121 replies to this topic

[1player]

Fans of old keep saying that the older races were much more exciting. New fans and younger people have trouble enjoying the lulls between the action and peaks of the season.

What is the difference between F1 of the 1970s and today's? Has anyone sat down to figure out why this sport is full of nostalgia and reminiscing of the olden days? It is not because of the rules, it is not because we have lost V12s and it's certainly not because the talent today is mediocre. Au contraire, we have some of the best drivers of all time.

The issue with Formula 1 is that it is a non-spec series at the forefront of technology. As technology improves, the gains become asymptotically smaller until the changes and breakthroughs every year are absolutely minimal. Then add the fact of team collecting more and more data about every single variable on track, drivers that are coached, put in simulators and every single aspect of their life is tuned to create a champion and what do you expect the result to be?

The result is a sport that was built by engineers in a dusty garage with very varied personalities, to one where every single nut and bolt has thousands of hours of research behind, and improvements become exponentially more expensive and harder to achieve.

By design, F1 can only get more predictable, the strength of each driver is annihilated by constant coaching and data analysis. Everybody is still thinking about the 80s races not because the teams or drivers were more fun, nor because the rules enabled better racing. It was more fun simply because it was new and everybody with money or passion could do something that had never been tried before.

What do you think of this assessment?

Edited by 1player, 20 June 2023 - 15:38.

[Afterburner]

I started a thread similar to this a few months ago about the 2003 season. A huge, huge contributor to the perceived inevitability of races is that mistakes aren’t punished and the cars don’t break, therefore the result is not in doubt. IndyCar being a spec series had little to do with it putting on a vastly better show at Road America; mistakes were punished, cars broke, strategy was difficult, the winner was in doubt until the last handful of laps. This also makes Le Mans (and most endurance races by extension) a more exciting race even when there can be a sizable pace differential between the teams.

If there were a non-negligible chance that Verstappen’s car would’ve failed him on Sunday the F1 race would’ve been far more tense. As it stands we expect cars not to break and the circuits not to punish drivers, therefore the results become predictable.

Also the V10s sounded WAY better.

[Beamer]

I expect more predictable competition. As you see in any sport that's matures. Look at the early days of tennis, athletics, biking, whatever. Newbies could be stars overnight and the winner could be anyone.

Now, there's always just a few that can won, and often the same one...

[Risil]

I think it may be broadly correct but misses a crucial thing about the history of F1, which is that every 5 years or so the governing body has swept in and changed the rules and given the engineers a new set of guidelines to work within. The engineers usually don't forget what they learned previously, so progress occurs, but this is the principal way F1 has rejuvenated itself over the years. (The big exception is how the technical formula didn't change all that much between 1966-88 (I don't think -- someone correct me?), but in those years a new innovation seemed to arrive every few years that changed the way you built cars.)

[F1matt]

It is impossible to compare eras, we have some of the best prepared drivers of all time, that doesn't make them the best drivers of all time. If you look at the sports trajectory it is almost impossible to disagree with you but the sport has lost its way by panicking about the situation and changing the rules to try and fix things when stronger leadership from the people that matter was needed. 

 

As a quick fix I would ban driver to pit communication, cars would only be allowed to transmit data to the team once they have left parc ferme, i.e. after the race, and with the exception of flags and a pit board drivers would have to work it out for themselves, if that leads to more mistakes, retiring, or running out of fuel so be it. It would occasionally shake things up. 

Edited by F1matt, 20 June 2023 - 16:14.

[pdac]

Fans of old keep saying that the older races were much more exciting. New fans and younger people have trouble enjoying the lulls between the action and peaks of the season.

What is the difference between F1 of the 1970s and today's? Has anyone sat down to figure out why this sport is full of nostalgia and reminiscing of the olden days? It is not because of the rules, it is not because we have lost V12s and it's certainly not because the talent today is mediocre. Au contraire, we have some of the best drivers of all time.

The issue with Formula 1 is that it is a non-spec series at the forefront of technology. As technology improves, the gains become asymptotically smaller until the changes and breakthroughs every year are absolutely minimal. Then add the fact of team collecting more and more data about every single variable on track, drivers that are coached, put in simulators and every single aspect of their life is tuned to create a champion and what do you expect the result to be?

