51 replies to this topic

[Paul Taylor]

I watched Peter Windsor's interview with Brian Redman last week. Brian stated that back in the day, sportscars were lapping the old Spa 7 or 8 seconds faster than the Grand Prix cars, with the Porsche 917s hitting 210mph on the straights compared to Grand Prix's 180mph or so. I checked this out and sure enough he was right. 1970 Belgian GP, the fastest lap was a 3'27. In the Spa 1000km a month earlier, Rodriguez pulled off a 3'16. The weather was comparable for most events. That's a huge difference in lap time.

 

Is this any basis to say that Grand Prix cars were behind sports cars at the time?

 

The reason I ask is that it looks like "the pinnacle of motorsport" is falling behind sports cars again. Sports car technology is far more pioneering, running hybrid systems, energy recovery systems, alternative fuels, very experimental cars such as the Deltawing and while F1 is giving some of these a go, the systems are nowhere near as reliable and it has been embarrassing to watch manufacturers like Honda struggle to make cars that'll last more than a handful of laps at full beans. Not only that, but modern Grand Prix drivers "race" at several seconds off the pace because they're forever "managing" their cars whereas the LMP1 prototypes are seemingly driven flat out much of the way. And I doubt I need to go into the calibre of Grand Prix drivers vs. sports car drivers. Let's just say if you're 18 and you have a lot of money you can do whatever you want.

[Tim Murray]

Don't forget that in 1970 at Spa the Grand Prix cars used the slow chicane at Malmedy which the sports cars didn't use. In his Motor Sport report DSJ estimated that the chicane added around 7 - 10 seconds to the lap times. This would have still meant that the sports cars were probably slightly quicker.

Picking another circuit where both types raced in 1970, at Watkins Glen Ickx set fastest lap in the GP of 1' 02.74, whilst Rodriguez set a best lap of 1' 04.9 in the Watkins Glen 6 hours.

Edited by Tim Murray, 21 June 2016 - 18:36.

[ensign14]

Is this any basis to say that Grand Prix cars were behind sports cars at the time?

 

The reason I ask is that it looks like "the pinnacle of motorsport" is falling behind sports cars again.

 

No, because dragsters are faster than anything motoring and they're not the pinnacle of motorsport.  Speed is not the be-all and end-all, otherwise the Senna/Prost era was pants compared to the Gethin era.

 

And the three guys who should have won Le Mans were all F1 refugees.  It will be the pinnacle of motorsport until it disappears up its own self-selecting fundament.  Although I reckon we are rapidly approaching the Event Horizon...

[Vitesse2]

Picking another circuit where both types raced in 1970, at Watkins Glen Ickx set fastest lap in the GP of 1' 02.74, whilst Rodriguez set a best lap of 1' 04.9 in the Watkins Glen 6 hours.

And in the Can-Am race the previous day Jackie Stewart's fastest lap in the Chapparal 2J 'Sucker' was 1' 05.8". However, Denny Hulme in the new McLaren M8D 'Batmobile' had taken pole with 1' 02.76" - faster than Ickx's F1 pole time of 1' 03.07".

 

Even taking the bigger capacities into account, considering the 2J and M8D were running stock block Chevs, as against the pure Ferrari racing engines, that's pretty damned impressive. At the time it was probably a toss-up as to which was fastest - F1, Group 5 or Group 8 - and IIRC much of the reasoning behind limiting sports cars to 3 litres from 1972 was because the 5 litre Ferraris and Porsches were at least as fast as the best F1 cars.

[Ray Bell]

Horses, courses and other factors...

At one time the Tasman Formula had cars which were undoubtedly faster than F1. They were, essentially, 1.5-litre F1 cars with 2.5-litre engines and smaller fuel tanks for lighter weight.

Immediately prior to that, in the first couple of years of the 1.5-litre formula, I would reckon some of the prototypes were quicker at some circuits.

Then came Can-Am cars, where Bruce McLaren reckoned that his F1 development work helped his Can-Am cars go quicker than the others. But note the capacity difference, and the streamlining difference, later the downforce difference.

You just have to look at every set of circumstances and see where it's all really at. F1 is heavily regulated to keep car speeds down, money gets spent by the bucketload to overcome this.

