97 replies to this topic

[pablofE]

Recently I put together some footage of Formula 1 from the 1950s all the way up the present day and it got me thinking about the different era's of Formula 1. Who or what defined each decade. I went with who would have been thought of as the best driver at the time, the one to look up to and ultimately beat for the competition, the target everyone else matched themselves against, but not just measured on success, but reputation, how they were considered. In the end I came up with 10 or 12 drivers (still struggling over the last one) who could've been considered the best there was at that time but also a name which rose about simple national support and might've been thought of instantly when considering F1. 

 

1950-57 - Fangio

1958-62 - Moss

1962-68 - Clark

1969-73 - Stewart

1974-79 - Lauda

1980-83 - Piquet

1983-87 - Prost

1988-94 - Senna

1994-2006 - Schumacher

2007-10 - Alonso

2011-13 - Vettel

2014-present - Hamilton

beyond I would imagine the next one to be Verstappen.

 

There's definitely a lot of arguments there for sure, my first one would be the period from 2007 to now, Lewis Hamilton exploded onto the scene just as the Alonso era should have begun, but Lewis beat him. 2007 is a story on its own with many different points of view, but ultimately he was beaten, but once Schuey had retired there was a definite period where Alonso was considered the number 1, possibly by some until the end of 2018. Vettel, well, he was amazing when it all suited him, if there was one to take out though it would be him which would leave a clashing Alonso Hamilton era (a shame they didn't get to go head to head more often).

 

Again going further back, Prost's era seems too short, Piquet and Lauda I'm not sure about, but Lauda (and Hunt really in terms of his title obviously but he was also a massive star) was the name of 1970s F1. 

 

How would you define the era's of Formula 1, the kind of cars, the teams, different drivers to the ones I've picked, a combination?

 

Finally, sorry if this is a topic brought up before, i couldn't find one, but please move if needed.

[MortenF1]

I don't strongly disagree with the years 2007-2010 being the Alonso-era, but it IS a bit strange when he didn't win the title any of those years.

I would rather break it up a little and call 2005-2007 the Alonso-era, and the 2008-2010... it's hard to single one out, atleast enough to name brand it as someones era.

[NixxxoN]

Alonso era and you dont include 2005 and 2006? ...

[Collombin]

As a simple guide to the possessors of the best driver baton, I think you have covered the 20th century WDC era pretty well, although I think the Piquet era is a little too early - he picked it up later than 1980, but probably kept it until 1985.

[Blackmamba]

Alonso has no era in Formula 1. Even 05 and 06 were still the Schumacher era. Since 2007 Hamilton has been dominating the narrative in F1 even when Vettel was winning the titles. Alonso has been there or thereabouts, but not in the forefront.

Edited by Blackmamba, 22 August 2019 - 21:43.

[pablofE]

Alonso era and you dont include 2005 and 2006? ...

 

I didn't, because like when Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen were winning his titles, I still think it was Schumacher regarded as number one. Such had been his longevity at the top and the fact he could have won the title that year until his luck finally ran out in the last couple of races. Certainly a case to be made though.

[pablofE]

I don't strongly disagree with the years 2007-2010 being the Alonso-era, but it IS a bit strange when he didn't win the title any of those years.

I would rather break it up a little and call 2005-2007 the Alonso-era, and the 2008-2010... it's hard to single one out, atleast enough to name brand it as someones era.

 

It is strange, I couldn't place him. I mean it doesn't even include 2012 which is one of the best seasons by any driver in my opinion despite not winning the title. It kind of makes me think I should exclude Vettel entirely.

[PayasYouRace]

I tend to define eras more technically.

 

1946-1953: The pre-war formulae, adapted.

1954-1958: The front engine swansong.

1959-1967: Rear-engines, low grip.

1968-1976: The early downforce era.

1977-1982: New technology: Ground effect and turbocharging.

1983-1988: The great turbo years.

1989-1997: The maturing of aerodynamics, NA engines and slicks.

1998-2008: Grooved tyres and aerodynamic excess.

2009-2013: Return of slicks, starting to tackle the aero-problem (new wing sizes, banning of flicks and fins, DRS).

2014-present: The turbo-hybrids.

[Blackmamba]

It is strange, I couldn't place him. I mean it doesn't even include 2012 which is one of the best seasons by any driver in my opinion despite not winning the title. It kind of makes me think I should exclude Vettel entirely.