The result is a sport that was built by engineers in a dusty garage with very varied personalities, to one where every single nut and bolt has thousands of hours of research behind, and improvements become exponentially more expensive and harder to achieve.

By design, F1 can only get more predictable, the strength of each driver is annihilated by constant coaching and data analysis. Everybody is still thinking about the 80s races not because the teams or drivers were more fun, nor because the rules enabled better racing. It was more fun simply because it was new and everybody with money or passion could do something that had never been tried before.

What do you think of this assessment?

 

This concurs almost exactly with my assessment. I cannot say any different. The future of F1 will be single-team domination from now on. The actual team dominating may well change as major regulation changes occur, but otherwise, the team that gets it right will be winning most races. That's what perfecting the process brings.

[1player]

I think it may be broadly correct but misses a crucial thing about the history of F1, which is that every 5 years or so the governing body has swept in and changed the rules and given the engineers a new set of guidelines to work within. The engineers usually don't forget what they learned previously, so progress occurs, but this is the principal way F1 has rejuvenated itself over the years. (The big exception is how the technical formula didn't change all that much between 1966-88 (I don't think -- someone correct me?), but in those years a new innovation seemed to arrive every few years that changed the way you built cars.)

Very true, but the new ruleset every 5 years needs to be radically different enough, moving towards unexplored areas, to open up competition.

 

Dumb example, but if the FIA mandated hydrogen engines for 2025, for example, we would have a lot of technical "excitement" on and off track as teams explore this nascent piece of technology. If the new ruleset just reduces the length of cars by 5%, there would be little changes to the status quo.

 

Which is why the changes of 2022 and ground floor effect were so exciting for engineers and spectators alike, especially since it was something that we had started to explore in the 80s then left behind because it was too difficult to deal with (porpoising, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think this is what happened with ground effect cars then). The FIA rolling back some of these changes mid year annihilated the competition and research into this area.

 

Another huge unexplored area are active aero and/or suspensions. Williams are still keeping the secrets of their FW15C in some floppy disk hidden in their basement.

 

I'm not a Merc fan, but their DAS system is still mind-blowing to me: a crazy, relatively cheap (i.e. 80s-style) improvement to their cars in the era of ultra advanced technology. And they had to ban it, instead of potentially opening up a new avenue for improvement.

Edited by 1player, 20 June 2023 - 16:10.

[ForzaFormula]

Issue now is instead of fixing the problem they have created an artificial overtake feature, DRS, and much longer heavier cars, which are harder to overtake naturally. Even in such a place like Canada drivers can only overtake with DRS, and then also DRS trains stopping any kind of overtaking on top of that, all of this masking big problems with the cars and racing in general.

[Primo]

It is true as long as the rules are basically designing the cars. Had the rules focused more on safety issues and the power unit, we could have seen a real evolution and possible a few revolutions. Maybe there would be small differences between a 1995 car and this years, but the changes would have made sense, they would have refined racing vehicle rather than reinvent it every X years. For me, that kills my interest for the tech part of F1 since I would like to see them searching for the best solutions rather than the "best polish of the product stipulated in the regs".

[PayasYouRace]

(The big exception is how the technical formula didn't change all that much between 1966-88 (I don't think -- someone correct me?),

It changed a lot. It was just the engine formula that remained the same from 66-85. 86 was mandated turbos. 87 onwards was 3.5 l atmos.

But there were various changes enforced such as the introduction of crash structures and aerodynamic restrictions over that time.

[PayasYouRace]

It is true as long as the rules are basically designing the cars.

Always been the case my friend, with the exception of Formula Libre.

[Bliman]

Fans of old keep saying that the older races were much more exciting. New fans and younger people have trouble enjoying the lulls between the action and peaks of the season.

What is the difference between F1 of the 1970s and today's? Has anyone sat down to figure out why this sport is full of nostalgia and reminiscing of the olden days? It is not because of the rules, it is not because we have lost V12s and it's certainly not because the talent today is mediocre. Au contraire, we have some of the best drivers of all time.