[Collombin]

This kind of reminds me of when someone was raving about Bellof lapping the Nordschliefe quicker than Lauda's F1 lap record until it was politely pointed out that the 1983 circuit was about a mile shorter.

[Doug Nye]

Indeed.  

 

DCN

[john winfield]

I believe that, back in around 1964, the motor racing authorities became concerned that the 1.5 litre Grand Prix cars were looking under-powered in comparison to other formulae, resulting in the change to 3 litres in 1966. At the 1965 Silverstone International Trophy meeting the 'Big Banger' sports cars proved quicker than a very good Formula 1 entry.

 

Who produced those 'Return to Power' stickers, I wonder?  I had one on my push-bike and clearly remember enhanced performance through the local lanes.

[Stephen W]

F1 seems to have shunted itself into a siding with the regulations it has imposed on itself. It has also created an exclusive club which is out of reach of enthusiastic racers who want a crack at the big teams.

 

Harking back to the 917s and 512s the FIA could see that they were much faster than F1 so again legislated them out with regulation changes.

 

As for the USA most Americans who are interested in motor sport will support IndyCar and NASCAR primarily and which are the "pinnacle of the sport" as far as the Americans are concerned. However, both series have slowly been adapted to the show-business concept and coupled with TV ad-breaks are aimed at people with short attention spans.

[E1pix]

Gee whiz, did you really say that last paragraph out loud?

[GMACKIE]

Weren't you listening, E1 ?

[Lee Nicolle]

Current F1 with their stupid looking gargoyles look so silly. Then they sound like shopping trolleys with 1.5 litre engines. And skinny 13" wheels. 

Apart from the so called hybrid technology they are 25 years out of date. And the Prius hybrids just make very expensive cars. And a struggle for numbers.

I watch occasionally, the last race sent me to sleep yet again. The course, another street circuit in reality like Monaco was quite dangerous.

Yet they are shutting down the great circuits because of nanny stuff. Then go race in narrow streets!!

F1s, even if not the fastest things in the past looked great, sounded great. Now they look stupid and sound like the local hoons hatchback,, actually many of those sound better!

[2F-001]

Harking back to the 917s and 512s the FIA could see that they were much faster than F1...

Leaving aside the exceptional circumstance of Spa (and even there we have shown that the net advantage of the 917 was the equivalent of, what, a second or so around Silverstone?) where and when was this superior performance evidenced?

 

(I consider maximum speed to be largely irrelevant in this; more power and better streamlining outweighs lightness once at speed, assuming the circuit layout is favourable - but that was really only at Spa with the sustained high speed. Even at Monza, which one might consider a high-speed track, the lap-times were more-or-less on par. And even then, it was only really the quicker of the 917s wasn’t it? I’d be interested to look at the spread of times across the field/class in each case.)

 

So, at which venues were 917s and 512s “much faster than F1”?

Edited by 2F-001, 22 June 2016 - 09:49.

[Tim Murray]

Even at Monza, which one might consider a high-speed track, the lap-times were more-or-less on par.

At the Österreichring too they were pretty much level pegging in 1970/71.

[john winfield]

I think that, around somewhere like Brands, by 1971 the 3-litre Ferrari 312P was quicker than the 512 and 917 anyway. I was getting very excited in 1972 at the prospect of the 312PB having a go at the F1 cars in the Rothmans 50,000. It never happened of course and, even if it had, the contest would probably have been one-sided. At the 1972 1000km, the sports car was on pole with a 1m 27.4 - three months later, at the GP, Ickx and the 312B2 were fastest at 1m 22.2. Quite a difference, even allowing for temperature, competition etc.

[Charlieman]

I don't think that fastest lap time determines the "pinnacle" of motor sport. If you were to put an F1 car versus a specialist hillclimb car, the hillclimb car will set the faster time. Similarly, a Formula Libre car from a wealthy outfit would beat an F1 car on a circuit.

 

What makes GP or F1 racing a "pinnacle" is the level of competition with a combination of the quickest drivers, most inventive engineers and hungry teams. We love the idea of an equal and open playing field. What we don't like are fake overtaking measures, silly tyre rules, boring engine restrictions etc, some of which have the reverse effect of the intentions behind them. F1 won't get fixed until the people making the rules understand what makes good sport and how rich teams use their money.