But then you would have to treat the Redbull era the same and pretend it didn’t happen? It’s quite a significant era the Redbull era and Vettel was the one winning the titles.

[Touchdown]

I'd have 58-62 as the Brabham era rather than Moss.

[Talisman]

I tend to define eras more technically.

1946-1953: The pre-war formulae, adapted.
1954-1958: The front engine swansong.
1959-1967: Rear-engines, low grip.
1968-1976: The early downforce era.
1977-1982: New technology: Ground effect and turbocharging.
1983-1988: The great turbo years.
1989-1997: The maturing of aerodynamics, NA engines and slicks.
1998-2008: Grooved tyres and aerodynamic excess.
2009-2013: Return of slicks, starting to tackle the aero-problem (new wing sizes, banning of flicks and fins, DRS).
2014-present: The turbo-hybrids.

I’d go with this. Defining eras by drivers is going to be an entirely subjective choice ignoring some and idolising others. If I had to add anything it would be the business side. The rise of the British privateers. The start of sponsorship, tobacco money coming in then being forced out. The credit crunch and the manufacturers pulling out.

[TRF]

I didn't, because like when Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen were winning his titles, I still think it was Schumacher regarded as number one. Such had been his longevity at the top and the fact he could have won the title that year until his luck finally ran out in the last couple of races. Certainly a case to be made though.

Maybe era's can't be defined by one driver, maybe easier to think of the eras as longer and belonging to groups of drivers at a time, exp 94-2005 the Shu,Hill,Hak,Villeneuve era, 2005-2019 the Alo,Rai,Ham,Vet era.
Thats how I tend to think of the eras, though eras aren't just defined by drivers, like payasyourace said certain regulation changes to the cars also defines an era to.

Edited by TRF, 23 August 2019 - 01:45.

[ArrowsLivery]

In more recent times:

1994 - 2006 Schumi era
2007 - 2018 Hamilton era
2019 - ???? Max V era

[pitlanepalpatine]

In more recent times:

1994 - 2006 Schumi era
2007 - 2018 Hamilton era
2019 - ???? Max V era

 

How is 2009 to 2013 Hamilton era when he finished consistently outside the final top 3 in the the championship with 3 4th's and a 5th?

[ArrowsLivery]

How is 2009 to 2013 Hamilton era when he finished consistently outside the final top 3 in the the championship with 3 4th's and a 5th?

His team was dreadful from 2009 to 2012. 2013 was obviously a transition year for everybody. Yet despite all the incompetence around him he still managed to win races and poles every year.

[Collombin]

I'd have 58-62 as the Brabham era rather than Moss.

The criterion was benchmark driver wasn't it? If so then you presumably haven't looked into that era much if at all. Even Brabham himself would disagree with you.

Edit - original comment was a bit harsh and rude on reflection.

Edited by E.B., 23 August 2019 - 16:36.

[Lights]

To everyone complaining about 'but driver X didn't win title in years y and z", you've clearly misunderstood how to someone a driver can considered the best without winning any titles. Otherwise you might just as well look at the year-by-year list of champions and call that your "era's"

[Marklar]

I didn't, because like when Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen were winning his titles, I still think it was Schumacher regarded as number one. Such had been his longevity at the top and the fact he could have won the title that year until his luck finally ran out in the last couple of races. Certainly a case to be made though.

Then the Vettel era 2011-2013 makes little sense though, since despite him winning the titles Alonso was regarded still as the best.

[Murl]

As a simple guide to the possessors of the best driver baton, I think you have covered the 20th century WDC era pretty well, although I think the Piquet era is a little too early - he picked it up later than 1980, but probably kept it until 1985.

 

Alternatively, he never held it.

 

I don't remember him eclipsing Prost, for example.

Edited by Murl, 23 August 2019 - 07:55.

[Giz]

To me its more about who was the one to beat, the one everyone talked about, the main man as it were rather  than just 'the best'

[SenorSjon]

<2011 Tires

>2011 Cheesecake

[P123]

I don't think you can stick an 'era' down to just one specific driver. There are various rivalries with certain drivers standing out.

[Murl]

I don't think you can stick an 'era' down to just one specific driver. There are various rivalries with certain drivers standing out.

 

Sometimes the driver has very little say in results. Many times even.

 

It is often clear when a driver punches above their (car's) weight. Yet the OP's list makes no allowance for that.