The issue with Formula 1 is that it is a non-spec series at the forefront of technology. As technology improves, the gains become asymptotically smaller until the changes and breakthroughs every year are absolutely minimal. Then add the fact of team collecting more and more data about every single variable on track, drivers that are coached, put in simulators and every single aspect of their life is tuned to create a champion and what do you expect the result to be?

The result is a sport that was built by engineers in a dusty garage with very varied personalities, to one where every single nut and bolt has thousands of hours of research behind, and improvements become exponentially more expensive and harder to achieve.

By design, F1 can only get more predictable, the strength of each driver is annihilated by constant coaching and data analysis. Everybody is still thinking about the 80s races not because the teams or drivers were more fun, nor because the rules enabled better racing. It was more fun simply because it was new and everybody with money or passion could do something that had never been tried before.

What do you think of this assessment?

I think people liked it before because everything was much more unpredictable and it was much more simple. Every car could break at any moment. Cars could run out of fuel and would sometimes be pushed over the line. Teamorders would be frowned on. I think the sport has become so professional. Cars don't break down anymore and the fastest cars can easily get to the front if something goes wrong due to DRS. DRS also means we don't see anything heroic anymore like Boutsen holding of Senna by great defending. That means that if you get an unpredictable result in qualy you still get a predictable result in the race and by that championship.

To make it even more predictable we get much stricter regulations and things like huge runoffs.

I think most people miss the unpredictability of it all and also the heroics.

[Primo]

Always been the case my friend, with the exception of Formula Libre.

There was a time when rear engined cars raced cars where the driver had his ass on the rear axel, when some cars had wings or hats and others had skirts. Time and knowledge made them look more and more alike. Now tech regs make them look identical, but different from the previous iteration. 

Yes, in modern times, the regs have designed the cars, but I'm saying that maybe they shouldn't have. That way we would have seen real innovations, not just who make the best square to fit into that round hole.  

EDIT: There was even cars with 6 wheels! Why on earth did they have to ban that? Maybe we've would have seen 8, 12? And the most amazing pit stops....

Edited by Primo, 20 June 2023 - 16:58.

[ForzaFormula]

I think people liked it before because everything was much more unpredictable and it was much more simple. Every car could break at any moment. Cars could run out of fuel and would sometimes be pushed over the line. Teamorders would be frowned on. I think the sport has become so professional. Cars don't break down anymore and the fastest cars can easily get to the front if something goes wrong due to DRS. DRS also means we don't see anything heroic anymore like Boutsen holding of Senna by great defending. That means that if you get an unpredictable result in qualy you still get a predictable result in the race and by that championship.

To make it even more predictable we get much stricter regulations and things like huge runoffs.

I think most people miss the unpredictability of it all and also the heroics.

Now we also have the problem of dominant cars being able to be dominant for so long creating "Longer champions" and longer "dominant periods" Before 2000 this was not the case and it was rare a driver could win 3 championships on the bounce (Discounting Fangio of course) but after 00 we have had the dominance of MS/Ferrari, Hamilton/Mercedes and now heading into the Max/RB era (Which we also had with Vettel for 4 years)  with not much hope of other teams being allowed to catch up due to the rule set and budget cap restrictions.

[DS27]

How I miss those days where it felt like anything went. Can you even imagine the reaction on here if the regs weren't so restrictive and a team rocked up in 2024 with a 6-wheeled car. The forum would meltdown - I mean it nearly did over the no-pod

Edited by DS27, 20 June 2023 - 17:09.

[Nathan]

Has anyone sat down to figure out why this sport is full of nostalgia and reminiscing of the olden days?

 

 

Everyone looks at the time they got hooked with nostalgia.  How often do you hear a 70 year old say "yup, it's better these days."?

[pdac]

There was a time when rear engined cars raced cars where the driver had his ass on the rear axel, when some cars had wings or hats and others had skirts. Time and knowledge made them look more and more alike. Now tech regs make them look identical, but different from the previous iteration. 

