97 replies to this topic

[sopa]

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).

 

Two eras have the longevity of 12 years, while the first ones have 5 and 4 years.

 

Personally I have felt 1984 is more of a tipping point for change than 1982. Why? Because 1984 saw (McLaren) domination. This was the year when the interregnum of F1 ended. Renault and Brabham stopped being top teams. McLaren and then gradually Williams, Ferrari and Benetton emerged as the only teams, who could win championships for a long time.

 

Also I'd end the Schumacher era after 2004, because Alonso/Renault starting to win championships was a pretty big shift.

 

I guess the following could be an option:

1974-1983 : era of interregnum. No clear best, almost each year sees different champions, big performance fluctuations.

1984-1993: establishment of F1 elite. McLaren and Williams winning with Ferrari occasionally challenging.

1994-2004: the era largely defined by Schumacher (either in Benetton/Ferrari) versus Adrian Newey teams (Williams/McLaren). Schumacher had different challengers as drivers throughout that period.

2005-2013: the emergence of new forces, teams and drivers. Renault, later Brawn and Red Bull. Thrice we get new youngest champions of all times.

2014-...: The return of the unbeatable Silver Arrows, which defined the 30's and 1954-55. This time with much greater longevity.

[piket]

I have the 80s a bit differently stacked. As mentioned Jones for me was the man from 1979 to 1981.

He was the definitely the most exciting. Better than Gilles IMHO.

From 1982 to 1985 I would say Piquet, Prost and Keke would all be a good choice and I wouldnt begrudge either choice.

But wasnt Prost at the time seen bit of a choker.?
Bit of a harsh word but in lack of other if you dont mind.

He wasnt seen as the best by a majority I would say. Keke was seen as the fastest and most exciting, while Piquet as the most complete and never nervous. Obviously much due to 1983 title showdown.

For 86 and 87 definitely Prost but than 88 rude awakening. I cant have a benchmark driver being outqualified in his own team all but twice over a season sometimes over a second.

Senna from then on till 1994. Especcially 1990, a very mature season obviously excluding Japan.

Edited by piket, 24 August 2019 - 17:41.

[screamingV16]

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.

 

I think it's fair to say that the Schumacher era ended/Alonso era started in 2005, particularly if you going to Prost era was over by 87 despite him winning two more titles/23 races  post that date.

[Tsarwash]

This might be a long post. I think to properly define an era, you need to look at the best drivers of the era, the best manufacturers and the technical regulations/prevailing technology. To excluse one of these risks paining an incorrect picture. The best way might be to list each year, with the best driver(s), team(s) and the defining technology, and then to spot patterns and links between years. 

 

So;

 

2018 Lewis, Seb.  Merc, Ferrari.  Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS, Tea Tray wing, Halo. 

2017 Lewis, Seb. Merc, Ferrari. Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS, Tea Tray wing. 

2016 Nico, Lewis. Merc. Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS. 

2015 Nico, Lewis. Merc. Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS. 

2014 Nico, Lewis. Merc. Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS. 

2013 Seb. Red Bull. 2.4 V8. KERS, Pirelli, DRS. 

2012 Seb, Alonso. Red Bull, Ferrari. 2.4 V8, KERS, Pirelli, DRS. 

2011 Seb. Red Bull. 2.4 V8, KERS, Pirelli, DRS.

2010 Seb, Alonso. Red Bull, McLaren, 2.4 V8, KERS. Bridgestone. 

2009, Crazy year, does not fit into an era.

 

Can be simplified into;

 

2014 - 2018 Lewis, Merc, Hybrid PU, Pirelli, DRS. 

2010 - 2013 Seb, Red Bull, 2.4 V8, Pirelli, DRS.

 

And then perhaps;

 

2010 - 2019 Seb, Lewis. Red Bull, Merc, Pirelli, DRS. 

 

(I'm sure that I have missed some pretty major factors here.)

[shure]

I have the 80s a bit differently stacked. As mentioned Jones for me was the man from 1979 to 1981.

He was the definitely the most exciting. Better than Gilles IMHO.

From 1982 to 1985 I would say Piquet, Prost and Keke would all be a good choice and I wouldnt begrudge either choice.

