82 replies to this topic

[Afterburner]

I've belatedly realised that I saw my first F1 race, the 2003 Monaco Grand Prix, almost 20 years ago. To pass the time, I've been listening to and occasionally watching some older races, from 2003-2008, and have noticed a few things about the F1 of old:

 

Better

 

• The sound. Obviously. Particularly from '03-'05.

• Unpredictability. Even during races in which the result appeared to be a done deal, there was always a chance for a mechanical failure, pitstop misfortune, or even a mistake to befall the most competitive drivers—I've witnessed a few surprise winners I didn't remember. Drivers having to push flat-out during their stints clearly made it easier for mistakes to happen or the cars to break (less so toward the tail end of this era). No asphalt runoffs meant mistakes were often punished. Not knowing that a race was really over until it was over helped provide a layer of intrigue to what in hindsight appeared to be boring races.

• Actual racing in the rain. Self-explanatory.

• Twitchy, on-the-limit cars. Also self-explanatory.

• Fluctuations in race pace. I was stunned how often gaps of multiple seconds would open and close during the refueling era compared to now.

• Lack of on-screen graphics. Paradoxically I think it's better to watch a race this way, lest you end up watching numbers change for 90-odd minutes until somebody is declared a winner. Maybe things were just as sterile back then and the lack of detailed timing data hid it.

• The directors. Whoever directed races back then was LOADS better at conveying action and a sense of speed than those currently doing this job.

• Shorter safety car periods. I don't wish to see a return to the days where marshals had to handle dangerous incidents under waved yellows, but I was surprised to see that SC periods back then lasted 2-3 laps in most cases, rather than the long breaks we see taken today.

• Podium ceremonies. Real flags, no video screens—and the recording they had of the Italian national anthem back then was way more festive.

• No idiotic "BOOP" sounds when the lights come on at the start of the race. I didn't realise how much this pissed me off until I watched a race without it.

• No DRS. I've lately thought that it was a necessary evil but watching races back then has convinced me that we're better off without it, even if it means overtakes happen less frequently.

 

Worse

 

• Commentators. The lack of data means you're relying on them to carry the race, and as much as we make fun of Croft et al. they tend to have a MUCH better idea of what's going on.

• Post-race interviews. The current format is much better, if only because it's not as sanitized.

• Limited team radio. There is a case to be made for this being overdone now, but pit-car communication is a great addition to the broadcasts and back then, if it was present at all, it was often poor quality.

• Use of waved yellows to cover large incidents. Schumacher nearly took out a crane (or perhaps more accurately, a crane nearly took out Schumacher) in Brazil '03. They should have known better.

• Field spread/quality. Even if I think modern races are more dull, it was plenty obvious that the minnows of the day were basically there to make up the numbers. Most of the intrigue toward the back consisted of who hadn't blown up yet. The cost cap has helped a lot with this I think.

 

Clearly we could argue all day about what we could do to bring back some of the good things while making sure we don't lose any of the things we've gained since then which are nice, but I'm more interested in hearing from people (primarily those who've been watching enough to have transcended a few eras now) how they think F1 has changed for better or for worse since they started watching. 2003 was a great season and I'm now pretty much convinced we should just adopt those rules with ground effects and a budget cap for 5 years and see what happens. Prove me wrong.

[TomNokoe]

• Lack of on-screen graphics. Paradoxically I think it's better to watch a race this way, lest you end up watching numbers change for 90-odd minutes until somebody is declared a winner.

I agree, it keeps you engaged with the race and the pictures. Less is more, as the saying goes.

[PayasYouRace]

I thought, “another thread about Donington 1993?” Then I realised how quickly time has passed. Thanks for making me feel old.

[Beri]

No DRS. I've lately thought that it was a necessary evil but watching races back then has convinced me that we're better off without it, even if it means overtakes happen less frequently.

I'm a strong advocate of "pure" racing. And in this case DRS is an unnecessary evil, to me.
I'd rather watch a race without any overtake, than a race with 100 DRS overtakes.

[Beri]

I thought, “another thread about Donington 1993?” Then I realised how quickly time has passed. Thanks for making me feel old.

Let me have a crack too; Halfway, age wise, to your pension already? 😉

[jonpollak]

I thought, “another thread about Donington 1993?” Then I realised how quickly time has passed. Thanks for making me feel old.

Get to the back of the queue kiddo.

You ain't old.

So, while we are going FULL nostalgia forum....

 

1967 Monaco GP here

Things were better then..But peope died with regularity.

