90 replies to this topic

[Don Capps]

Although this question is being asked elsewhere, I would like to see another perspective on the issue, from a group with a different sense of racing and F1.

[Smooth]

Worst year how? Competition? Deaths?

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Smooth
Worst year how? Competition? Deaths?

Feel free to answer using whatever criteria you wish.

[Jordan191]

94 for me .. I watched someone die

[arcsine]

1994 for so many reasons; Tragedies, controversy, questions over the legality of cars, disqualifications/bans and the title being decided in such an unsatisfactory manner.

[Tarvoke]

1982, all because of May 8th

[Chris_Amon]

Difficult to answer this one.

I see F1 as a sequence of highs and low points, just like general History, without necessarily a "worst year". I´ve been watching races for the last 21 years and I also read the history before that a thousand times. I have seen greatness many times and have seen tragedy many times. All kinds of tragedy - deaths, cheating, accusations.

A driver or a team winning every race of a single season is not a tragedy. It is a result of how well prepared were the teams at the season start. The best team should be penalised?

Did tragedy start when Advertisement begun?

The death or the exit of a legendary driver may have meant a tragedy for certain fans, but which one would have caused a year to be labelled "worst"?

I must think for a while..

[Ricardo F1]

I'm with arcsine. 1994 was a tradegy in so many respects.

[Vilenova]

82 I guess. Gilles was the driver that got me interested in F1, being from Montreal.

[Vagabond]

'96 was pretty boring.

[917k]

I'm surprised 2004 isn't on there.;)

Seriously,1994,far and away.Ironically,the deep emotion,the drama and turbulance of that fateful year really cemented my passion for the sport.
I well remember,after Wendlinger's accident at Monaco,how the entire future of the sport seemed to hang by a thread,and the helpless feeling of watching something you love almost flicker and die.

[Sir Frank]

I can only judge from 1986 onwards.

It has to be 1994 simply becuase of the loss of 2 lives. Even if those 2 young men had not died, 94 would be still the worst year. Lots of corrupt decision by the FIA leading to a farce champiosnhip and unfair racing, suspected cheating, stupid refuellings, fire etc

The 2nd worst year is 2002. The Ferrari fiascos at Austria and Indianapolis, very little racing shown on non-Bernie channel. The tyre situation wasnt fair either. Small teams lacking money, the Arrows saga...
All these things resulted in the reg changes for 2003, which just simply suck.

All those years when marshalls die are bad as well.

[dai_ferrari]

Originally posted by Tarvoke
1982, all because of May 8th

Yes, sadly I too lost my all-time racing *hero* in Gilles Villeneuve. I really hate using the term *hero*, but he was as close as it came to calling someone a hero for me.

I really thought it was finally going to be his year, it didn't help that in the previous race he was unjustly robbed of victory by his teammate, course just a few months later, Didier Pironi would have an accident in Germany which really mangled his legs and ensured he'd never race in F1 again.

1994 ranks a close second.

[Sakae]

Never had one (worst year), really. There were disappointments, agitation, sadness, but also pleasure and joy; I don't think about those as Ok, bad, or excellent...

It's like weather. Life just "is", and we do cope - some of us better than others.

_____________

Last year rule changes did aggravated me for a while, and I thought, "it's worst", but I got over the irritant soon the same way as my driver did, and we do OK now, thanks.

[ZZMS]

the outcome of 1997 made it the worst year for me.

[SlateGray]

Hard to say

82 because we lost Gilles
94 because we lost RR & AS. As well as the truly ugly manner in which the WDC was decided!
97 because of the truly ugly manner in which the WDC was decided!
02 because of the truly ugly manner in which the WDC was decided! As well as the general dullness of the competition.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by SlateGray
02 because of the truly ugly manner in which the WDC was decided!

Kiwi slipping on oil?
That was ugly?

1989 was just as ugly.
1990 was the ugliest (pre-meditation and threats).

By ignoring those two years, but mentioning '94 and ,97, you're being a little harsh here Slate.
But also, it is understandable incase maybe you didn't see those two seasons.

Because I myself cannot comment on anything pre-85.
Books and videos just don't do it for me.