But wasnt Prost at the time seen bit of a choker.?
Bit of a harsh word but in lack of other if you dont mind.

He wasnt seen as the best by a majority I would say. Keke was seen as the fastest and most exciting, while Piquet as the most complete and never nervous. Obviously much due to 1983 title showdown.

For 86 and 87 definitely Prost but than 88 rude awakening. I cant have a benchmark driver being outqualified in his own team all but twice over a season sometimes over a season.

Senna from then on till 1994. Especcially 1990, a very mature season obviously excluding Japan.

I think Piquet is possibly one of the most severely underrated drivers in F1 history.  In the early '80s he was considered by many to be the best (Prost himself said Piquet was the driver he admired most coming into F1) and that largely fell apart after 1987.  But Piquet has subsequently admitted that he was never the same driver after his infamous Imola crash and that he lost up to 80% of his depth perception in the aftermath.  For the rest of that year he visited hospitals in secret and was petrified that it would be found out and his career terminated.  He changed his driving as a result of his situation and played the percentage game after that.  This is somewhat verifiable by comparing his record against Mansell before and after the crash.  Before the two drivers were very close in times, but after Mansell pulled huge gaps to Piquet.  But the fact that even with his handicap he still managed to wrestle the title in 1987 by playing the tortoise to Mansell's hare shows what a truly impressive driver he was.  He effectively had two careers: pre- and post-Imola.  But sadly most people only seem to remember the latter one.  I would easily give him the early '80s era

[Collombin]

I find it a little naive to take Piquet's word for this. Mansell outperformed him in 1986, which literally nobody saw coming.

[Bleu]

I think Piquet is possibly one of the most severely underrated drivers in F1 history.  In the early '80s he was considered by many to be the best (Prost himself said Piquet was the driver he admired most coming into F1) and that largely fell apart after 1987.  But Piquet has subsequently admitted that he was never the same driver after his infamous Imola crash and that he lost up to 80% of his depth perception in the aftermath.  For the rest of that year he visited hospitals in secret and was petrified that it would be found out and his career terminated.  He changed his driving as a result of his situation and played the percentage game after that.  This is somewhat verifiable by comparing his record against Mansell before and after the crash.  Before the two drivers were very close in times, but after Mansell pulled huge gaps to Piquet.  But the fact that even with his handicap he still managed to wrestle the title in 1987 by playing the tortoise to Mansell's hare shows what a truly impressive driver he was.  He effectively had two careers: pre- and post-Imola.  But sadly most people only seem to remember the latter one.  I would easily give him the early '80s era

 

I remember when F1 Fanatic (nowadays RaceFans) made a poll about best champion back in the days in knockout format. First round was mainly multiple champion vs. single champion apart from two pairings which had two single champions including active drivers. 

Piquet was the only multiple champion one who lost the matchup, which was against Mansell.

[shure]

I find it a little naive to take Piquet's word for this. Mansell outperformed him in 1986, which literally nobody saw coming.

They were virtually identical in 1986.  If they hadn't pulled Piquet in for a precautionary stop after Mansell's blowout he would have won the race and the title.  And even if Mansell hadn't had that puncture Piquet and Mansell would have had the same number of wins, 2nd, 3rd and 4th places - even the same number of poles.  What it would have boiled down to would have been Piquet's 7th in Monaco vs Mansell's 5th in Detroit.  You could hardly get much closer stats.

 

It is possible Piquet is lying, of course, but that doesn't explain why Mansell started severely outperforming him in 1987 when they were so close in 1986 and his story does seem to be supported by the facts.

[Collombin]

But it wasn't meant to be close in 1986 - Piquet was supposedly the best, Mansell nowhere near him.

When did Piquet first "admit" this? Reminds me a bit of an elderly Ralph Mulford suddenly convincing himself he had been conned out of an Indy 500 win.

[Tsarwash]

Reluctant to enter this, but didn't Mansell suffer a lot of retirements while in the lead in '87, of which most were not his fault ?

[shure]

But it wasn't meant to be close in 1986 - Piquet was supposedly the best, Mansell nowhere near him.