[sopa]

Defining eras by drivers makes it seem like driver is bigger than the sport, which really can't be true. Even then throughout history car has been a greater performance differentiator than driver, so it would make sense to define eras more by the benchmark teams. Certainly what concerns impact on results.

[Rediscoveryx]

I think the OP gets things roughly right. Obviously there are overlaps and certainly there were a lot of years where it's debatable who the top dog really was. In many ways I think that it could be more helpful to divide it by what the chief rivalry was rather than by who the number one driver was (although that would probably split the "eras" into short two-three year sprints for most of F1's history).

 

The only real issue I have with the OP is the Piquet-era in early 80's. I don't think he ever was considered as the undisputed top driver on the planet, although it is hard to say who that guy would be in 80-82 as there are so many candidates to chose from (Piquet? Jones? Villeneuve? Prost?), so perhaps Piquet is the most apt choice? In my mind, Prost was already ahead of Piquet in 1983 (possibly even 82). Anyway, tough call to make either way so...

Edited by Rediscoveryx, 23 August 2019 - 08:28.

[AnR]

Defining eras by drivers makes it seem like driver is bigger than the sport, which really can't be true. Even then throughout history car has been a greater performance differentiator than driver, so it would make sense to define eras more by the benchmark teams. Certainly what concerns impact on results.

 

Agree on this, the drivers doesn't IMO define the era, more the car and in some era certain specific areas, like testing in early 2000, aero during Red Bull years and the PU during this current Merc era

[Murl]

Defining eras by drivers makes it seem like driver is bigger than the sport, which really can't be true. Even then throughout history car has been a greater performance differentiator than driver, so it would make sense to define eras more by the benchmark teams. Certainly what concerns impact on results.

 

Tyres have a huge say. Much greater impact than many casual observers would realise. 

 

Could be that tyre eras would be the go. Just boring looking black blobs, so hard to get excited about really.

[ensign14]

Was Vettel ever considered the benchmark?  Alonso and Hamilton regarded each other as the one to beat from 2008 onwards.

 

2005-6 definitely Alonso era.

 

Wouldn't say the early 80s were anyone's era.  Prost really came into his own in 1983. 

 

Otherwise mostly in agreement. 

 

Pre-war, you have basically the Thery, Boillot, Ascari, Benoist, Varzi, Nuvolari, and Caracciola eras...

[Collombin]

Alternatively, he never held it.

I don't remember him eclipsing Prost, for example.

In hindsight maybe Piquet was overrated and Prost underrated - but most polls, magazines, interviews of that era generally have Piquet tops. That's why 1986 was such a surprise.

[Murl]

In hindsight maybe Piquet was overrated and Prost underrated - but most polls, magazines, interviews of that era generally have Piquet tops. That's why 1986 was such a surprise.

 

There is the abovementioned perspective of "the one to beat", he could well qualify on that basis.

Perhaps I'm thinking of who was the best, rather than who was the target.

 

I always thought Prost was outstanding. Terrible reliability ruled him out of a number of titles. 

Edited by Murl, 23 August 2019 - 09:03.

[Lights]

Agree on this, the drivers doesn't IMO define the era, more the car and in some era certain specific areas, like testing in early 2000, aero during Red Bull years and the PU during this current Merc era

 

PU stopped defining it after 2017 though. I'd say that since then how cars handle tires can be considered defining. Of course this was also quite a thing during some other seasons, 2012 for example.

[DeKnyff]

I think an "era" only exists when there is a highly dominant driver, head and shoulders above of the rest. Or it could also be two drivers, like Senna-Prost.

 

In that way, I'd only acknowledge the Fangio era, the Clark era, the Senna-Prost era and the Schumacher era. Maybe also the Hamilton era from 2014, but it's too early to say.

[garoidb]

In hindsight maybe Piquet was overrated and Prost underrated - but most polls, magazines, interviews of that era generally have Piquet tops. That's why 1986 was such a surprise.

 

The real reason is that Mansell was under-rated or had come on a lot in a short time. In hindsight, knowing what else Mansell went on to achieve, it is not such a jolt that he would be competitive with Piquet in 1986 (and Rosberg in the latter part of 1985). 

[BiggestBuddyLazierFan]

Useless topic in my humble opinion

[taran]

Alternatively, he never held it.

 

I don't remember him eclipsing Prost, for example.