Yes, in modern times, the regs have designed the cars, but I'm saying that maybe they shouldn't have. That way we would have seen real innovations, not just who make the best square to fit into that round hole.  

EDIT: There was even cars with 6 wheels! Why on earth did they have to ban that? Maybe we've would have seen 8, 12? And the most amazing pit stops....

 

... and it achieved a 1-2 finish in a GP.

Edited by pdac, 20 June 2023 - 17:19.

[Risil]

It changed a lot. It was just the engine formula that remained the same from 66-85. 86 was mandated turbos. 87 onwards was 3.5 l atmos.

But there were various changes enforced such as the introduction of crash structures and aerodynamic restrictions over that time.

 

You're right, I'd somehow overlooked the palaver over ground effects and successive attempts to ban them. That narrows it down to 1966-82 or so. What significant technical rule changes took place during that time? I know they fiddled with things like airbox heights and banned those tall wings but I don't feel those are quite the same thing as a new formula. 

[Primo]

 The forum would meltdown - I mean it nearly did over the no-pod

[Primo]

You're right, I'd somehow overlooked the palaver over ground effects and successive attempts to ban them. That narrows it down to 1966-82 or so. What significant technical rule changes took place during that time? I know they fiddled with things like airbox heights and banned those tall wings but I don't feel those are quite the same thing as a new formula. 

There's quite lot that they banned, the Lotus twin-chassis, skirts, mandatory 4-wheels, the fan car and things I do not remember. But yes, nost of it had to do with ground effect. But why? The early ground effect cars was did not seem to be unsafer than the others, the problem arose when they started with electronic suspension and some teams they, well, they did not get it right. 

I suspect far too many regulation changes was primarily political. 

[PayasYouRace]

There was a time when rear engined cars raced cars where the driver had his ass on the rear axel, when some cars had wings or hats and others had skirts. Time and knowledge made them look more and more alike. Now tech regs make them look identical, but different from the previous iteration. 

Yes, in modern times, the regs have designed the cars, but I'm saying that maybe they shouldn't have. That way we would have seen real innovations, not just who make the best square to fit into that round hole.  

EDIT: There was even cars with 6 wheels! Why on earth did they have to ban that? Maybe we've would have seen 8, 12? And the most amazing pit stops....

 

I guarantee that you'd be pining for the days of normal racing cars with four wheels in that situation.

Ultimately, all rule changes have come from three major factors: Safety, costs and attractiveness to entrants. Nobody wants to go backwards in safety. It's pointless if it gets too expensive nobody can compete. Rules that people don't want to build cars for don't attract entrants.

[Scotracer]

I said the same in another thread.

I don't know the fix. We've tried banning shore to ship Comms. That backfired. Maybe they need to mandate how many and what type of sensors are allowed? No practice? No physical car testing?

The teams can't unlearn things.

[Beamer]

Maybe it wasn't all that great back then... maybe it's like with music: you remember the all time hits but forget about all the other bugger that filled the charts.

[Ruudbackus]

The biggest difference in my view is the reliability. In the 90's i remember that each year when the australian grand prix started it was a wild guess how many cars would actually finifh the race. Nowadays we have 2 maybe 3 retirements per race. 

 

If you look at seasoner opening races:

1996 9 dnf, 2 dnq (people were actually outside the 107%)

1997 12 dnf

1998 13 dnf

1999 14 dnf

2000 13 dnf

 

If you look at the last 5 years

2019 3 dnf

2020 7 dnf

2021 4 dnf

2022 3 dnf

2023 3 dnf

 

Of the 15 races every driver was classified (if you include trhe usa farce of 2005) 14 are since 2005 and 11 are since 2015

 

And thats the general view over the seasons as well. Much less predictable in the 90 due to reliability. On top of that we also seem to be having 1-stop races per default so also the strategic aspect is only relevant with safetycars or at times weather conditions. In the refuelling era it was less predictable at the strategy side as well.

 

The sport has become more and more profesional and the technologic advancements over the past 2-3 decades are huge. 

Edited by Ruudbackus, 20 June 2023 - 18:31.

[1player]

I said the same in another thread.