1 or 2 cars would lap the field and then some.

Facilities were rag tag.

But it was MY childhood and it formed me into the race fan I am today.

 

So then, What's the story morning glory?

 

------------------------

 

In 1966 my Father came home from work early one evening before Christmas, he was working for a guy named Saul Bass doing what was then known as "opticals" and are now called "special FX" for films. He asked me if I wanted to attend a Hollywood Premiere?

OK DAD...I said. I had yet to work out WHY I was invited?
I was told to 'Go put a jacket on'
Off we went to the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd.
Upon arrival, he opened an envelope and out came 2 large yellow tickets and a program
Grand Prix  was what it said.

I was clueless on entry.
Enraptured upon exit.

It changed my life forever

Next year he announced to the family that he had to go back to Europe for another 4-6 months to work on a film called 'Candy'
My Mother, being of sound decision making powers, said "FINE, The whole family goes".
Unperturbed Dad brought the family over to Beaulieu-sur-Mer and the house where he stayed during the making of Grand Prix.

Unwittingly, this played into my plan perfectly.
I BEGGED him to take me to a race and if for no other reason than to SHUT ME UP he took me to 1967 Monaco GP

It was mesmerizingly magical and all I had expected.
I was amazed to see and hear REAL F1 cars, not movie mock-ups. Jackie's BRM and the Surtees Honda were great sounding but it was Pedro, Siffert, and Jochen in the Cooper Maserati's that made me drool. I eventually fell for Stewart though and since my dad was leaning towards being a Graham Hill fan, surely due to his after-hours exploits, yet I needed to have a more straight and narrow driver as my object of affection.
So for me it was between the Scots Jim Clark and Jackie.

 

It was mesmerizing

The race was almost over when the second place car failed to come past us at the pelouses rocher.
I turned to see Dad with a frantic look on his face and he scooped me up as the incident hooter blared. We left the track in a mad rush as plumbs of smoke were coming up from the harbour chicane. I knew there was something bad happening but I was enthralled ... it was too late.
So THAT was IT....The end of any semblance of a "normal" life for me...
Motor racing was my manna from then on...

Racing has permeated my life ever since.

 

Jp

[JHSingo]

An interesting post. 

 

I think, though, often it's easy to remember things as being better than they were - particularly when you've probably been watching some of the better (or best) races from that era, rather than actively seeking out and voluntarily watching the stinkers (or I commend you on your enthusiasm/foolishness if you have  ). 

 

Hey, look, I'll always remember that era fondly. Being an early 90s baby, the late 90s-mid 00s were "my" era, in a way. To this day, I still remember fondly the Sunday lunches in front of the TV, pushing my toy cars around the carpet acting out my own race, accompanied by the sound the V10 engines and Murray Walker commentary. The exotic sounding driver names (I mean, how could the likes of Juan Pablo Montoya and Cristiano Da Matta not sound cool), and colorful teams. Whenever I watch an event like Goodwood FoS these days, and a V10 powered car from that era goes up the ill, I'll go misty-eyed and get goose bumps. 

 

But...I do genuinely believe that F1 is better in almost every way now compared to then. Sure, I have my gripes with modern day F1. Heavy, cumbersome cars, lack of surprise winners, reticence to race in the wet etc. And it's frustrating that we only seem to get an exciting championship battle once in a blue moon these days, when it felt like we got one more-or-less every year from about 2005-2012. Yet I'm not sure I'd go back and re-watch too many races from The Good Old Days, in case I found them to be a disappointment compared to what we've had more recently, and it spoilt my memories from that time. Sometimes it's best to leave the past in the past, and just keep them as fuzzy memories.

 

So yeah, modern F1 isn't perfect, and probably never will be. But it's probably still better than what came before. 

 

On a vaguely related note, this came up on my YouTube suggestions the other day, and gave me a good laugh. 

 

Edited by JHSingo, 11 April 2023 - 18:29.

[AustinF1]

I'm a strong advocate of "pure" racing. And in this case DRS is an unnecessary evil, to me.
I'd rather watch a race without any overtake, than a race with 100 DRS overtakes.

Yep. The typical DRS overtake is ultra-boring and doesn't add anything. Instead, it usually deprives us of a good battle that may or may not end in an overtake. With DRS, it's generally a foregone conclusion.

[#99]

I thought, “another thread about Donington 1993?” Then I realised how quickly time has passed. Thanks for making me feel old.