When did Piquet first "admit" this? Reminds me a bit of an elderly Ralph Mulford suddenly convincing himself he had been conned out of an Indy 500 win.

It's pretty easy to find.  It's been in a number of interviews and is pretty common knowledge now

 

https://www.motorspo...didnt-give-damn

 

There are a few more if you Google Piquet and "depth perception."

 

What was "meant" to have happened doesn't really come into it.  Alonso was "meant" to have crushed Hamilton but that didn't happen.  Doesn't make Alonso a poor driver by any means

[shure]

Reluctant to enter this, but didn't Mansell suffer a lot of retirements while in the lead in '87, of which most were not his fault ?

He did suffer retirements, yes, as well as getting twice the number of wins that Piquet did.  Piquet freely admits that Mansell should have won the title in 1987 but Piquet just focused on collecting points and not over-extending himself.

[Collombin]

Reluctant to enter this

Me too but I can't help myself! It is certainly very clever of Nelson - makes him look much better and is impossible to disprove. How convenient.

[PayasYouRace]

I don’t think Piquet was lying, but I do think he exaggerated it to make himself look better. I don’t think you can find more closely matched teammates than him and Mansell in 1986. All things being equal they should have been as close in 1987. But Nigel had a number of failures while well ahead that Nelson simply didn’t. His championship was saved by Williams being further ahead so he could finish on the podium more regularly.

Piquet’s reputation takes a bit of a hit because of the second part of his career and also because of some of his lousy Brabham teammates. But both he and Nigel compared similarly to Patrese as teammates. There’s a reason he’s part of the quartet of himself, Nigel, Prost and Senna of that time.

[shure]

Me too but I can't help myself! It is certainly very clever of Nelson - makes him look much better and is impossible to disprove. How convenient.

there are two ways of looking at it.  One is that he was lying through his teeth and had no issues at all; the other is that he was telling the truth and he was heavily impacted.  If the former is true then I don't really have an explanation for why he was suddenly so off the pace after Imola.  Occam's Razor would suggest Piquet was telling the truth

[Tsarwash]

there are two ways of looking at it.  One is that he was lying through his teeth and had no issues at all; the other is that he was telling the truth and he was heavily impacted.  If the former is true then I don't really have an explanation for why he was suddenly so off the pace after Imola.  Occam's Razor would suggest Piquet was telling the truth

It could be based in truth but exaggerated. I find the 80% loss of depth perception bit difficult to swallow. I don't think you would be able to race a damn thing if that was the case, let alone an F1 car of that time. 

[shure]

It could be based in truth but exaggerated. I find the 80% loss of depth perception bit difficult to swallow. I don't think you would be able to race a damn thing if that was the case, let alone an F1 car of that time. 

yeah I could go with that.  In any case at that level any percentage is going to have an impact upon performance, so whatever it was i still think it was quite impressive to overcome it.

[Collombin]

I don't really have an explanation for why he was suddenly so off the pace after Imola.

Is that even true? Can we look at stats and see he suddenly lost half a second a lap after Imola compared to immediately before? I don't recall such an obvious drop off point - it would have been picked up on at the time if so, surely.

Incidentally I am not necessarily saying Nelson is lying through his teeth, I just suspect heavy embellishment.

Edited by E.B., 24 August 2019 - 13:57.

[taran]

It wasn't just depth perception. He was suffering from severe headaches and often couldn't sleep.

In truth, he probably shouldn't have returned so soon.

But he certainly wasn't the first driver to hide the severity of his injury to his own team or return too soon.

[shure]

Is that even true? Can we look at stats and see he suddenly lost half a second a lap after Imola compared to immediately before? I don't recall such an obvious drop off point - it would have been picked up on at the time if so, surely.

Incidentally I am not necessarily saying Nelson is lying through his teeth, I just suspect heavy embellishment.

Well I wouldn't swear on the 80% figure he mentioned being absolute gospel, but in the next race at Spa he was 1.4s slower than Mansell in qualifying.  Not definitive evidence, but certainly doesn't do anything to discredit his claim.