[John B]

Looking over the list, I'm tempted to reply 1982 for the Villeneuve and Paletti fatalities (also Jim Hickman and Gordon Smiley in Indycars and the champion hydroplane driver), several bad testing incidents, Pironi's crash, bickering over rules, etc., but 1955 would have to be the choice for the sport because of the LeMans tragedy. I think it's one thing when deaths involve competitors, who are assuming the risk, but spectators are a different thing. I'm honestly not a big fan of open wheel cars on superspeedways - 3 races have seen spectator deaths since 1987 - and have been worried about something happening, especially given the nature of IRL accidents of recent (going back to the 1998 crash at Atlanta, which could have been a real disaster).

I don't rate years with disapointing title finishes or the like on an equal plane with those involving deaths, though I feel the frustration (especially as it is evident in the ludicrous rule changes after 2002). In some cases, the notoriety created by Prost-Senna controveries and the like might be viewed as good for the sport, if only from an attention standpoint!

[nordschleife]

Originally posted by arcsine
1994 for so many reasons; Tragedies, controversy, questions over the legality of cars, disqualifications/bans and the title being decided in such an unsatisfactory manner.

Exactly. All of the above stunk the place up. And the champion's car was ugly. I thought there was a rule about that.

As great a tragedy as the loss of Gilles was, and not forgetting the loss of Paletti plus Pironi's awful accident, 1982 was perhaps the most fascinating year ever for positive reasons such as first turbo to win Constructors', eleven different winners from sixteen races, Keke finally suddenly taking on the role of team leader at a contending team always at a disadvantage to the turbos yet somehow coming through, Mario supersubbing, Lauda's incredible return and the delightful lack of reliabilty of the turbos. Then there was the Kyalami drivers' strike, the San Marino partial boycott and Reutemann's shocking retirement. Autocourse's introduction reads: "When 1982 is recalled in years to come and the Grand Prix season discussed, few will believe what went on unless either they were present to witness the absurd, sad, exciting and downright unpleasant events, or they have a copy of this book on hand to verify the facts."

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
Kiwi slipping on oil?
That was ugly?

Kimi's slip did not decide the WDC.
It was the truly ugly way Ferrari employed team orders.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by arcsine
1994 for so many reasons; Tragedies, controversy, questions over the legality of cars, disqualifications/bans and the title being decided in such an unsatisfactory manner.

for F1 alone. If we're going all told, then 1955 would be hard to beat post-war.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by SlateGray

Kimi's slip did not decide the WDC.
It was the truly ugly way Ferrari employed team orders.

The point was Ferrari team orders did not decide WDC. May be moved RB a few points up the table, that's all.

[Ross Stonefeld]

2002 (since of all the seasons its the only one I saw "live")

Because Schumacher wasnt even trying. I dont care who wins or by how much, as long as I see them going for it. Schumacher was absolutely cruising. And the "wins" Barrichello had were worse and more team orders BS than Austria ever was, it was just less obvious.

[HBoss]

Sir Frank said it all.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
And the "wins" Barrichello had were worse and more team orders BS than Austria ever was, it was just less obvious.

I kinda agree with that point actually, that was farcical manipulation of the record books, especially Indy (which WAS as obvious as Austria!).

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


I kinda agree with that point actually, that was farcical manipulation of the record books, especially Indy (which WAS as obvious as Austria!).

If they swapped the wins at Indy and Austria, won't the record books stay the same?

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Smooth

If they swapped the wins at Indy and Austria, won't the record books stay the same?

Not if you include the other races in 2002 that Schumacher gave to Barrichello, no. (Europe, and Hungary if I recall correctly)

[Force Ten]

Originally posted by Smooth

If they swapped the wins at Indy and Austria, won't the record books stay the same?

If they swapped the wins at Indy and Austria then both races would have been won by guys that did actually deserve it at that particular day. No, it's NOT the same thing.

[Zmeej]

Also agree with arcsine and all his reasons: 1994.

1982 was tragic because of the loss of Gilles, but in many other respects, there was unbelievable racing...
Mr Capps makes a pretty good case here:;)
http://www.atlasf1.c.../goodchild.html

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


Not if you include the other races in 2002 that Schumacher gave to Barrichello, no. (Europe, and Hungary if I recall correctly)

I don't consider Europa a gift; even Hungary isn't clear to me (OK, MS looked faster but where could he've passed if there was a genuine fight?). Found the Italian GP more questionable.