When someone says to me 20 years ago, i instantly think 1980s

[nmansellfan]

When someone says to me 20 years ago, i instantly think 1980s

Same. Whenever anything from the 80s is on TV, it takes me a second to clock that it's usually twice as old as I think it is. Last night I turned on the TV and the first Police Academy film was on. It was sobering to realise it was released 39 years ago this year. 39! Even more sobering to me was that I was already 5 years old when it came out...

But everyone has a story like that.

[messy]

God don’t get me started on this topic, I’ll be posting William Hunt style essays in no time. But I’ll try and rein myself in.

Objectively, there’s a lot that’s much better now than it was twenty years ago, and you covered most of it. The only thing I don’t agree with is the thing about the bottom half of the grid in say 2003 being far less competitive now - I think it’s the opposite. Maybe in pure performance/gap to the leader terms, but two things balanced that out - the fact that unreliability was so much more of an issue back then, and the fluctuations in pace that you talked about. So back in the late 90s or early 2000s an Arrows, say, could pop itself on the second row of the grid from nowhere if the circuit suited, and then have a genuine crack at winning on merit the following day. Or a Jordan, or a Prost, or you get the picture. The tyre war years made that especially pronounced, thinking 1997 and those amazing performance swings based on the Bridgestone tyres. Then you’ve got Fisichella managing to overtake Raikkonen for the lead and ultimately the win in Brazil 2003.

The thing is though, the more you think about it, it still can happen. Ocon winning in Hungary, Gasly or Ricciardo at Monza (the latter on merit), it’s just unusual. And maybe the problem now is that because of all the data we now have, we know how unlikely it is so it seems like more of a freak circumstantial event where maybe the reality was that it always was. Dunno. I do think that races are generally more predictable these days but I’m not honestly sure why that is, or whether it’s even the reality.

On the presentation side of it, that’s where the rose-tinted specs come in, because my God I’d take Murray Walker over David Croft every single minute of every single hour of every single day of the week. I think they have it easier these days because of all the data, camera angles, on boards, team radio (all of which I think are a great improvement over the older days) we have available now. So I have a lot of respect for Murray keeping people entertained and thinking of things to talk about with so little to work with whereas I think the wealth of information sources now maybe have an adverse effect on the commentary, or maybe it’s just because David Croft is nothing like as entertaining and likeable as Murray, just like James Allen wasn’t.

I loved the older days of F1 20 or so years ago, but objectively there’s a lot that’s better now.

[#99]

Same. Whenever anything from the 80s is on TV, it takes me a second to clock that it's usually twice as old as I think it is. Last night I turned on the TV and the first Police Academy film was on. It was sobering to realise it was released 39 years ago this year. 39! Even more sobering to me was that I was already 5 years old when it came out...

But everyone has a story like that.

Agree - its definitely sobering.

 

Back in 1996, when MS joined Ferrari, it was 17 (?) years since Ferrari won a WDC and the younger me thought that was such a long time - here in 2023 it is already 16 years since their last one and it just seems like yesterday.

 

Regarding F1 20 years ago, for me personally, it just seemed more exciting, even during 02/04.  The cars were nimble, looked on edge and sounded awesome. 

[Ruusperi]

• No races in Middle-East dictatorships. Instead of Saudi-Arabia, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and Qatar we had Magny-Cours, Hockenheim, Nürburgring and Indianapolis.

• No sprint races. Instead we had Pre-Race Testing (120 minutes, reserved for Minardi, Jordan, Renault ja Jaguar), FP1 (60 minutes), Q1 (60 minutes, single-lap), FP2 (45 minutes), FP3 (45 minutes), Warm-up (15 minutes), Q2 (60 minutes, single-lap) and GP.


• No identical carbon-colored cars. Instead we had proper colors, like green, yellow and blue.

[azza200]

I'm a strong advocate of "pure" racing. And in this case DRS is an unnecessary evil, to me.
I'd rather watch a race without any overtake, than a race with 100 DRS overtakes.

 

Probably why i enjoy sportscars and endurance racing more these days then F1. It's real racing and has no gimmicks to spice up the action real racing and battles to overtake each other down to skill and determination 

Edited by azza200, 11 April 2023 - 22:51.

[Sterzo]

20 years? Pah... First GP I saw (bits of) on TV was 1956, the first I attended in person was 1966. As a generalisation, so much has changed that I tend not to compare, but accept each of the many eras on its own merits. Anyway, to answer the question:

 

Better then:

1. Fabulous road circuits.

2. More visible movement from a cornering car.

 

Better now:

1. Safety.

2. Reliability. (Who wants half the field disappearing?)

3. Overall quality of the field, cars and drivers.

 

TV coverage? No comment. There is motor racing, and there is TV. Either can exist without the other.

