.  The bumps have almost all been ironed out so you don't see the cars bobbing up and down especially in braking zones, let alone through fast sweepers.

[SenorSjon]

The cars are on rails now. The same goes for rallying. A car should try to kill you like a renegade steed, but reward your skill by going real fast. Now it is just a pony with a kid on it. And the pony is damn fast.

 

But rhukkas made the point. It no longer feels cutting edge or special anymore.

[Risil]

I wonder whether the well optimized, ultra-professional approach is essential to modern F1 or if it's simply the result of technical regs not really moving on much for a couple of decades.

 

In the 80s and 90s they were regularly dealing with new technology and new ideas, and cars were rarely anything like the ones of a few years previous. Only Red Bull seem to be doing anything innovative -- if the likes of Ferrari, Mclaren and Mercedes brought as many new design concepts (and broke down as much) as the Neweymobiles then F1 might be closer to its old self.

[MetallurgicalHedonist]

Among all the seasons of the not quite revered era from 2009 until now or even 2002 until now, the season which was still really good was 2012. It came even close to some seasons of the 80's (1982, 1983, 1986). Then one car was three times in a row (Japan, South Korea, India) as perfect as in its dominant season (namely 2011) and 2012, which has been great until Suzuka, was destroyed.

Edited by MetallurgicalHedonist, 09 January 2014 - 14:24.

[Risil]

Except for the fact that the final three races were the best of the whole year.

[vista]

Except for the fact that the final three races were the best of the whole year.

So Texas was one of the three? God no. But anyway this is off topic.

2012 was a very exiting year and much of it was down to the tyres and the new exhaust rules and both basically confused the teams.

[andyF1]

As you see, I have a lot of fond memories from the eighties but rather less from the nineties. I rewatched quite a few GP from 1997 recently and my god, how tedious some of them were (everything aimed at getting the fuel strategy right) and what an awful standard of driving overall at times, compared to earlier and later years.

 

 

Edit - in reaction to the opening post: especially during and after the 1997 season everybody felt something should be done about the complete lack of passing in races. Grooved tyres were thought as a panacea for that: less mechanical grip. The result was a) more dependance on aero grip and b) a tyre war.... And one of the main reasons for the lack of passing - you don't have to pass your oppponent on track if you can pass him in the pits - was not challenged. I'm still glad that at least refuelling isn't allowed anymore during races.

 

Great post and echoes my feelings, that I am happy to see the back of the re-fuelling  era and I hope that it doesn't return anytime soon. As for the 1997 season I agree with you. I recently watched a race that I remember as being a very entertaining race, Austria 1997. It was exciting in a way, but there was hardly any passing on the track and the only incidents and excitement came from reliability woes and poor driving (Alesi's leap over the top of Irvine in this race is a good example of this). All of the other position changes and 'excitement' came from refuelling tactics. 

 

Watch some races from the middle of 1994 (if you can stand the tedium) and you'll see a very similar pattern. The only race from mid season 94 that I would consider entertaining was Hockenheim, which follows some similar patterns. Excitement and incident was generated by some awful driving standards (two separate pile ups on the first lap), Jos the Boss nearly being turned to toast and widespread reliability issues leading to a surprise winner and an even more surprising 2nd and 3rd placed drivers. Yet I can't recall a single overtake on the track from that race.

 

Hey why take the risk of overtaking on the track when you can beat your opponent on fuel strategy. Ross Brawn and Schumi were the masters of this. But it often wasn't exciting to watch. This way of racing combined with an over reliance on aerodynamic grip led to races with very little on track passing.

 

Why some fans of F1 wish to return to the days of refuelling puzzles me.

Edited by andyF1, 09 January 2014 - 21:47.

[sennafan24]

For instance, Senna's strategy seemed to be to take pole and then try to maintain it (he was not notably faster than the other drivers in the race, except in the wet). 

Not sure where that comes from, I have read other people say this. In comparison to his teammates in races finished ahead, he showed he was faster in race trim

 

5-1 over Ellio in 1985

7-5 over Prost in 1988

9-1 over Prost in 1989 (I can leave that one due to the engine problem debate)

7-1 over Berger in 1990

 

I could go on with some more over Berger and some of his Lotus teammates, but I think my point is established. Even just before his death he was almost a full lap ahead of Hill at Brazil before he spun out. The mans race trim is massively overlooked, due to his qualifying glory.

Edited by sennafan24, 10 January 2014 - 00:54.

[MetallurgicalHedonist]

This! Nothing to add.

 

Btw:

 

It's a "bs" myth that he was only supreme in qualifying.

 

- He was the fastest driver ever in qualifying and "super better" than anyone (even super better than someone who never lost in qualifying even against quite powerful names before and after his time as Senna's teammate)

 

- and "only" better in racing than anyone else (even better than someone who never had less wins even against quite powerful names before and after his time as Senna's teammate).

 

Just because Senna was super better in qualifying than anyone else and relative to that only better in racing than anyone else created the bullsh** myth that he was only good in qualifying.