 

In any top sport if an athlete is not at their physical peak there is bound to be some impact upon performance.  And as previously mentioned, going from near-identical stats in 1986 to a virtual Mansell dominance in 1987 does suggest some change must have occurred.  Maybe Mansell improved massively, or maybe there is some truth to Piquet's claims?  As Taran mentioned, the depth perception is the headline but there were additional side effects, too.  I don't see any reason to discount it

[sopa]

We need average Mansell-Piquet qualifying gaps to settle the matters. In terms of head-to-head qualifying it indeed went from 8:8 to 5:10 deficit to Mansell, so there is evidence of Piquet's decline.

[piket]

Is that even true? Can we look at stats and see he suddenly lost half a second a lap after Imola compared to immediately before? I don't recall such an obvious drop off point - it would have been picked up on at the time if so, surely.

Incidentally I am not necessarily saying Nelson is lying through his teeth, I just suspect heavy embellishment.

I remember that after Imola 1987 Nelson lost next four qualifyings to Nigel each by around 1,4 sec. It was Monaco, Detroit, Spa and France I think not in that order. To me it is quite a drop off in speed. For instance in Brazil before Imola he was faster by 2 tenths.

In 1986 on those tracks head to head was 2-2 and difference around 2 tenths or similar. Although not in Monaco. They had some mechanical problems so both Williamses were quite bad Nigel 4th and Nelson 7th.

You can never be sure but Nelson is a lot more known for being harshly honest than to tell lies. Sometimes more diplomacy would have been better.

Edited by piket, 24 August 2019 - 17:59.

[piket]

Fernando Alonso had an unbelievable rise in reputation from 2012 and further. Definitely seen better than Vettel and I would argue Lewis aswell. Not by me but definitely by a majority of fans. Perhaps due to him being in a Ferrari which always has a lot of fans but so is Seb. wright?

But in those years you couldnt read anything F1 related without hearing about Saint Fernando performing miracles.

[Yamamoto]

Fernando Alonso had an unbelievable rise in reputation from 2012 and further. Definitely seen better than Vettel and I would argue Lewis aswell. Not by me but definitely by a majority of fans. Perhaps due to him being in a Ferrari which always has a lot of fans but so is Seb. wright?

But in those years you couldnt read anything F1 related without hearing about Saint Fernando performing miracles.

 

He was already well-regarded, having restored his reputation among the UK press after 2007. I remember him being described as the best driver around by Brundle in 2008/09 more than once, I think in F1 racing magazine. He got lots of praise in 2010 too, and to some extent in 2011. But 2012 was obviously a big deal. I think lots of people simply didn't want Vettel to win again, which helped.

[Lights]

He was already well-regarded, having restored his reputation among the UK press after 2007. I remember him being described as the best driver around by Brundle in 2008/09 more than once, I think in F1 racing magazine. He got lots of praise in 2010 too, and to some extent in 2011. But 2012 was obviously a big deal. I think lots of people simply didn't want Vettel to win again, which helped.

 

What also helped was how he was consistently outperforming his teammates. He beat Massa by such margins that it created the popular fiction that Massa wasn't the same driver anymore since his 2009 accident. Then in 2014 he did the same with Raikkonen.

 

Wasn't just media praising him either, with rivals like Hamilton and Button saying Alonso deserved the 2012 title over Vettel. Was this just because they didn't want Vettel to win again? Who knows, but I don't think so. I really think they respected Alonso's performances more.

 

Alonso at Ferrari deserved to be seen at that level. The fact that no titles were won in those years doesn't mean he wasn't considered top dog.

[piket]

I agree. He deserves to be seen as a top dog. But I would give both Lewis and Seb benchmark those years aswell. He easnt doing miracles. This is what I think at least.

Even nowdays I am surprised how Vettel commanded less respect despite winning it all those years.

You wouldnt believe stuff being said in F1 related web page in my country. Then I realised how much media narrative can be influential. Page was frequented by Ferrari fans probably 9 to 1 ratio to everyone else.

[ensign14]

We need average Mansell-Piquet qualifying gaps to settle the matters. In terms of head-to-head qualifying it indeed went from 8:8 to 5:10 deficit to Mansell, so there is evidence of Piquet's decline.