[vapaokie]

1955, manufactured racing and even the death of drivers pale in comparison to the loss of 55 (at least) spectators. They are there for the enjoyment of the race. It doesn't matter what you print on the ticket, no one really expects it possible they could be killed by debris (call it self-delusion if you like). Otherwise, we wouldn't go. And it nearly ended the sport- no racing in Switzerland, AAA in America stopped sanctioning racing, etc.

[davidashe]

1994 - by far. Not only were we robbed of one of the greatest ever to drive an F1 car, we were also robbed of the "what might have been": Two, maybe three years of Ayrton vs Michael, excitement potentially greater than the Ayrton vs Alain years...!

As far as the complaints about the Ferrari years... it's simple. Ferrari will dominate until they get beaten. In the meantime, it's their well-earned right to reap the benefits of all they have sown. Yes, they have been aggressive in their pursuit of victory, not only on the playing field but politically, but not necessarily more so than other teams have been. Michael may have behaved like an arrogant baby at times, but not necessarily more so than other drivers.

In the meantime, they came back from shambles to build the most effective, professional team in F1 today. With the most effective, professional driver in the sport at the lead. More power to them, I say.

So racing is boring? Let's complain about the inability of the other teams to rise to the level of Ferrari, and not vent on the winners.

I just hope that we can witness someone putting it to Ferrari on today's terms, not a year or two away, when MS retires and the team falls apart and they lose by default.

In the meantime, especially after the past three races, it's tough not to shake one's head and marvel at Ferrari and Michael. As far as I am concerned, the most fun to be had will be to see how long they can extend the winning streak. Does MS hold the record in F1 for most wins in a row? Maybe he's after that one, too! What the heck, why not?

[Ventura]

The poll is slightly biased as a great percentage of forumers probably only started watching F1 during early-to-mid 90's.....of course years like 1994 ad 2002 are going to stick out like a sore thumb during that period.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Force Ten


If they swapped the wins at Indy and Austria then both races would have been won by guys that did actually deserve it at that particular day. No, it's NOT the same thing.

So I would find your feelings, and Ricardo's, about McLaren/Williams colluding, or McLaren having DC pull over for Mika, or Mika in his last race, or Senna gifting his teammate, etc...... to be the same? Or is it just a Ferrari thing?

[davidashe]

Originally posted by davidashe
Does MS hold the record in F1 for most wins in a row? Maybe he's after that one, too! What the heck, why not?

Looked it up in FORIX: Turns out MS is second in this record... to Ascari (!), who had seven wins in a row. MS had six in late 2000 to early 2001.

Three down; five to go to break this record. At this point in the season, instead of worrying about McLaren's mediocrity and Williams' brief shining moments of potential and a miracle by Honda or Renault, I guess I will just pull for MS to break this one, too.

:

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by Smooth


So I would find your feelings, and Ricardo's, about McLaren/Williams colluding, or McLaren having DC pull over for Mika, or Mika in his last race, or Senna gifting his teammate, etc...... to be the same? Or is it just a Ferrari thing?

Actually it was directly related to Ross's reasoning to why 2002 was a bad year.

Originally posted by scheivlak
I don't consider Europa a gift; even Hungary isn't clear to me (OK, MS looked faster but where could he've passed if there was a genuine fight?). Found the Italian GP more questionable.

Well Hungary was the most obvious in my book, Schumacher slamming on the anchors at the end of the straight as Rubens exited the pits, had it been anyone else he would have just driven around the outside of them. All three to be honest were questionable, but Imola seemed to be more of a strategy issue.

[Force Ten]

Originally posted by Smooth


So I would find your feelings, and Ricardo's, about McLaren/Williams colluding, or McLaren having DC pull over for Mika, or Mika in his last race, or Senna gifting his teammate, etc...... to be the same? Or is it just a Ferrari thing?

Funny, that you have to take four different incidents over the course of 10 years to show on one side, on the other side Ferrari had their number two driver drive with handbrake engaged at least four times (the same amount) to help his teammate gain or retain positions only at the 1998 season. Yeah, I have a problem in that. Your examples were isolated incidents, mine is showing team policy starting from day one and continuing on a race by race basis to this day. It is very very different.