[john winfield]

Fair points, Charlieman, and one could argue that, as sports car racing lost its way in the mid-1970s, Formula 1 (at least in Europe) was clearly at the 'pinnacle' of the sport: quick cars, several competitive teams, innovative designs, most of the top drivers, increasingly in the public eye etc. 

[Ross Stonefeld]

I watched Peter Windsor's interview with Brian Redman last week. Brian stated that back in the day, sportscars were lapping the old Spa 7 or 8 seconds faster than the Grand Prix cars, with the Porsche 917s hitting 210mph on the straights compared to Grand Prix's 180mph or so. I checked this out and sure enough he was right. 1970 Belgian GP, the fastest lap was a 3'27. In the Spa 1000km a month earlier, Rodriguez pulled off a 3'16. The weather was comparable for most events. That's a huge difference in lap time.

 

 

What were, roughly, the power and weight figures for these cars? I would think, all things being similar, the 917 would have a massive drag advantage which would be helpful around Spa. 

 

NASCAR has some very impressive top speeds on ovals, in large part for that reason. 

[kayemod]

F1 the pinnacle of motorsport? That's a difficult one, but I expect that my own feelings will accord with those of many TNF old farts. It's always been F1 above everything else for me, ever since probably still short-trousered, I stood in the rain to watch Sir Stirling displaying his mastery at Aintree and Oulton Park in the Ferguson or a 1.5litre Lotus 18. I watched other races on the programme as well, but they didn't really excite much interest. Chevron B8s? no thanks, not in comparison with  SCM and sharknose Ferraris etc. The closest I ever got to LeMans type cars was listening to the BBC hourly commentary into the early hours, head under the bedclothes so as not to arouse any parental interest "You've got school on Monday and homework to finish!", about whether the D Types were holding off the Testarossas etc. I'd be the first to admit that current F1 cars are most unattractive, the ugliest they've ever been, clever undoubtedly, but some of the technology is confusing and largely irrelevant to most of us, and certainly little appreciated or understood. "Modes?" "Harvesting?, no thanks! The racing is dull more often than not, and some of the characters involved, drivers and others are hugely uninspiring, I hate all the showbiz fanboy stuff that a few of the current lot seem to attract. I still watch all the races though, even if I sometimes drop off halfway through after a lunchtime glass or two of Shiraz, when it all becomes too processional, and they all seem to be "Waiting for the stops". Whoever elevated "strategy" to it's current all-consuming status should be shot for the good of the sport.

 

Sports cars do nothing for me, they haven't since live-axled D Types and Ferraris with a mesh or Perspex scoop over the carbs. The current cars are the ugliest freaks ever, and the mess of formulae impossible to follow, as if anyone cared about wattage, ohms, or however else the things are classified. There's an awful lot wrong with many types of racing, F1 most of all, and there seems to be little will to improve the situation, but apart from LeMans, how many people go to watch sports cars these days? In many ways, F1 is a shadow of what it once was despite the millions spent on it, but it's still the pinnacle for me, and I can't see anything ever taking over from it for popular worldwide appeal.

 

PS, on the subject of "lesser formulae", I'll make an honourable exception for the original CanAm, great racing doesn't have to be high-tech..

Edited by kayemod, 22 June 2016 - 22:20.

[D28]

kayemod:

I agree with a lot of your position except that I was attracted first to sports cars and saw many races before ever seeing a F1 car. I do expect prototypes to resemble racing cars somewhat and the current Le Mans cars leave me completely cold. The same can be said of current F1 cars.

What I really appreciated fairly recently was the ALMS series. It featured great racing especially in the GT class and visited great circuits. It was also televised by a dedicated racing channel; one could watch the Road Atlanta Little Le Mans for updates all day and see the final at night. It's hard to believe now, as all has disappeared, I don't know why the ALMS folded, probably because of internecine wrangling that so destroyed American OW racing. The combined series whatever called today also leaves me cold, the IMSA cars never appealed. Also as you point out probably not enough fans paid to see or follow ALMS. What we are left with locally as the main viewing options are NASCAR and F1. Sports cars just aren't on the radar in N America now. and that is a shame.

Edited by D28, 22 June 2016 - 17:48.