 

I feel Piquet is not given his due because a) he fought Mansell for the titles which saw him either depicted as unworthy or as the villain using unfair tricks against the mustachioed hero and b) his twilight years with an uncompetitive Lotus and a rising Schumacher.

 

But in his prime, roughly 1981-1986, he was considered the top driver of his era as many annual reviews etc. will testify. In both 1982 and 1984 when he didn't win the title, he was still considered the best or second best driver. His 9 poles and 2 wins in 1984 against the all-dominating McLaren were seen as top notch.

 

Prost in contrast was seen as very fast but his championship misses in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 put him behind Piquet in the pecking order. Prost's star really rose in 1986 when he nicked the title with a slightly inferior car from the fighting due of Piquet and Mansell and that only because of luck (the exploding tyre) and because he decisively beat Keke Rosberg, generally acknowledged as the fastest driver on the grid.

 

In 1986 Piquet was the best paid driver on the grid. That says more about how F1 saw him IMO than fan recollections 35 years later....

 

 

[ensign14]

I remember thinking as a sprog in 1983 that Prost was head and shoulders above the field...

[Talisman]

Pre-Bernie, Bernie, post-Bernie.

[chrisj]

Then the Vettel era 2011-2013 makes little sense though, since despite him winning the titles Alonso was regarded still as the best.

Alonso wasn't regarded as the best in that timeframe by anyone except maybe Alonso himself.

[Timstr11]

You'll get a better picture if you define F1 eras by technical regulations and then see which team/driver combos thrived.

[sopa]

By the way, wasn't Gilles Villeneuve the benchmark driver from 1979/1980 till his death, who was looked up to?

[Collombin]

By the way, wasn't Gilles Villeneuve the benchmark driver from 1979/1980 till his death, who was looked up to?

I think so, but not there for long enough imo to get a whole era named after him.

Fwiw Autocourse ranked Alan Jones number 1 for 1979, 1980 and 1981.

[garoidb]

I think so, but not there for long enough imo to get a whole era named after him.

Fwiw Autocourse ranked Alan Jones number 1 for 1979, 1980 and 1981.

 

Interesting. His most competitive period was substantially parallel with that of Gilles, and they both left the scene at around the same time. Would Jones be more highly rated if he had never come back? He originally went out on a high with a GP win, so would there always have been a sense of unrealised potential (as there is with Gilles)? Anyway, he came back twice and doesn't have that cache. 

 

Piquet also had a high period, but stayed around and is judged on a longer record with ups and downs. In that sense, he is unlike Villeneuve and, to some extent, Jones.

 

To be ranked at the top three years in a row, like Jones, suggest a level of pre-eminence. I like the use of contemporary evidence of opinion rather than hindsight. It was really two and a half years at the very top, but also just precedes the era I would say Piquet is a candidate for. He just became champion as Jones was leaving. 

[shure]

Alonso wasn't regarded as the best in that timeframe by anyone except maybe Alonso himself.

I don't think that's true

[shure]

I remember thinking as a sprog in 1983 that Prost was head and shoulders above the field...

I'm sure you weren't the only one, but OTOH there were plenty of people who thought that of Piquet, too.  He was often touted as the fastest man in F1 in the early 80s

[Victor]

Where are you hiding Gilles Villeneuve? I coud not find him from 1979 to 1982.

Senna was not dominant in 1989 and 1990, Prost was around.

Personally, I would extend the Alonso era throughout all the Vettel period.

[MKSixer]

Recently I put together some footage of Formula 1 from the 1950s all the way up the present day and it got me thinking about the different era's of Formula 1. Who or what defined each decade. I went with who would have been thought of as the best driver at the time, the one to look up to and ultimately beat for the competition, the target everyone else matched themselves against, but not just measured on success, but reputation, how they were considered. In the end I came up with 10 or 12 drivers (still struggling over the last one) who could've been considered the best there was at that time but also a name which rose about simple national support and might've been thought of instantly when considering F1. 

 

1950-57 - Fangio

1958-62 - Moss

1962-68 - Clark

1969-73 - Stewart

1974-79 - Lauda

1980-83 - Piquet

1983-87 - Prost

1988-94 - Senna

1994-2006 - Schumacher

2007-10 - Alonso

2011-13 - Vettel

2014-present - Hamilton

beyond I would imagine the next one to be Verstappen.