 

...or Mansell's improvement.  Once he won a race he was a different driver.  Kept getting better.

 

Lauda writes about how Piquet got very bored with F1 around this time and talked about retiring.  James Hunt suggested that Piquet's latter years were to pay for his yacht.  Maybe he was burnt out and couldn't be bothered to try to match a faster team-mate. 

 

[shure]

...or Mansell's improvement.  Once he won a race he was a different driver.  Kept getting better.

 

Lauda writes about how Piquet got very bored with F1 around this time and talked about retiring.  James Hunt suggested that Piquet's latter years were to pay for his yacht.  Maybe he was burnt out and couldn't be bothered to try to match a faster team-mate. 

 

Piquet admitted that in his final years he went for the money.  But he also knew - and acknowledged - that this was driven by the fact that he wasn't the same driver after his crash.

 

Doubtless the truth involves a number of factors.  But a severe drop off in performance can be traced exactly to his Imola accident so we don't really need to look for other potential explanations when there is an obvious one which the driver himself has admitted to being key.

[garoidb]

...or Mansell's improvement.  Once he won a race he was a different driver.  Kept getting better.

 

Lauda writes about how Piquet got very bored with F1 around this time and talked about retiring.  James Hunt suggested that Piquet's latter years were to pay for his yacht.  Maybe he was burnt out and couldn't be bothered to try to match a faster team-mate. 

 

 

Maybe. He certainly came on a lot in late 1985 but did he make more gains going from 1986 to 1987?  It's plausible and the way to check it would be how he did against Patrese, who had also been Piquet's team-mate. 

 

The thing is that this isn't relevant to whether Piquet was the top driver in 1983, for example. 

 

Edit: to expand, the thread is about whether particular drivers had "eras" in which they were acknowledged to be the best. I don't believe anyone is saying that 1987 was part of a Piquet era. For him, the question is whether 1982 to 1984/5 could be considered an era. 

Edited by garoidb, 26 August 2019 - 08:32.

[sopa]

We don't even need Piquet's word for this. If he went from about being level with Mansell to about more than 1s per lap slower in qualifying post-accident, this is a very serious drop-off. Does anyone expect someone to get 1s per lap slower overnight randomly? Or the other guy get 1s per lap quicker all of a sudden? However, chances are Piquet at least somewhat recovered from the accident during the season, because later in the season there were also Q sessions in which he was in the ballpark of Mansell.

[shure]

Maybe. He certainly came on a lot in late 1985 but did he make more gains going from 1986 to 1987?  It's plausible and the way to check it would be how he did against Patrese, who had also been Piquet's team-mate. 

 

The thing is that this isn't relevant to whether Piquet was the top driver in 1983, for example. 

 

Edit: to expand, the thread is about whether particular drivers had "eras" in which they were acknowledged to be the best. I don't believe anyone is saying that 1987 was part of a Piquet era. For him, the question is whether 1982 to 1984/5 could be considered an era. 

although Piquet was considered by many to have been the best driver during those years mentioned, for me an era should involve a driver who is head and shoulders above the rest and who is synonymous with that time.  I don't think Piquet had an era, specifically: he was a great driver and one of the best, but is that enough?

 

Since the '80s, the only drivers I think of who could be said to have had an era are Senna and Schumacher.  Although e.g Vettel could be said to have dominated between 2011-2013, I think Hamilton and Alonso were better drivers overall.  And Alonso remained (one of) the best until he retired last year.  

 

So for me I think eras are better defined by technology or regulations than by drivers.

[Collombin]

the thread is about whether particular drivers had "eras" in which they were acknowledged to be the best. I don't believe anyone is saying that 1987 was part of a Piquet era. For him, the question is whether 1982 to 1984/5 could be considered an era.

Agreed, we can argue for ever about Imola but in the context of this thread it isn't relevant. In 1987 Prost was being talked of as maybe the best ever. Piquet was certainly a popular choice as best of his era in 1983-85 ish, so it's just personal preference as to how long an era needs to be.