[Lee Nicolle]

In the day 5000s were quicker on some more open circuits than 3 litre F1s.

I suspect that will still be the case even now forthe same cars, eg mid 70s F1 and 5000

[E1pix]

Weren't you listening, E1 ?

My mind goes blank over such tragic bias. :-)

[john aston]

Other formulae may be quicker from to time but Formula One has , does and will attract the best drivers and usually has  the fastest cars. Not every F1 driver is part of the speedy  elite but that is even more the case in sports cars. The current crop may be over complex , they may race  racing in daft places like Baku ,some drivers ' gnomic utterances may grate  (yes stand up Lewis)   but close up the cars  are pieces of modern art and what's not to like in 900bhp in 600 -odd kilos ?    

[Peter Morley]

Other formulae may be quicker from to time but Formula One has , does and will attract the best drivers and usually has  the fastest cars. Not every F1 driver is part of the speedy  elite but that is even more the case in sports cars. The current crop may be over complex , they may race  racing in daft places like Baku ,some drivers ' gnomic utterances may grate  (yes stand up Lewis)   but close up the cars  are pieces of modern art and what's not to like in 900bhp in 600 -odd kilos ?    

 

What's not to like is that it looks like they are easy to drive (not to mention ugly cars, awful circuits and too much aero.) - 20 odd years ago the steering wheel was moving constantly, the car moved around and the driver did a lot one handed because he was also changing gear etc.

Modern drivers are extremely good and find driving older cars pretty easy (because they are so much slower) but from the outside it doesn't look much different to driving a road car.

F1 has always attracted the very best drivers, as well as some who make up the numbers/pay for the team but these days there are so few entries and with telemetry, simulators etc. their performance is much closer to each other.

 

As for the term quicker, top speed has usually been quicker in sportscars but lap time isn't and it doesn't matter, in the heyday of DTM it was really popular with very spectacular cars but the lap times were similar to an F3 car.

[john aston]

Easy ? Easier than a 1200bhp turbo Brabham in '86 but , I'd bashfully suggest . a lot harder physically and mentally than a Lotus 25.Ugly ? In the eye of the beholder- my favourite was the 1975 312T . a marmite car for many and - heresy alert- I could never get especially worked up about a 250F.

 

Some modern drivers - in fact most I suspect - would really struggle to change gear on a 'proper' gearbox , initially anyway . I was only discussing  the youtube of Alex Rossi in the 49 with 2F-001 at Cadwell on Sunday . Rossi made a total lash up of changing gear and his downshifting was painful. But there again I'd pay good money to watch Vittorio Brambilla operating the Mercedes F1 car steering wheel ...      

[Stephen W]

No I didn't say it out loud E1pix as I am not in the habit of talking to myself!

[barrykm]

Obviously much of this debate relates to one's personal opinion and motorsport values but for me, switching from Le Mans coverage to Baku last Sunday confirmed what I have been feeling for a long time - in my view current F1 is not in good shape The engineering is fabulous, there are some great drivers, but the spirit is somehow lacking.

 

...I'm looking forward to the Assen Moto GP this coming Sunday...

[Peter Morley]

Easy ? Easier than a 1200bhp turbo Brabham in '86 but , I'd bashfully suggest . a lot harder physically and mentally than a Lotus 25.Ugly ? In the eye of the beholder- my favourite was the 1975 312T . a marmite car for many and - heresy alert- I could never get especially worked up about a 250F.

 

Some modern drivers - in fact most I suspect - would really struggle to change gear on a 'proper' gearbox , initially anyway . I was only discussing  the youtube of Alex Rossi in the 49 with 2F-001 at Cadwell on Sunday . Rossi made a total lash up of changing gear and his downshifting was painful. But there again I'd pay good money to watch Vittorio Brambilla operating the Mercedes F1 car steering wheel ...      

 

Look at in car footage from turbo cars etc and you see a huge amount of driver input and really feel that the driver was working hard.

Turbo cars are probably the most extreme example of that and incredibly exciting which modern cars aren't.

Compared to the older cars driving modern cars looks easy - just turn the steering wheel the requisite amount and then straighten up, no need for correction etc.