[HighwayStar]

• 
  
• No identical carbon-colored cars. Instead we had proper colors, like green, yellow and blue.
• 
  

 

 

This photo really brings home how homogenous F1 liveries have become in recent years, all six of the cars in that shot have distinctive liveries and I can almost immediately identify which team's car it is in all cases. It's even more impressive as this particular photo doesn't include a Ferrari. In the early races of 2023, on the other hand, I'm ashamed to say there have been times when I haven't been sure whether the car I was watching was an Alfa Romeo or a Haas, before realising it was actually an Alpha Tauri...

 

I think the early seasons of the 2000s were an especially good era for being able to identify different cars. In my opinion the decline started later around the middle of the decade, with the loss of the green of Jaguar and yellow of Jordan in fairly quick succession coupled with an increasing number of predominantly white liveries giving the grid a blander look.

[PayasYouRace]

This photo really brings home how homogenous F1 liveries have become in recent years, all six of the cars in that shot have distinctive liveries and I can almost immediately identify which team's car it is in all cases. It's even more impressive as this particular photo doesn't include a Ferrari. In the early races of 2023, on the other hand, I'm ashamed to say there have been times when I haven't been sure whether the car I was watching was an Alfa Romeo or a Haas, before realising it was actually an Alpha Tauri...

 

I think the early seasons of the 2000s were an especially good era for being able to identify different cars. In my opinion the decline started later around the middle of the decade, with the loss of the green of Jaguar and yellow of Jordan in fairly quick succession coupled with an increasing number of predominantly white liveries giving the grid a blander look.

 

It's funny because just three seasons later, in 2006, we had one of the most homogeneous looking grids since the 1960s, while in contrast, the fields from 2017-2020 were some of the most vibrant and distinctive ever. This isn't an old vs new F1 thing. It's just a cyclic thing. A natural cycle born out of having commercial sponsorship.

[PayasYouRace]

I suppose to answer the OP, I have very little nostalgia for the early 2000s, despite it being in my teenage years. It already felt very different to the late 90s that I hold real nostalgia for.

 

Yes, the whole thing was a bit simpler back then. We didn't have to deal with some things like sprint weekends and two compound rules. But it was the beginning of parc ferme, we'd just lost traditional qualifying and were subjected to single lap qualifying. Already it wasn't the straighforward basics that I'd first learned about. 2003 was also a very exciting blip in an otherwise tedious Ferrari redwash, which overall was little fun.

 

But what I can never have any real nostalgia for were the narrow track cars on their silly grooved tyres. F1 basically became a junior formula from 1998 to 2008, and we still had super skinny cars until 2016. No, F1 cars should be wide and on slick tyres. The V10s sounded great, but that was about it for that era. Aesthetically, I'd take the awesome 2022/3 cars over those go-karts any day.

[Kulturen]

Except maybe for the title fights in 96-98 (but not the actual racing) and the short lived breath of fresh air that was the arrival of JPM, mid 90s to mid 00s F1 was largely complete garbage.. I question the sanity of anyone who has nostalgia for that era (looking fondly at that era or stuff like refuelling is also a sure tell someone was a MS fan). The grooved tyres might be the stupidest idea F1 has ever had.

Edited by Kulturen, 11 April 2023 - 22:14.

[jwill189]

Except maybe for the title fights in 96-98 (but not the actual racing) and the short lived breath of fresh air that was the arrival of JPM, mid 90s to mid 00s F1 was largely complete garbage.. I question the sanity of anyone who has nostalgia for that era (looking fondly at that era or stuff like refuelling is also a sure tell someone was a MS fan). The grooved tyres might be the stupidest idea F1 has ever had.

 

The idea behind the grooved tyres was to slow down the cars, but yes, it was stupid. Drove Goodyear away from the sport.

[John B]

The first year I consistently followed was 1981, though I vaguely remember a few races as far back as Mario clinching the title in 1978. Used to read the Road and Track race reports months after the events, and now a week is considered dead slow in present times. 1981-83 was an interesting and unpredictable period compared to the dominance periods which have been discussed on other threads. I also remember F1 would get mentioned in US radio/news sports reports along with stick and ball sports, then that seemed to go away during the mid 80s.