Of course, framing eras by technical regulations is more sensible, but has far less capacity for arguing over on a forum.

[PlatenGlass]

I would say that eras can be defined by many things, but for a particular era to be defined by a driver, that driver would have to be very dominant (e.g. arguably Schumacher for a period). We can argue all we want whether Piquet was the best driver for a certain period, but there was certainly no era defined by Piquet.

[Paul Parker]

But it wasn't meant to be close in 1986 - Piquet was supposedly the best, Mansell nowhere near him.

When did Piquet first "admit" this? Reminds me a bit of an elderly Ralph Mulford suddenly convincing himself he had been conned out of an Indy 500 win.

 

I seem to recall that Piquet was favoured at the Hungarian GP in 1986 regarding a better differential which he failed to tell NM about, or was it the team?

 

Whatever Nigel had 5 GP wins,( Piquet 4) and finished 2nd in the championship ahead of Piquet, albeit by one point.

[shure]

I seem to recall that Piquet was favoured at the Hungarian GP in 1986 regarding a better differential which he failed to tell NM about, or was it the team?

 

Whatever Nigel had 5 GP wins,( Piquet 4) and finished 2nd in the championship ahead of Piquet, albeit by one point.

Piquet was a mechanical engineer by trade and loved to tinker with setup and try new things.  He didn't share with Mansell as he felt that Mansell should have been doing it himself.  He was also a bit of a testing machine and was one of the hardest working drivers in that regard - the engineers all loved him.  Again, he felt, not unreasonably, that he shouldn't be passing all the fruits of his labour to his team mate (and main opposition!).  In 1987 Piquet extensively tested and used an active suspension system that Mansell was opposed to using, saying it made him feel ill.

 

So I don't know about being favoured, but Piquet often had a different setup to Mansell because he spent a lot of time fine tuning things

[PayasYouRace]

There were two occasions in 1986 that Piquet kept technical developments to himself: The differential in Hungary and the new rear wing in Italy. After that Williams had to send two spare cars to the remaining races.

It should be noted that both Piquet and Mansell had Engineering backgrounds.

[Atreiu]

I think the periods are better definied by the top rivalries. At least that's how I remember it.

 

I'd have it go like this, considering only the time I actually watched F1 and/or feel more comfortable to talk about it.

 

1985 - 1987 - 1988 - 1993 - Prost, Senna and then Senna, Prost;

1994 - 1997 - Schumacher, Williams drivers;

1998 - 2000 - Schumacher, Hakkinen;

2001 - 2004 - Schumacher unopposed (2003 was an outlier quickly solved by tyregate);

2005 - Alonso, Raikkonen (weird transition into a post Schumacher F1 quickly solved by fixing tyre rules for 2006);

2006 - Alonso, Schumacher;

2007 - 2008 - Raikkonen, Hamilton Massa, Alonso (rare 4 drivers in the mix period);

2009 - transition into Vettel's period;

2010 - 2013 - Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton;

2014 - 2016 - Hamilton, Rosberg;

2017 onwards - Hamilton, Vettel (2019 might be a transition into a period less definied by Vettel and his rivalries, but judgement should be held for later).

 

Edit: if you question any abscence of mine, know it's because I think they were the beneficiary of certain very significant circumstances instead of the defining drivers of that time.

Edited by Atreiu, 26 August 2019 - 16:06.

[PayasYouRace]

I know that an era is a non-specific length of time, but it doesn't really seem right to define a single season as an era.

[Atreiu]

I know, that's why I prefer the term 'period'.

 

In F1, an era should be some 5 or 6 seasons, at least. Vettel didn't really have his era, but perhaps V8 Renault engines did considering all their success between 2006 and 2013.

 

Or maybe season is just the best word. They literally come and go more quickly.

 

Edit: Schumacher does deserve his era given how he was a defining force for so long.

Edited by Atreiu, 26 August 2019 - 16:11.

[Sterzo]

To go back to basics, or at least the first post:

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

 

Nothing wrong with defining by drivers, but that’s not what I’d choose. I’d simply go by decade:

 

Fifties: front-engined cars, the engines being more important than the chassis.