 

There's definitely a lot of arguments there for sure, my first one would be the period from 2007 to now, Lewis Hamilton exploded onto the scene just as the Alonso era should have begun, but Lewis beat him. 2007 is a story on its own with many different points of view, but ultimately he was beaten, but once Schuey had retired there was a definite period where Alonso was considered the number 1, possibly by some until the end of 2018. Vettel, well, he was amazing when it all suited him, if there was one to take out though it would be him which would leave a clashing Alonso Hamilton era (a shame they didn't get to go head to head more often).

 

Again going further back, Prost's era seems too short, Piquet and Lauda I'm not sure about, but Lauda (and Hunt really in terms of his title obviously but he was also a massive star) was the name of 1970s F1. 

 

How would you define the era's of Formula 1, the kind of cars, the teams, different drivers to the ones I've picked, a combination?

 

Finally, sorry if this is a topic brought up before, i couldn't find one, but please move if needed.

 

1950-57 - Fangio

1958-62 - Moss

1962-68 - Clark

1969-73 - Stewart

1974-79 - Lauda

1980-83 - Piquet

1983-87 - Prost

1988-94 - Senna

1994-2004 - Schumacher

2005-2006 and 1/2 of 7 The Alonso Era

2007.5-10 - Hamilton.  He took the sport by storm, fin 2nd with the best record of any rookie in the history of F1. WDC in 2008, won in 2009 with great 2nd half of season and in the championship until the last races of 2010.  All in all he challenged for the title 3 of 4 years winning it once.  Avg finishing position in the championship - 3rd.

2011-13 - Vettel - Undisputed. 4 WDCs in a row.

2014-present - The Return of Hamilton. Undisputed with 4 of 5 about to go to 5 of 6.

[PayasYouRace]

Where are you hiding Gilles Villeneuve? I coud not find him from 1979 to 1982.

Senna was not dominant in 1989 and 1990, Prost was around.

Personally, I would extend the Alonso era throughout all the Vettel period.

 

Feel free to create your own list as you see fit. That's sort of what the thread is about.

 

Gilles was before my time, but I always got the impression that he was spectacular and popular, but not the benchmark of his time, like Ronnie Peterson before him and Keke Rosberg after him. Perhaps like Kimi Raikkonen in more recent years.

[MKSixer]

Feel free to create your own list as you see fit. That's sort of what the thread is about.

 

Gilles was before my time, but I always got the impression that he was spectacular and popular, but not the benchmark of his time, like Ronnie Peterson before him and Keke Rosberg after him. Perhaps like Kimi Raikkonen in more recent years.

Has this been done but by manufacturers rather than drivers? 

[PayasYouRace]

Has this been done but by manufacturers rather than drivers? 

 

Feel free to do so.

[PlatenGlass]

Obviously it's always going to be a bit of a fudge coming up with clear dividing lines between eras when things often change gradually, and big driver changes happen at different times from regulation changes etc. However, I would definitely say that 1994 makes for a very good change of era so I'll start there. Prost left at the end of 1993, Senna then tragically died early in 1994 and this was when Schumacher became the dominant name in the sport. 1994 was also when refuelling came in and a lot of other rule changes, which was a big deal at the time.

Before that, I'd make a distinction between the early 80s when we had Villeneuve, Jones and Reutemann all up there and later when they all went within a very short space of time and we had the era that was mainly Piquet, Prost, Senna and Mansell. I'd put 1982 as that change, especially as I'd lump Rosberg in with the later lot even if he retired in 1986. And Piquet also won the title in 1981 as well, but that doesn't need to upset things too much.

I know it would make for a short era, but I'd be tempted to start the previous one in 1979. This was when the turbos started to become relevant and Villeneuve and Williams with Jones also properly came to the fore. And I'd start in 1974 as well, post Stewart and also when the still-very-old-fashioned-looking early 70s cars started to look a bit more "modern". I won't go further back than that for now without any research though!

Coming forwards in time again, the era that started in 1994 I'd probably finish at the of 2006 when Schumacher retired (for the first time), and that would also neatly tie in with Hamilton. Obviously Alonso (and Raikkonen) straddles eras, but that's fine.

Then I'd probably say 2007 to 2013. And the big change to hybrids and Mercedes domination started in 2014 and brings us to the present. This gives us:

1974-1978
1979-1982
1982-1994
1994-2006
2007-2013
2014-present

I included 1982 and 1994 in both the adjacent eras, because arguably the era changed mid-year (especially with losing Villeneuve and Senna).