[Afterburner]

Except maybe for the title fights in 96-98 (but not the actual racing) and the short lived breath of fresh air that was the arrival of JPM, mid 90s to mid 00s F1 was largely complete garbage.. I question the sanity of anyone who has nostalgia for that era (looking fondly at that era or stuff like refuelling is also a sure tell someone was a MS fan). The grooved tyres might be the stupidest idea F1 has ever had.

I could flip that around and say that anybody who instinctively thought that era was garbage must have been an MS detractor. I tried to focus on things that were less subjective; the narrowness of the cars is still an issue, I prefer slicks to grooved tyres, and I actually liked single-lap qualifying, but saying "it was definitely better this subjective way that I remember it" is pretty much the definition of nostalgia, no?

I did forget one in my post that I'm glad is gone and think we’re objectively better off for losing, and I'm not sure how I forgot: traction control. No reason to have it in the highest level of motorsport.

[southernstars]

 

• Use of waved yellows to cover large incidents. Schumacher nearly took out a crane (or perhaps more accurately, a crane nearly took out Schumacher) in Brazil '03. They should have known better.

 

Brazil 2003 is a classic example of how things have gotten safer for the better. Nowadays Webber's crash would almost certainly have been a red immediately, it was that huge and spread so much debris everywhere, and thus Alonso's crash wouldn't have happened.

[RedRabbit]

Today there is definitely too much on screen information that we actually don't need. Especially the overtake graphic about how many laps to striking distance. It robs the intrigue a lot.

It's odd how Liberty Media keep wanting to spice up the show ™ but introduce ideas that always do the exact opposite.

And DRS has definitely robbed some intriguing races or battles from us. It just helps the faster cars get to the front quicker than ever, so we don't really see plucky drives from a midfield car onto the podium anymore.

[Dino2000]

Get to the back of the queue kiddo.

You ain't old.

So, while we are going FULL nostalgia forum....

 

1967 Monaco GP here

 

[...]

Racing has permeated my life ever since.

 

Jp

 

Great story, great memories, thank you very much for sharing, Jon.

[Dino2000]

I started watching F1 races on TV in the late 70s, but during the 1983 season I found that Auto magazines were published and changed my life for ever... I finally discover there were other people like me in the world! From then on I never ever skipped watching a race, until I started working in motorsport. 

 

Memories are seen with rose tinted crystals, so for me is difficult to compare eras objectively, however I can see some things have changed for the better and for the worse.

 

Better

 

Safety - Nowadays I rarely fear for the life of the drivers, mechanics or officials, and this is a big relief.

 

Equity - There is a lot of more transparecency in the decision-making, better standards of stewardship and scrutineering.

 

Worst

 

Homogeneity - There's no way of distinguishing cars by the looks or the sound, all them almost look the same. Also liveries are boring, and you can't see the helmet colours of the drivers, anyway there aren't brilliant helment desings these days.

 

Ingenuity - In pursuit of levelling the competition and controlling costs, design regulations are too tight, so there is less chance of someone bringing original ideas and spicing up the field.

 

Gimmicks and Eco-friendly stuff - I can't stand things like DRS or all the unneccessary technology of energy recovery systems. I would rather prefer to rethink all the regulations and offer a bit more of a raw sport.

[Ali623]

Personally I think the on screen graphics like the timing tower are way better than back then, having constant context on the order, timing gaps etc personally I prefer. But the AWS graphics, things like tyre 'life' and striking distance are terrible mainly because they're misinformation in most cases. 

[Beri]

STRIKING DISTANCE!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!

[IrvTheSwerve]

Yep. The typical DRS overtake is ultra-boring and doesn't add anything. Instead, it usually deprives us of a good battle that may or may not end in an overtake. With DRS, it's generally a foregone conclusion.

 

Indeed. At a risk of making this thread about DRS, but this popped up on my YouTube feed yesterday...

 

 

Kimi would have been past within a straight or two with DRS.

[F1Frog]

20 years? Pah... First GP I saw (bits of) on TV was 1956, the first I attended in person was 1966. As a generalisation, so much has changed that I tend not to compare, but accept each of the many eras on its own merits. Anyway, to answer the question:

 

Better then:

1. Fabulous road circuits.

2. More visible movement from a cornering car.

 

Better now:

1. Safety.

2. Reliability. (Who wants half the field disappearing?)

3. Overall quality of the field, cars and drivers.

 

TV coverage? No comment. There is motor racing, and there is TV. Either can exist without the other.