Sixties: lightweight rear-engined cars; it’s all about cornering.

Seventies: aerodynamic downforce rules all, developing from wings to ground effects.

Eighties: the era of sophistication and perfectionism. (Carbon fibre tubs, paddle shift gearboxes, precision-made parts replacing improvisation by mechanics).

Nineties: refuelling era, major expansion in the amount of testing.

Two thousands: one engine configuration, very specific bans become common (e.g. two way telemetry, mass damper, double diffuser).

Two thousand and tens: spend spiralling ever higher, resulting in grids shrinking and gaps widening.

 

Others on the forum have better recall than I and would be able to add to, subtract from or downright contradict the above. Especially my rather limp summary of the nineties.

 

(Edited to add to the nineties: major expansion in the amount of testing.)

Edited by Sterzo, 26 August 2019 - 21:52.

[sopa]

 

Two thousand and tens: spend spiralling ever higher, resulting in grids shrinking and gaps widening.

 

 

Interesting that you mention that. It has to be said that F1 never really recovered from 2008-09 recession. Prior to recession we had 6 car manufacturers in F1, which I don't think is ever going to be repeated again.

 

However, the point so much isn't whether there are manufacturers or not - which many argue aren't positive to the health of sport -, but F1 has definitely got more predictable since 2010, with fewer well-off teams involved. Before the full effects of recession we got the crazy 2009 with lots of surprise results, we got 2008 in which Toro Rosso won a race on merit. After that the only close season has been 2012 in which midfield teams were capable of mixing with front-runners in races. And even that was possible due to those crazy tyres, which no-one understood. In all other seasons 2-3 richest teams have comfortably got everyone else in the pocket, so no-one else could threaten them.

 

So in terms of splitting F1 into eras, 2009-10 is very much a turning point in many ways. Not just due to regulation changes, but also financially and the way competition has shaked up.

[shure]

There were two occasions in 1986 that Piquet kept technical developments to himself: The differential in Hungary and the new rear wing in Italy. After that Williams had to send two spare cars to the remaining races.

It should be noted that both Piquet and Mansell had Engineering backgrounds.

Well Frank Dernie, Piquet's engineer, disputes that.  He says that Mansell actually tried the new differential but didn't like it.  Which sounds reminiscent of the active suspension situation where Mansell couldn't be bothered with it and Piquet tested it intensively.

 

If Mansell had an engineering background he rarely took advantage of it.  He was loathe to test and it was fairly common knowledge that he often copied Piquet's setups.  Piquet, OTOH, was well liked by his engineers precisely because he tested the bejesus out of his cars.  In 1985 he completed the equivalent of 75 grand prix distances in testing the Pirellis, leading to Autocourse commenting that his Brabham circulated the Kyalami track "like a demented clockwork toy."

 

Piquet took to hiding his setup from Mansell and only set everything up at the last minute, as he resented Mansell benefitting from his hard work.

 

Coming back to eras and whether Piquet was considered the best driver of the early '80s, Lauda (who partnered Piquet, Hunt, Villeneuve and Prost) went on record to say that Piquet was the best of all of them.  He said this in 1985, just after being beaten by Prost

[Collombin]

Mansell had an engineering HND I think, which is one step below degree level.

Largely agree with the last post, but remind me when Lauda partnered Villeneuve?

[shure]

Mansell had an engineering HND I think, which is one step below degree level.

Largely agree with the last post, but remind me when Lauda partnered Villeneuve?

apologies, I misread from his autobiography and somehow translated "impressed" as "partnered."  The actual quote was:

 

"Over my years in Formula 1, four drivers have made an especially strong impression on me: Piquet, Hunt, Villeneuve and Prost. If asked whom I consider to the best driver in the world, I need go no further than the first of these: Nelson Piquet. He has everything that a world champion requires: stature, poise, an ability to concentrate on the essentials, intelligence, physical strength - and speed. He seldom makes a mistake, he is always fast, he is always on form."

 

From Lauda's autobiography, To Hell and Back, published in 1985

[Collombin]

apologies, I misread from his autobiography and somehow translated "impressed" as "partnered."

Thank you, that explains Hunt too then!