 

Small addition (just out of yucks): He erased someone (teammate) who won four of the five proceeding Monaco GPs at that time and would've erased him a year earlier, had that team not advised him to go slow. The only task of them was to shut up and not to advise him to go slow.

 

Let him go ahead and let's see, whether Vettel (as he is mentioned in the same sentence with Senna... yeah I know, people are crazy) can beat Alonso as a teammate with 16:3 in qualifying (two years in a row) and can get more wins than Alonso as his teammate or even not much more wins than him only because of zillions of DNFs.

Edited by MetallurgicalHedonist, 10 January 2014 - 01:24.

[sennafan24]

Yeah, the man did have flaws as a driver, he could be reckless and get caught up in incidents he should not have, he ironed those out though to a great extent after 1990. But his pace in both race trim and qualifying are without question in my book, in terms of consistency and standard.

[SenorSjon]

Andy, now you have the same with the tire undercut. Even worse, the marbles make going off-line like running through a slippery gravel trap. I rather have them running low fuel sprinting than cruising around praying their tires hold together for not even 10 laps. And with all the saving of equipment going on, it makes reliability a key issue. Everyone finishes the race, because risktaking can award you only penalties in the current system.

 

 

Good sport is not always entertaining, but entertainment is never a sport.

[MetallurgicalHedonist]

Yeah, the man did have flaws as a driver, he could be reckless and get caught up in incidents he should not have, he ironed those out though to a great extent after 1990. But his pace in both race trim and qualifying are without question in my book, in terms of consistency and standard.

 

Exactly. Even in 1990 he settled sometimes for second or third places and surely did so from 1991 onwards. But then people ask, "what about Interlagos 1994".

 

Because it was his home gp which meant so much for him. In every other track in the world he would have settled for second place in that situation. Didn't he say that the only possibilities for him in Interlagos were 1st or DNF for him? So, it was an absolute exception there.

[sennafan24]

Exactly. Even in 1990 he settled sometimes for second or third places and surely did so from 1991 onwards. But then people ask, "what about Interlagos 1994".

 

Because it was his home gp which meant so much for him. In every other track in the world he would have settled for second place in that situation. Didn't he say that the only possibilities for him in Interlagos were 1st or DNF for him? So, it was an absolute exception there.

People also forget the points dynamic for 1988-1990, with the best of 11, it was less vital to collect points every race. Race wins were more vital. He did make some silly mistakes, but like we both said, he calmed down come 1991 time, which shows when you consider in 1991 he was on the podium in every race where his car did not have a fault!

 

The Williams of 1994 was a very hard car to drive for the 1st few races of 1994, Newey said this lately. It was troublesome and inconsistent, the fact Senna got it on pole and got a lap ahead of his teammate in Brazil before spinning out, was a minor miracle.

[andyF1]

Andy, now you have the same with the tire undercut. Even worse, the marbles make going off-line like running through a slippery gravel trap. I rather have them running low fuel sprinting than cruising around praying their tires hold together for not even 10 laps. And with all the saving of equipment going on, it makes reliability a key issue. Everyone finishes the race, because risktaking can award you only penalties in the current system.

 

 

Good sport is not always entertaining, but entertainment is never a sport.

 

I agree, there is now too much focus on the tyres and tyre preservation. Tyre tactics and refuelling tactics (if refuelling is permitted) will always be a part of Formula One, unless the races are made significantly shorter, which I don't want to see.

The problem for me is that due to the regulations and the design of cars and/or tyres there is far too much importance placed on tyres or refuelling. It is evident in the current regulations with tyres and it was evident in the mid to late 90's with refuelling. In the case of the refuelling era it led to far too many tactical, 'chess match' style grand prix with hardly and on track passing.

 

I'm not sure if if many people will agree with me on this, but I think the 2010 regulations and tyres were the best the sport has had in a long time. I also quite enjoyed the style of racing in the early 90's and I would like to see it applied again soon. No refuelling, no silly 'you must use both compounds during the race rule, and most of all have tyres that might last a race distance but then again they might not

[sennafan24]

I agree, there is now too much focus on the tyres and tyre preservation. 

 

I'm not sure if if many people will agree with me on this, but I think the 2010 regulations and tyres were the best the sport has had in a long time. I also quite enjoyed the style of racing in the early 90's and I would like to see it applied again soon. No refuelling, no silly 'you must use both compounds during the race rule, and most of all have tyres that might last a race distance but then again they might not

 

I agree. 2006-2010 I felt had the best regulations in recent times/

[Frank Tuesday]

Exactly. Even in 1990 he settled sometimes for second or third places and surely did so from 1991 onwards. But then people ask, "what about Interlagos 1994".

Because it was his home gp which meant so much for him. In every other track in the world he would have settled for second place in that situation. Didn't he say that the only possibilities for him in Interlagos were 1st or DNF for him? So, it was an absolute exception there.

Don't forget that the point structure changed. Under the old system, particularly near the end of the season, a second place could be worth the same points as a DNF. There was no value in settling. Once all of the races counted, settling for second had value.