 

 

Personally, I think the late 1950s was the absolute peak of Formula 1, although I agree with you that safety and reliability were the two biggest problems with it. However, although the overall quality of the cars and drivers is better now, I don't think that is necessarily an improvement. The quality of drivers is indeed better now because they have to be perfect to get in, moving through all the junior categories, and because they get so much training and are able to analyse so much data which allows them to drive so close to perfectly. I think it is better when they are more working it out for themselves on the race track. And the greats of that era were equally as good as the greats of today, but because the field weren't so closely-matched as they are now, it meant a Fangio or a Moss was able to stand out and prove just how good they were far more than a Hamilton or a Verstappen, who very rarely seem obviously the best drivers on the grid because everyone else has been raised to their level by telemetry and simulator work and all the other things that didn't exist in the past. And the cars are obviously much better than they were then and are technological marvels, but again I think it adds a little more charm when a team can spend less in an entire championship winning season than the amount that evaporates now when a front wing nudges a wall. The huge amount of money involved now is more of a negative for me, as impressive as it makes the cars, and also, as you mentioned, they look less spectacular to drive now because they are so perfect.

 

In terms of TV coverage, I do think that is important. As much as I enjoy reading Denis Jenkinson's brilliant race reports from the 1950s, I would still prefer to watch an entire race from the 1950s with today's level of coverage and graphics, mainly the timing tower showing the gaps between all the cars at all times of the race. I do wonder if it would be possible to go into the archives and add this sort of thing retrospectively to a whole race from the past.

Edited by F1Frog, 12 April 2023 - 10:25.

[Beri]

Indeed. At a risk of making this thread about DRS, but this popped up on my YouTube feed yesterday...

 

 

Kimi would have been past within a straight or two with DRS.

 

Now anyone tell me, is that not what you want to see? Such epic battles for position? Even with the risk, in this case, Raikkonen not passing Hamilton at all? This is edge of your seat stuff. Not DRS. DRS would have seen Raikkonen walk away from Hamilton without any problem.

[Anderis]

It's interesting how the OP has many more points in the "better" category, than "worse. While I only started watching F1 in 2006/2007, I share this sentiment. Some of F1's appeal has been inevitably lost through its' increasing professionaisation and tehcnological progress. It just doesn't look as impressive anymore with those cars planted to the road and drivers driving in a very controlled way. The teams and drivers make fewer mistakes. Back in the day you would immediately appreciate how difficult it was to get a race weekend right, because you would see drivers sliding with their cars or leaving the track all the time, not so much the case anymore. Even if action was not very good, the twitchy cars with exciting engine sounds were much more pleasurable to watch on their own. The cars already had the dirty air problem but at least beacue of the lack of DRS and closed pit lanes during SC, chaotic races could generate unique results while nowadays every race has basically the same result, even when the gap between the best and the worst has shrinked a bit. Because of lower reliability and drivers being more mistake prone, there used to be more tension in the air and hope a boring race could be turned upside down at any moment. And lastly, rain usually meant racing in the rain instead of red flags, SCs, countless delays and waiting for the conditions to improve.

 

I don't think we have got enough of new good things to compensate for all the things we have lost. I miss the old F1, which for some here doesn't really qualify as old.

[Ali623]

Now anyone tell me, is that not what you want to see? Such epic battles for position? Even with the risk, in this case, Raikkonen not passing Hamilton at all? This is edge of your seat stuff. Not DRS. DRS would have seen Raikkonen walk away from Hamilton without any problem.

 

I mean you can also hand-pick DRS-era battles that were exciting, sometimes DRS works as intended, sometimes it doesn't and makes things too easy.

[P123]

Always got to be wary of the rose tints, but the cars back then seemed more alive and nimble.  With the caveat that the complaints back then were that they were on rails.  The cars in the current formula, whilst very quick, just don't look it.  Oversized and overweight. 

[Anderis]

Indeed. At a risk of making this thread about DRS, but this popped up on my YouTube feed yesterday...

 

 

Kimi would have been past within a straight or two with DRS.

It's worth noticing, though, that Raikkonen is able to stay consistently below 0.4 secs of Hamilton. By the 2010's, the dirty air has gotten worse and I don't think such things would've been possible anymore between two drivers in similarly competitive cars.

[Afterburner]

It's worth noticing, though, that Raikkonen is able to stay consistently below 0.4 secs of Hamilton. By the 2010's, the dirty air has gotten worse and I don't think such things would've been possible anymore between two drivers in similarly competitive cars.

Yeah, another one for the “better” category: following distances were generally 0.6 seconds or less in most races in spite of the dirty air being a problem. The visual effect this has on the intensity of a battle isn’t something you can ignore, I think, regardless of whether or not an overtake was actually more or less likely.