 

But the speeds they are doing are totally different as are the forces they experience   - look at the video that shows a Senna Monaco pole lap compared to a recent Vettel one side by side (it's on Youtube somewhere), and Vettel has finished the lap while Senna is still alongside the harbour.

Add in all the stupid controls they have to adjust now and so on and while it looks boring to viewers it isn't for the drivers - and the level of accuracy required is much higher because everything is so much quicker and more extreme (e.g. same % difference between 150m braking and 50m braking makes the margin tiny).

 

Incidentally a longstanding Tyrrell guy spent a long time convincing me the current drivers were better and he'd seen plenty of them driving the old cars - which there is a chance to do at Goodwood this weekend.

[sabrejet]

Well for my part I used to think of F1 as 'the pinnacle' until I saw my first Group C car: at that point I felt I'd been misled and that feeling has not changed in the intervening 30 years. In terms of technology, racing (in other words, cars/drivers actually overtaking each other), spectacle (even at rest), value for money and interest, CanAm, Group C, WEC, IMSA, ELMS and any number of other sportscar events will always win out.

 

Nowadays the WEC also makes F1 look lame when it comes to technology: past threads have firmly put any/most F1 'innovation' arguments to bed too.

 

But who cares? Well actually I do: long may F1 be purported as 'the pinnacle' because it means Joe Public can attend those over-priced, over-hyped non-events while I get to see proper motorsport without having to wade through crowds of football fans.

 

I just wish I'd seen the light all those years ago and not wasted my time attending F1 (including the turbo era - which by the way is over-hyped by those who weren't there) when I could and should have been watching Pedro and his 917.

 

Edited by sabrejet, 23 June 2016 - 11:42.

[Peter Morley]

Obviously much of this debate relates to one's personal opinion and motorsport values but for me, switching from Le Mans coverage to Baku last Sunday confirmed what I have been feeling for a long time - in my view current F1 is not in good shape The engineering is fabulous, there are some great drivers, but the spirit is somehow lacking.

 

...I'm looking forward to the Assen Moto GP this coming Sunday...

 

I know what you mean, when I switched Le-Mans on after 20 hours the leading cars were a few seconds apart, when I woke up part way through Baku there was something like a 20 second gap and nothing happening to keep me awake.

Focusing on road car manufacturers has done F1 no favours, things like fuel consumption and tyre wear might be relevant to them but have no place in F1, and in contrast Le-Mans which should be the domain of such things is now a sprint race.

[Charlieman]

Look at in car footage from turbo cars etc and you see a huge amount of driver input and really feel that the driver was working hard.

Turbo cars are probably the most extreme example of that and incredibly exciting which modern cars aren't.

Compared to the older cars driving modern cars looks easy - just turn the steering wheel the requisite amount and then straighten up, no need for correction etc.

I've just been watching a video from the 2016 FIA Sport Conference. Emanuele Pirro commented that he'd like to see the drivers getting a bit more sweaty, and he's about right. I don't think the top drivers in current WEC get sweaty driving the car, but I admire their skill and guts when passing back markers.

 

At a recent MotoGP, Jorge Lorenzo completed every lap (except the standing start) within a half second or so window. Like a metronome running flat-out. The WEC stars don't achieve such consistency but they are astoundingly good in the circumstances. F1 drivers? I don't know because the cars aren't running flat-out for long enough. As long as we have had racing cars, tyres have been a limiting factor on performance; great drivers have achieved victory by beating the tyres as well as the competition; sadly, that is not possible under current F1 rules.

[GeoffR]

OK, so this is a OT and bit of 'fishing in the dark'; but back in the Group B Rally Car era it was reported that Audi were experimenting with a 1000 hp engine in the Audi Quattro Group B rally cars. Some of the reports from the time I have seen suggest that the test drivers suffered from severe optical disorientation while testing with such horsepower.. The whole issue was a non event anyway as the FIA banned Group B after Henri Toivenen/Sergio Cresta's unfortunate demise. One could only imagine a 1000hp rally car on any surface!!

[john aston]

I was there in the turbo era and it was bloody fantastic. Yes , the races were sometimes dull but the spectacle was extraordinary. And enhanced , not diminished , by the wild card of  frequent, and often spectacular , blow ups. Rosberg's lap in 1985 at Silverstone was one of the most exciting things I have seen in half a century of the sport - but my favourite era was not the entertaining Formula DFV of the 70s and much of the 80s but those screaming V10s and 12s of the early 90s.