To Hell and Back is probably the best driver autobiography I have ever read.

[PayasYouRace]

Mansell had an engineering HND I think, which is one step below degree level.
Largely agree with the last post, but remind me when Lauda partnered Villeneuve?

They’re about equal there then, because Piquet dropped out of his degree course to continue his racing career. Mansell actually worked in the industry to fund his racing career.

[garoidb]

apologies, I misread from his autobiography and somehow translated "impressed" as "partnered."  The actual quote was:

 

"Over my years in Formula 1, four drivers have made an especially strong impression on me: Piquet, Hunt, Villeneuve and Prost. If asked whom I consider to the best driver in the world, I need go no further than the first of these: Nelson Piquet. He has everything that a world champion requires: stature, poise, an ability to concentrate on the essentials, intelligence, physical strength - and speed. He seldom makes a mistake, he is always fast, he is always on form."

 

From Lauda's autobiography, To Hell and Back, published in 1985

 

This accords with my memory of how Piquet was rated at that time (mid to late 1985). I also remember James Hunt making a similar comment on a TV season preview, but I can't find it now. From Lauda, this must have been somewhat based on his time as team-mate to Piquet at Brabham. If we take Jones as being the presumptive top driver from mid 1979 to the end of 1981, then we have Piquet going into 1982 as the champion with only Lauda (and occasionally Andretti) as a former champion. He had very poor reliability that year and in 1984, but if you watch the races he was a front runner in both years, and obviously he won in 1983. In 1985 he was saddled with the Pirelli tyres. He won at least one race in all these years, but they were defined by reliability and tyres.

 

Lauda's comment came around the time Prost had won his first title after two near misses (versus Piquet and Lauda as it happens), and after Senna had won his first races. It is interesting to note that a savvy operator like Lauda could still rate Piquet higher. It would be natural now to just backdate the perceptions of the late 1980s to this period as if these things were static, but of course there were steep learning curves involved as well as an age advantage for Senna. 

 

As to what constitutes an era, that is a personal choice. It was a period of four years maximum. The order at the front changed faster in those days and in fact Piquet's seven seasons at Brabham was considered worthy of note at the time, comparable to the time Clark spent at Lotus. Now, that is normal with a winning combination.

[Gary Davies]

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

I see where you are coming from and I suppose if one were to measure these things in terms of World Championships, one might tend to prefer Brabham. 

 

I don't. I'm with the late Denis Jenkinson as seeing the World Championship as a commercial construct which doesn't necessarily indicate which driver is/was the fastest of his time. 

 

Jack Brabham was faster than many pundits acknowledge and I have great admiration for him. But as a driver, Moss was in an altogether different league. 

 

There was a race in England in the 1950's (I'm sorry, I can't recall which race with any confidence) in which a driver remarked during practice that, "It's  slow day today, isn't it." Masten Gregory replied that "Moss and Brooks haven't arrived yet." A measure of the esteem in which he was held by his contemporaries. 

 

After Fangio, and quite possibly from 1956 on, Moss's rivals openly acknowledged that he was a cut above all of them. By the end of 1961, Moss recognised  - in a remark to Denis Jenkinson - that Clark was shaping up to be a particularly tricky customer. What a shame that April 23 1962 robbed us of what was set to be one of the all-time rivalries. 

 

At the wet 1961 International Trophy Stirling Moss lapped Brabham, Clark, Brooks, McLaren and Hill by one third distance. Brabham himself, current World Champion, freely conceded that Moss was from a different planet.

 

There are several similar examples.

 

Enzo Ferrari is quoted as saying that the two greatest drivers in history were Tazio Nuvolari and Stirling Moss. Arguable perhaps, but the point is that at the time, amongst those who raced against him, those who reported on motor racing and those within racing teams, there was no dispute about his clear superiority.

 

Looking back at the numbers, it is difficult, from the perspective of 2019, to appreciate all that. That said, he competed in 529 competitive events before his Goodwood crash and won in over 40% of all those events. He placed first, second or third in some 65% of these events. He was, simply, a winning machine.

Edited by Gary Davies, 28 August 2019 - 09:52.