I don't know the fix. We've tried banning shore to ship Comms. That backfired. Maybe they need to mandate how many and what type of sensors are allowed? No practice? No physical car testing?

The teams can't unlearn things.

I don't think there is any fix. Take a hobby, throw billions of dollars into it, it becomes a science where everything has 10k hours of research behind it. This is the problem of sports which are based on technology, rather than athletes.

 

A spec series where the driver is actually a factor creates much better racing than one where they have real-time machine learning and engineers checking every single piece of data. Hence, WRC is much more unpredictable even though the cars today are technological marvels like F1 cars are. In WRC, most of the work is done by the drivers and copilot, rather than a supercomputer in the basement that works hard to eliminate any unforeseen variable, and work around any driver shortcoming.

 

(I'm a software engineer and going through a major neo-Luddite phase lately... it is infecting my love for this sport )

Edited by 1player, 20 June 2023 - 18:44.

[ForzaFormula]

The biggest difference in my view is the reliability. In the 90's i remember that each year when the australian grand prix started it was a wild guess how many cars would actually finifh the race. Nowadays we have 2 maybe 3 retirements per race. 

 

If you look at seasoner opening races:

1996 9 dnf, 2 dnq (people were actually outside the 107%)

1997 12 dnf

1998 13 dnf

1999 14 dnf

2000 13 dnf

 

If you look at the last 5 years

2019 3 dnf

2020 7 dnf

2021 4 dnf

2022 3 dnf

2023 3 dnf

 

Of the 15 races every driver was classified (if you include trhe usa farce of 2005) 14 are since 2005 and 11 are since 2015

 

And thats the general view over the seasons as well. Much less predictable in the 90 due to reliability. On top of that we also seem to be having 1-stop races per default so also the strategic aspect is only relevant with safetycars or at times weather conditions. In the refuelling era it was less predictable at the strategy side as well.

 

The sport has become more and more profesional and the technologic advancements over the past 2-3 decades are huge. 

It's more to do with budget cap restriction and penalties for reliability, teams have no choice but to create reliable cars or they get penalised, in the past this was not the case and they was mostly focused on creating engines that were as quicker as possible with no compromise and fixing reliability when it arose mostly (Testing helped also)

We had endurance racing back then also, the technology for reliable engines was there, if F1 enforced today's reliability penalties back then, then we would of seen better reliability, and more predicable races like now.

Edited by ForzaFormula, 20 June 2023 - 19:13.

[DeKnyff]

Fans of old keep saying that the older races were much more exciting.

 

I have been following this sport for more than 50 years and I do not say that older races were more exciting.

[MikeTekRacing]

It is true as long as the rules are basically designing the cars. Had the rules focused more on safety issues and the power unit, we could have seen a real evolution and possible a few revolutions. Maybe there would be small differences between a 1995 car and this years, but the changes would have made sense, they would have refined racing vehicle rather than reinvent it every X years. For me, that kills my interest for the tech part of F1 since I would like to see them searching for the best solutions rather than the "best polish of the product stipulated in the regs".

I'll challenge this.

The previous big rule changes ended up with some teams getting it super right and some teams getting it super wrong. 

The better solution is not at all obvious

[MikeTekRacing]

I said the same in another thread.

I don't know the fix. We've tried banning shore to ship Comms. That backfired. Maybe they need to mandate how many and what type of sensors are allowed? No practice? No physical car testing?

The teams can't unlearn things.

is predictability a bad thing? In any sport the best team/player combo kind of wins

[DeKnyff]

Always been the case my friend, with the exception of Formula Libre.

 

And even in the very rare cases of near-Formula Libre rules (I'm thinking 1966-1974 Can-Am), the cars used to be built following the same principles and had similar designs and appearance.

[Primo]

I guarantee that you'd be pining for the days of normal racing cars with four wheels in that situation.

Ultimately, all rule changes have come from three major factors: Safety, costs and attractiveness to entrants. Nobody wants to go backwards in safety. It's pointless if it gets too expensive nobody can compete. Rules that people don't want to build cars for don't attract entrants.