 

But it isn't impossible to like both  endurance racing and F1 - they are not mutually exclusive .

 

I agree about the crowds- I first noticed the idiot factor in the Mansell era , of course, but it was the Eddie Jordan (man of the  people) fans who finished it for me. Like many on here I have literally brushed shoulders with people like Surtees, Lauda and Hill as I wandered, enthralled, around the paddock  but it would have been utterly crass to have asked for a photo. Now it's selfie demanding hysteria from a crowd who thinks it knows about motor sport because they are at the GP and because our  Darren got a VIP ticket to a BTCC round for being cement   salesman of the month....    

[sabrejet]

[uffen]

In my opinion when a series (here F1) starts calling itself the pinnacle, you know it's not.

If a series is indeed the pinnacle that title will be endowed by the fan base, not by the self-interested series itself.

 

I do not believe that F1 is the pinnacle. Racing is too absent.

[Peter Morley]

In my opinion when a series (here F1) starts calling itself the pinnacle, you know it's not.

If a series is indeed the pinnacle that title will be endowed by the fan base, not by the self-interested series itself.

 

I do not believe that F1 is the pinnacle. Racing is too absent.

 

Maybe it depends what definition you use of pinnacle.

There are so few cars in F1 these days there are only 22 drivers out of the thousands of racing licence holders that it is like the peak of a mountain.

Far more drivers race in other formulas that are more interesting to watch (or technological if that is what excites someone) but it is much easier to get a drive in those formulas.

 

Racing has always been better further down the ladder - the support races at a GP (nearly) always offered far more racing and unpredictability, let alone the Formulas that an 'F1 fan' will never see.

[JacnGille]

As I hve posted in previosly posted, I believe part of the "loss of specticle" was the switch from bias ply to radial tires/tyres . Driving in the thrilling sidways manor is just not as aparrent with radials. They look to either grip or they don't. With bias plys there was a larger window before adhesion was lost.

[uffen]

Maybe it depends what definition you use of pinnacle.

There are so few cars in F1 these days there are only 22 drivers out of the thousands of racing licence holders that it is like the peak of a mountain.

Far more drivers race in other formulas that are more interesting to watch (or technological if that is what excites someone) but it is much easier to get a drive in those formulas.

 

Racing has always been better further down the ladder - the support races at a GP (nearly) always offered far more racing and unpredictability, let alone the Formulas that an 'F1 fan' will never see.

Doesn't matter much how you define it - if someone, or something, starts calling himself the pinnacle it's over.

If F1 became over subscribed it would no longer be the pinnacle? If WEC collapsed to 6 teams it would become the pinnacle?

[john aston]

Just a wild guess but..ermmm...isn't  Formula One's title rather suggestive of the fact that regardless of how much one likes it , its pre-eminence was always intended rather than self proclaimed? . Having had the misfortune to see F4 the other day I don't think the F1 teams need worry too much about being overtaken by the lower decks

[JacnGille]

Having had the misfortune to see F4 the other day I don't think the F1 teams need worry too much about being overtaken by the lower decks

I watched a replay of the Silverstone Round last night was was very dissapointed at how much time the cars spent running wide in corners with what seemed to be no concern or action from the officials.

 

To borrow a line from a movie, "if it is paved, they will use it".

Edited by JacnGille, 24 June 2016 - 12:49.

[uffen]

Just a wild guess but..ermmm...isn't  Formula One's title rather suggestive of the fact that regardless of how much one likes it , its pre-eminence was always intended rather than self proclaimed? . Having had the misfortune to see F4 the other day I don't think the F1 teams need worry too much about being overtaken by the lower decks

Yes, that is correct. F1 is the pinnacle in terms of being at the top of a numbered formula series under the auspices of the FIA.

Is it the pinnacle of "motor racing" however? That is a deeper issue. In my estimation F1 has fallen mightily in the last while.

To borrow from Mario Andretti, F1 seems to be more about driving fast than it is about racing.