[SenorSjon]

It's worth noticing, though, that Raikkonen is able to stay consistently below 0.4 secs of Hamilton. By the 2010's, the dirty air has gotten worse and I don't think such things would've been possible anymore between two drivers in similarly competitive cars.

 

They made the front wings bigger, so front downforce became much more reliant on aero. With dirty air, it is not hard to imagine that was detrimal to the aero performance of cars.

 

Edit

With more front DF, they needed more rear DF to balance the cars. With the turbo engines, it also became easier to 'push' the car through all the air due to more torque, so even more aero DF was piled on the car. Making it even more susceptible to dirty air.

Edited by SenorSjon, 12 April 2023 - 11:13.

[Astandahl]

The mere fact that drivers could lock up the tyres and still keep pushing makes it better than whatever we have right now.

Edited by Astandahl, 12 April 2023 - 11:15.

[Jarninho]

So about that 2007 British GP: Even while perhaps a second a lap faster, Raikkonen couldn't ever manage an attack on Lewis and had to overtake in the pits. Further back Massa had similar pace but due to a dreadful start was stuck behind cars. He couldn't pass Fisichella but was over a second faster after Fisi pitted. Pretty much the only passing we had back then was in the pits. 

I fail to see how this is better than what we have now. Did anyone see Leclerc vs Verstappen on the same track a few years ago? That was better than any racing we ever had in the refuelling era. Bottas v Hamilton on the same day too. And there are many, many more examples. The only criticism I have is that the TV never seems to stay with a certain battle, so they are trying to cover too much. And yes, sometimes DRS is too powerful, but they get it right quite often.

[Beri]

So about that 2007 British GP: Even while perhaps a second a lap faster, Raikkonen couldn't ever manage an attack on Lewis and had to overtake in the pits. Further back Massa had similar pace but due to a dreadful start was stuck behind cars. He couldn't pass Fisichella but was over a second faster after Fisi pitted. Pretty much the only passing we had back then was in the pits. 

I fail to see how this is better than what we have now. Did anyone see Leclerc vs Verstappen on the same track a few years ago? That was better than any racing we ever had in the refuelling era. Bottas v Hamilton on the same day too. And there are many, many more examples. The only criticism I have is that the TV never seems to stay with a certain battle, so they are trying to cover too much. And yes, sometimes DRS is too powerful, but they get it right quite often.

 

It is better because drivers have to get their testies out to attempt an overtake in order to get in front. This opposed to it (usually) being handed to them with the press of a button. And yes you can cherry pick any DRS battle you want. But it doesnt make it better for one single second in my book.

[PlatenGlass]

Not being able to overtake and only being able to overtake with DRS are both awful. We shouldn't have to choose.

[SenorSjon]

So about that 2007 British GP: Even while perhaps a second a lap faster, Raikkonen couldn't ever manage an attack on Lewis and had to overtake in the pits. Further back Massa had similar pace but due to a dreadful start was stuck behind cars. He couldn't pass Fisichella but was over a second faster after Fisi pitted. Pretty much the only passing we had back then was in the pits. 

I fail to see how this is better than what we have now. Did anyone see Leclerc vs Verstappen on the same track a few years ago? That was better than any racing we ever had in the refuelling era. Bottas v Hamilton on the same day too. And there are many, many more examples. The only criticism I have is that the TV never seems to stay with a certain battle, so they are trying to cover too much. And yes, sometimes DRS is too powerful, but they get it right quite often.

 

1 s on a 5,1 km lap mostly with fast sweeping corners isn't that much help.

[Jarninho]

 

 

 

It is better because drivers have to get their testies out to attempt an overtake in order to get in front. This opposed to it (usually) being handed to them with the press of a button. And yes you can cherry pick any DRS battle you want. But it doesnt make it better for one single second in my book.

 

I think it's the other way around and you need to be cherry picking a lot to make the battles in the refuelling era seem more interesting than what we have now. To get anywhere close to a pass you needed a laptime delta of (often) over 2 seconds. That big a difference between competitors is not a battle in any sport, except for what F1 was. Nothing to do with testies. How many passes for the lead did we have in the refuelling era? Barely any, and that's also because there was never that big a delta between the front runners. 

[Beri]

I think it's the other way around and you need to be cherry picking a lot to make the battles in the refuelling era seem more interesting than what we have now. To get anywhere close to a pass you needed a laptime delta of (often) over 2 seconds. That big a difference between competitors is not a battle in any sport, except for what F1 was. Nothing to do with testies. How many passes for the lead did we have in the refuelling era? Barely any, and that's also because there was never that big a delta between the front runners. 