Well, the 6-wheeler was a response to regulations so I doubt that, with less descriptive regulations, such a concept would've survived. Regarding Safety, costs and attractiveness to entrants, I would say that, at least until the cost cap, the regulations have only improved safety. Has there been any new team since Toyota, 22 years ago?

I'm not really offering any alternative to current F1, I'm just saying that the tech development in that series do not interest me much since the innovations and improvements are only "cool" in the context of the regulations. All teams could build much better cars than they have now if the regulations allow them.

If I were asked to design a racing series, something I fear won't be happening anytime soon, I'd give them all a 850Hp normally aspirated engine and the only electronics I would allow would be the whatever needed to ignite the sparkplugs. There's be some detailed safety measures of course, like roll cage, belts and probably a halo. And a cup holder. That's all. A cup holder and standard tires. That's all. And... 
 

[Primo]

 

The previous big rule changes ended up with some teams getting it super right and some teams getting it super wrong. 

 

Yes, of course. To start with. But before long they are all the same.

[YamahaV10]

Fans of old keep saying that the older races were much more exciting. New fans and younger people have trouble enjoying the lulls between the action and peaks of the season.

What is the difference between F1 of the 1970s and today's? Has anyone sat down to figure out why this sport is full of nostalgia and reminiscing of the olden days? It is not because of the rules, it is not because we have lost V12s and it's certainly not because the talent today is mediocre. Au contraire, we have some of the best drivers of all time.

The issue with Formula 1 is that it is a non-spec series at the forefront of technology. As technology improves, the gains become asymptotically smaller until the changes and breakthroughs every year are absolutely minimal. Then add the fact of team collecting more and more data about every single variable on track, drivers that are coached, put in simulators and every single aspect of their life is tuned to create a champion and what do you expect the result to be?

The result is a sport that was built by engineers in a dusty garage with very varied personalities, to one where every single nut and bolt has thousands of hours of research behind, and improvements become exponentially more expensive and harder to achieve.

By design, F1 can only get more predictable, the strength of each driver is annihilated by constant coaching and data analysis. Everybody is still thinking about the 80s races not because the teams or drivers were more fun, nor because the rules enabled better racing. It was more fun simply because it was new and everybody with money or passion could do something that had never been tried before.

What do you think of this assessment?

You're basically right. But at least from the 50's to the 80's , there was some technical low hanging fruit. And some good engineering provided real technical breakthroughs that we still use today. But that's not the same as it is now.

Mercedes was spending 100's of millions designing the perfect dampeners for each track. And then we had RB and Merc spending millions just for a little change on the barge boards

But with the new 2022 rules , there's no more barge boards and rear dampener business. Maybe, just maybe after everyone figures out what Red Bull is doing in the next 2 years , the field will even out. That is of course , until the new engine formula in 2026.Then we start all over again.

[Beamer]

I have been following this sport for more than 50 years and I do not say that older races were more exciting.

35 years here. And I concur.

[YamahaV10]

Now we also have the problem of dominant cars being able to be dominant for so long creating "Longer champions" and longer "dominant periods" Before 2000 this was not the case and it was rare a driver could win 3 championships on the bounce (Discounting Fangio of course) but after 00 we have had the dominance of MS/Ferrari, Hamilton/Mercedes and now heading into the Max/RB era (Which we also had with Vettel for 4 years) with not much hope of other teams being allowed to catch up due to the rule set and budget cap restrictions.

I wouldn't blame the budget cap. All of Ferrari and Mercedes dominance was in the pre budget cap era

We can also see the RB era today isn't going to be very long. Aston already made a step. Mercedes isn't far off right now. 2nd year in.

[YamahaV10]

Well, the 6-wheeler was a response to regulations so I doubt that, with less descriptive regulations, such a concept would've survived. Regarding Safety, costs and attractiveness to entrants, I would say that, at least until the cost cap, the regulations have only improved safety. Has there been any new team since Toyota, 22 years ago?

I'm not really offering any alternative to current F1, I'm just saying that the tech development in that series do not interest me much since the innovations and improvements are only "cool" in the context of the regulations. All teams could build much better cars than they have now if the regulations allow them.