[E1pix]

I can recall reading about F1 when Clark was still alive, about the time I was fresh out of diapers. Sadly, that was at age 6. ;-)

Nearly a decade of imagining it live went by, so it wasn't soon enough when I first witnessed a race at the Glen in 1976. "Awe" doesn't even come close to covering it, particularly watching Lauda maybe nine weeks after last rites. It seems no era can match that, but was it the cars, the spectacle, the era, or that "first time" phenomena that no repeat can match? I've long pondered if a new viewer today sees it just as we did, spectacle surpassing details of era and all that.

With all that I tend to be partial to the '70s. But thinking back to the return of normal aspiration for 1989 -- and the sudden onslaught of wicked 12s from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche, and the 10s from Renault and Judd -- that era through 1995 was also epic. I really miss it. But, the turbos of '83 were still quite a show!

I also can't help but to wonder much of our oft-collective cynicism arises from missing our youth, when everything was fresh, new, and exciting? Is it possible this taints us more than we care to admit?

So far as driver contrasts per era, I believe a proper driver can be fast in anything. The difference I see is how fast one can be when a simple misstep can kill you.

Edited by E1pix, 24 June 2016 - 18:01.

[uffen]

I can recall reading about F1 when Clark was still alive, about the time I was fresh out of diapers. Sadly, that was at age 6. ;-)

Nearly a decade of imagining it live went by, so it wasn't soon enough when I first witnessed a race at the Glen in 1976. "Awe" doesn't even come close to covering it, particularly watching Lauda maybe nine weeks after last rites. It seems no era can match that, but was it the cars, the spectacle, the era, or that "first time" phenomena that no repeat can match? I've long pondered if a new viewer today sees it just as we did, spectacle surpassing details of era and all that.

With all that I tend to be partial to the '70s. But thinking back to the return of normal aspiration for 1989 -- and the sudden onslaught of wicked 12s from Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche, and the 10s from Renault and Judd -- that era through 1995 was also epic. I really miss it. But, the turbos of '83 were still quite a show!

I also can't help but to wonder much of our oft-collective cynicism arises from missing our youth, when everything was fresh, new, and exciting? Is it possible this taints us more than we care to admit?

So far as driver contrasts per era, I believe a proper driver can be fast in anything. The difference I see is how fast one can be when a simple misstep can kill you.

Well said, E1pix.

You ask about missing our youth. Well, you cited excitement from the '60s, ok live in '76, and through the mid-nineties. That is a long youth by many standards! The rawness has left F1, and that is largely due to excellent engineering, sad to say. For so long (that long "youth" again) cars were beasts and hard to tame. Now there is so much experience and learnings and new materials and controls and manufacturing methods and computer prognostications behind them that they are fast but no longer beasts.

 

You're correct, too, that excellent drivers of any era could do the job in any era. I believe that. But while I used to be in awe of the job they were doing in the cockpits, I am now bored. Manipulating engine settings, differential mappings, clutch bite points, regeneration cycles, etc. takes talent, yes, but just not something I care to witness when I watch a racing driver do his job.

 

So, long response, sorry, but for me it is not nostalgia (although I love to review the past) that puts me off modern F1. If we couldn't deal with change we wouldn't have lasted a season, right?

[E1pix]

A pleasure as always, Uffen.

You touch on philosophies worth a ponder. Perhaps I confuse "youth" with "more-distant past." Or perhaps holding onto youth is making a choice between growing older vs. growing old. But I digress...

More tangibly, with the loss of similar engine configurations -- whether '70s or '90s -- I couldn't agree more that today's tech is overly taming the beast... and in everything racing and beyond, I guess I prefer things a bit wilder.

[SJ Lambert]

My "favourite " F1 eras span the 1.5 litre formula from a year or three before I was born to when I first remember actively following (from afar) AJ towards the end of the total dominance of the DFV in the 3 litre era.

Things certainly seem to have been more romantic back then, garagistas and small teams could achieve greatness and numerous concerns did so with a panache that's not immediately obvious these days.....

But, whatever form F1 takes, it still holds an attraction for me, even if there a times when the shine goes off it a bit (even a fair bit, like now).....

[Lee Nicolle]

As I hve posted in previosly posted, I believe part of the "loss of specticle" was the switch from bias ply to radial tires/tyres . Driving in the thrilling sidways manor is just not as aparrent with radials. They look to either grip or they don't. With bias plys there was a larger window before adhesion was lost.