 

I am not cherry picking anything. I genuinely enjoy looking at a driver who is stuck behind another driver and needs to do everything in his might to get passed him. It gives me more enjoyment, even when said chasing driver eventually cant make that pass, than watching any DRS pass.

Not to spur any debate on the event that I shall name now. But the fulfillment of joy and awe that Verstappen managed his overtake without DRS on Hamilton for the World Championship win, is infinetely better than had it occurred on the DRS straights that followed.

[ARTGP]

The mere fact that drivers could lock up the tyres and still keep pushing makes it better than whatever we have right now.

Well, there was that one European GP(2005?) …where Kimi showed us why you have to pit after a flat spot…

Edited by ARTGP, 12 April 2023 - 13:03.

[Beri]

Well, there was that one European GP(2005?) …where Kimi showed us why you have to pit after a flat spot…

 

There are flat spots and there are flat spots. And the one of Raikkonen was turning his tire into a parking lot. But there is a reason he went on, and that is simply because usually a driver could go on back then.

 

[ARTGP]

There are flat spots and there are flat spots. And the one of Raikkonen was turning his tire into a parking lot. But there is a reason he went on, and that is simply because usually a driver could go on back then.

https://www.youtube....h?v=_ZNqL7ODkvs

I don’t know about other seasons but in 2005 that wasn’t necessarily the case. Tire changes in-race were banned so you tried to go to the end regardless.

Edited by ARTGP, 12 April 2023 - 13:30.

[Jarninho]

I am not cherry picking anything. I genuinely enjoy looking at a driver who is stuck behind another driver and needs to do everything in his might to get passed him. It gives me more enjoyment, even when said chasing driver eventually cant make that pass, than watching any DRS pass.

Not to spur any debate on the event that I shall name now. But the fulfillment of joy and awe that Verstappen managed his overtake without DRS on Hamilton for the World Championship win, is infinetely better than had it occurred on the DRS straights that followed.

Well then I don't understand why you called the examples I gave DRS battles, because Verstappen didn't pass LeClerc with DRS once iirc. Hamilton was somewhat assisted by DRS but still had to do it in the corner after the drs straight. But Bottas repassed him without DRS. And then Hamilton was stuck after that and didn't mount another challenge until it came to pitstops, just as you prefer. 

 

DRS only makes the delta required for passing a lot smaller and gives us the possibility of way better racing between nearly equal cars. Sure I understand why some people get all excited about Alonso vs Schumacher at Imola, but to me it was like watching a .gif file for half an hour. To each his own.

[Afterburner]

I think it's the other way around and you need to be cherry picking a lot to make the battles in the refuelling era seem more interesting than what we have now. To get anywhere close to a pass you needed a laptime delta of (often) over 2 seconds. That big a difference between competitors is not a battle in any sport, except for what F1 was. Nothing to do with testies. How many passes for the lead did we have in the refuelling era? Barely any, and that's also because there was never that big a delta between the front runners.

Well, in the 2003 races I watched, you had contact between Schumacher and Raikkonen for the lead in Australia and later Coulthard getting Montoya on a mistake, Fisichella passing Raikkonen for the lead in Brazil, and Schumacher passing Raikkonen (and both of them going by an ailing Montoya) for the lead in Austria. I’m sure there are more were I to look more closely. The lap time delta you mention was also not difficult to obtain given the right overlap in fuel strategies or even differences in tyre characteristics between Bridgestone and Michelin. Perhaps instead of focusing on "soft/medium/hard", Pirelli should provide tires good for roughly equivalent stint lengths but with better performance at particular operating periods (e.g. "early/middle/late").

Again, I'm trying my best here not to look through nostalgia glasses or create a senseless "modern F1 sucks" discussion as much as I am trying to accurately suss out what was/is actually good from what was/is actually crap as a genuine fan of motorsport. I've cherry-picked races from the period I mentioned above, but I had never seen the races before Monaco in 2003, and found all of them to be genuinely more entertaining than the races from the current season. I think this is more a case of the product holding up well rather than longing for a time that didn't exist, because it quite clearly did and is in fact better (to me anyway) than what is currently available.

Don't take my word for it, though...

[sofarapartguy]

20 years ago F1 was The Sport. Now it's The Show. Rest is just a consequence. 

Edited by sofarapartguy, 12 April 2023 - 13:46.