If I were asked to design a racing series, something I fear won't be happening anytime soon, I'd give them all a 850Hp normally aspirated engine and the only electronics I would allow would be the whatever needed to ignite the sparkplugs. There's be some detailed safety measures of course, like roll cage, belts and probably a halo. And a cup holder. That's all. A cup holder and standard tires. That's all. And...

A1 Grand Prix could relaunch with an engine like that. NASCAR has no problem picking up big sponsors with its fuel hogs. Same with top fuel drag racing ect

[pdac]

I said the same in another thread.

I don't know the fix. We've tried banning shore to ship Comms. That backfired. Maybe they need to mandate how many and what type of sensors are allowed? No practice? No physical car testing?

The teams can't unlearn things.

 

I think the clue is in the things that the teams are most opposed to when they come up. Also the back-tracking must stop. Take a decision and persevere with it (e.g. they banned shore to ship comms, but they should have banned all comms and stuck with it).

Edited by pdac, 20 June 2023 - 20:10.

[pdac]

Maybe it wasn't all that great back then... maybe it's like with music: you remember the all time hits but forget about all the other bugger that filled the charts.

 

Possibly this, plus expectations were far less and people acknowledged greatness and perfection more than they do now.

Edited by pdac, 20 June 2023 - 20:12.

[pdac]

I don't think there is any fix. Take a hobby, throw billions of dollars into it, it becomes a science where everything has 10k hours of research behind it. This is the problem of sports which are based on technology, rather than athletes.

 

A spec series where the driver is actually a factor creates much better racing than one where they have real-time machine learning and engineers checking every single piece of data. Hence, WRC is much more unpredictable even though the cars today are technological marvels like F1 cars are. In WRC, most of the work is done by the drivers and copilot, rather than a supercomputer in the basement that works hard to eliminate any unforeseen variable, and work around any driver shortcoming.

 

(I'm a software engineer and going through a major neo-Luddite phase lately... it is infecting my love for this sport )

 

This sort of hits the nail on the head. I too am a software engineer and I've been in the Luddite phase (well, I'd say my purity phase) for a while now.

Edited by pdac, 20 June 2023 - 20:15.

[Sterzo]

I have been following this sport for more than 50 years and I do not say that older races were more exciting.

 

Seconded loudly! Started watching in the fifties, and in every era there have been people wailing that it's not as good as it used to be.

 

Maybe it wasn't all that great back then... maybe it's like with music: you remember the all time hits but forget about all the other bugger that filled the charts.

I think of this as YouTube syndrome. Find an old tune and some idiot will post beneath it that no-one can sing or play "these days".

 

How anyone can not have found Monaco and Canada 2023 thrilling I do not know.

Edited by Sterzo, 20 June 2023 - 20:20.

[FNG]

Some of it is nostalgia I'm sure but the glaring things are reliability and not being punished by a mistake. Back in the day a "little off" was the gravel trap and race over. Now a little mistake is running wide and losing 3 tenths. So there is no element of surprise during a race. Cars are bullet proof.

 

The big difference to a boring race then and a boring race now is that then they sounded sublime and magnificent, today they lull you to sleep. So at least it sounded awesome while being boring.

 

Hate to say it but cars should be less reliable now. Let them push the envelope. Could be hero to zero or vice versa. Now they are simply bullet proof

[ClubmanGT]

A cheaper established engine platform but with no restrictions is the way to go. 

 

Yes you get an arms race, but you also get engines that hand-grenade and other such failures. 

 

As long as they are not dangerous, and as long as they prompt some degree of innovation, then let them have at it. 

 

Sorry to bang on about this, but the era of V12s, V10s and V8s on the same grid was something I feel was not appreciated at the time and we have let something magical slip away by persisting with the hybrid era and not having any more refueling. I fear we are stuck with it because people can't imagine the sport being anything else now. 

[Anderis]

is predictability a bad thing?

Yes, it is.

 

It's pointless to watch if you know what's going to happen.

 

The strongest emotions come from unexpected things.
 

[mclarensmps]

Yes, it is.