F1 again was years behind in taking up radials. Formula Last sometimes would be a more appropriate name.

Yes they do drive so differently, so much better!

My first set of Dunlop slicks were given too me by Russ Stuckey,, if I do not like them give them back,,,, I loved them from the first lap, so my tyre bill increased and my lap times decreased.

And F1 were on crossplies still!

[Charlieman]

Just a wild guess but..ermmm...isn't  Formula One's title rather suggestive of the fact that regardless of how much one likes it , its pre-eminence was always intended rather than self proclaimed? . 

That's a fair comment, John. When Formula I (that's I as a Roman numeral but also known as Formula A) was conceived, it was for the most expensive and technically advanced post WW2 racing cars. For a brief period, Formula I cars were inferior to pre WW2 GP racers but they improved, mostly thanks to Alfa Romeo. Formula I was for factory teams or privateers with deep pockets.

 

Formula II was conceived as a lower cost replacement for pre WW2 voiturette racing. In practice there were no supercharged cars and privateers had a chance of beating factory teams or earning start money.

 

The World Drivers' Championship was established for the 1950 season based on Formula One races plus the Indy 500. Those were the "pinnacle" events, so those race results determined the champion driver. When Formula One declined, the WDC was based on Formula Two races plus the Indy 500. I think we'd all agree that the Formula Two world championships of Ascari are worthy. 

 

Thus, I'd argue that the pinnacles are the WDC and the constructors' championship, whatever formulae are adopted. The pinnacles are defined by abstract things like competitiveness, ambition, talent. They can't be measured with a stop watch or like a game of Top Trumps.

 

Let's also remember how lucky we are to have memories of Formula One at its best.

[chunder27]

It has nothing to do with tyres, that is a fairly statto type thing to say really.

 

It is simply about racing, diversity, locations and invention.

 

And that hasn't really been allowed for a long time in huge ways.

 

My fave era was the initial era of the turbo cars in sort of 83-85.

 

Cars that were thrown together, a little though of aero, but not much, tons of power, loads of tyre manufacturers, hard to drive cars, drivers that really made a difference and design being in some ways agriculture and in other ways workmanlike and in yet others sheer beauty.

[uffen]

That's a fair comment, John. When Formula I (that's I as a Roman numeral but also known as Formula A) was conceived, it was for the most expensive and technically advanced post WW2 racing cars. For a brief period, Formula I cars were inferior to pre WW2 GP racers but they improved, mostly thanks to Alfa Romeo. Formula I was for factory teams or privateers with deep pockets.

 

Formula II was conceived as a lower cost replacement for pre WW2 voiturette racing. In practice there were no supercharged cars and privateers had a chance of beating factory teams or earning start money.

 

The World Drivers' Championship was established for the 1950 season based on Formula One races plus the Indy 500. Those were the "pinnacle" events, so those race results determined the champion driver. When Formula One declined, the WDC was based on Formula Two races plus the Indy 500. I think we'd all agree that the Formula Two world championships of Ascari are worthy. 

 

Thus, I'd argue that the pinnacles are the WDC and the constructors' championship, whatever formulae are adopted. The pinnacles are defined by abstract things like competitiveness, ambition, talent. They can't be measured with a stop watch or like a game of Top Trumps.

 

Let's also remember how lucky we are to have memories of Formula One at its best.

Charlieman, I like your thought that the championships are the pinnacle. Good way to look at it.

[john aston]

Of course the real issue is that for most F1 personnel (I'd guess) , all of F1 'owners'(I am pretty damn sure) and most viewers F1 isn't at the top of the motor sport tree(with WEC, GP2. F3/4 , NASCAR. Indycar, rallying  et al , let alone club racing ) F1 is F1 and it doesn't belong to any hierarchy  at all. It vacuums up nearly all of the cash, outside the USA it gets nearly all prime TV and outside Motor Sport and MSN it gets all the press coverage. It acts like it is the centre of the universe because it is, and once cherished stuff  like F3 is the dimmest star at the edge of the galaxy . Only we privileged few know otherwise ...

 

Baku ? You really couldn't make it up . See sniffpetrol's take...