 

It's pointless to watch if you know what's going to happen.

 

The strongest emotions come from unexpected things.
 

That doesn't explain why the German, French, and currently the English football leagues remain popular. They are basically one team leagues at the moment. 

[Anderis]

That doesn't explain why the German, French, and currently the English football leagues remain popular. They are basically one team leagues at the moment. 

It doesn't explain because it didn't attempt to explain.

 

Obviously unpredictability is not the most important factor in determining how popular something is.

 

But it is a significant factor in determining which sports I enjoy following.

 

Besides, football usually retains unpredictability across a singular match even if the championship is often a foregone conclusion.

Edited by Anderis, 20 June 2023 - 21:46.

[pdac]

That doesn't explain why the German, French, and currently the English football leagues remain popular. They are basically one team leagues at the moment. 

 

People keep comparing F1 with football/soccer, but they are not that comparable from a fan perspective. If a football fan supports team X, then that team go one to one against all of the other teams in the league. Sure, there will be front-runners and tail-enders, but each match day a particular team is only playing against one of their competitors. So the fans have a different experience each round. Some teams they know theirs will lose against. Some teams they know theirs will stand a chance against. But the fans of a particular team will be looking at how their team is performing with regard to their nearest rivals and that changes each round, because each team will be playing a single team other team. So fortunes will vary each round and positions in the league will change.

 

In F1, though, even if you're a fan that supports a team (and there's plenty that are more interested in the drivers, not the teams), the teams fortune each round is dependent on all of the teams taking part. Your team scores points based on their performance against ALL of the other teams, not just one of them. It's just not the same following and F1 team as it is following a football team. But, worse, some fans are only interested in the fortunes of a particular driver or drivers. They get no satisfaction unless their man is fighting for a podium place and there's only 3 of them on offer.

 

No, it's of no value trying to compare F1 to football/soccer.

[KeithD68]

Why is F1 a yawn fest compared with when I started going to races in the 80s?

 

Because the cars are bullet proof

The teams have driven the race many times over in the simulator before ever rocking up at the track

The team that does the best job with a new rule set has dominance locked in for years

The opportunity for a driver to 'be the difference' is almost non existent unless the track very wet

The cars are obese (longer than a stretched S class limo and wider than a twin axle Transit van) 

The tracks don't punish mistakes

A dominant car starts every race at the front... and wins every race.. 

Teams hide behind a corporate facade... attending a race weekend feels sanitised and fake

Edited by KeithD68, 20 June 2023 - 22:14.

[917k]

It’s incorrect to think this is an F1 only nostalgia thing… We are the same about everything that we were passionate about in our youth. There’s no way that passion and fire burns as bright after 30 or 40 years. Hence all the moaning and wistful thinking.

 

Everything was better when it was fresh for us.

Edited by 917k, 21 June 2023 - 00:20.

[1player]

Why is F1 a yawn fest compared with when I started going to races in the 80s?

Because the cars are bullet proof
The teams have driven the race many times over in the simulator before ever rocking up at the track
The team that does the best job with a new rule set has dominance locked in for years

I am a big proponent of the unpopular idea of eliminating as much testing time as possible. The more testing, the more data, the less variability.

Teams should want more testing, because variability loses the race. Fans should want fewer tests, because predictability kills the excitement.

The reason why we are able to send a probe on another planet and it works the first try is not because we're geniuses, it's because we test and measure and try again until we have a fallback plan for 99.99% of possibilities.

Why on Earth should we want this kind of clinical precision in our sports?

[CoolBreeze]

The problem with F1 these days is, its 'just too perfect'. 

 

We do not see or hardly see any engine or gearbox failures. The data that they run from sims indicate that the teams are 100% prepared for any circumstances, at any lap (SC) for example. The reaction is all robotic and they know exactly what to do. There's no more lottery these days. 

 

The cars, are just too complicated. There's too many modes, and the drivers are essentially managing rather than racing. That's why things last longer, and the push only happens probably 10% of an entire race. 

 

Another issue is of course, aerodynamic and brakes. Reduce it massively, and we will see unpredictable races again.