[tifosi]

1988 - the tragic loss of the man who single-handedly defined F1 before Bernie and Max made it commercial entertainment.



Perhaps 2002 for the pathetic excuse of an effot put forth by JPM, RS, KR, and DC. They should have been redubbed F2.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by tifosi
1988 - the tragic loss of the man who single-handedly defined F1 before Bernie and Max made it commercial entertainment.

One of the silliest posts ever. F1 not based on commercial entertainment before 1988? Enzo Ferrari defining F1 and a crusader against all things vile and corrupt?

[gerry nassar]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
2002 (since of all the seasons its the only one I saw "live")

Because Schumacher wasnt even trying. I dont care who wins or by how much, as long as I see them going for it. Schumacher was absolutely cruising. And the "wins" Barrichello had were worse and more team orders BS than Austria ever was, it was just less obvious.

Agree totally

Infact I thought Indy was worse than Austria. Pure farce.

[skylark68]

Oddly, I just saw some videtaped footage of that 1955 disaster and while I can't say I lived it, I could argue it was a pretty dark day and indeed year for motor sport.

1982 resonates as a very bad year - Of couse Gilles and then in Montreal, a race I happened to attend (a university "trip" to Montreal; so hungover I barely made the race; then another death and as a coincidence, a driver with the same last name as an old school chum). It was quite a cold day and I even remeber wondering if they were gonna race. And, as much fun as we had, the spirit in Montreal was not very good, as anyone can imagine and respect.

Strangely, unlike most here, 1994 resonates as a mixed year for me. Senna's death was very tragic and put a deamper on everything. In 1994, we were getting the feed from England and I soon tired of the quite obvious chants and rah rah rah for Hill and was began to become a fan of MS. I recall the debates and the ill will but when MS accidently careened into Hill, well, I have got to say my emotions were mixed. (I think also I was not a fan of English racers as I didn't like it when Mansell won so convinceingly a couple of years before that....)

2002 was a watershed year, in my opinion, as it established back the dominance of one team. So I am kinda mixed there - in terms of yes, I like MS and Ferrari; but do I like such a rout?

The last four years were also pretty disheartening for me due to JV and BAR. Notwithstanding my distatse for BAR, I have to say I enjoy their competitiveness and I do like Button (a swing to an English driver - this is what age does to you).

Darkest/worst - Gilles, Paletti (1982) Senna (94); Mansell's easy cruise (92 I think???)
Mixed - 94

[Deeq]

Originally posted by 917k
I'm surprised 2004 isn't on there.;)

Seriously,1994,far and away.Ironically,the deep emotion,the drama and turbulance of that fateful year really cemented my passion for the sport.
I well remember,after Wendlinger's accident at Monaco,how the entire future of the sport seemed to hang by a thread,and the helpless feeling of watching something you love almost flicker and die.

I agree 1994 by far of those I have seen.... If anything bad/controvertial was to happen it happened that year
Ofcourse I was a newbie[to the Sport, was my 3rd year of following it] back then. So thinks could have looked more dramatic then they necessarily were[needed to be] to me, OTOH the death of 2 drivers in one GP the controversies, rulle changing...The decider to cap it all...

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Ventura
The poll is slightly biased as a great percentage of forumers probably only started watching F1 during early-to-mid 90's.....of course years like 1994 ad 2002 are going to stick out like a sore thumb during that period.

Exactly why the question is being asked, to get their perspective on things.

Originally posted by skylark68
Oddly, I just saw some videtaped footage of that 1955 disaster and while I can't say I lived it, I could argue it was a pretty dark day and indeed year for motor sport.

I was at Le Mans that year and saw the aftermath firsthand. It was worse than it looks on tape. The carnage that was readinly evident after the crash has alway made me question the death toll. We had the grandstand area to the "left" of the impact perhaps just 45 minutes earlier to walk up the track towards the White House and that area. A friend of ours stayed back and saw the Mercedes sail past and into the grandstands. He said he heard a noise, then saw cars going willy-nilly with the 300SLR being launched up and then into the crowd.

[black magic]

how bout 96?

2 good but not grteat drivers trying to lose the wdc between them

or 97 where 1 guy was clearly in the best car but even then inherited many wins and damn near lost the wdc

as fpr pre 94 well never saw live. we only have the historians or journalists opinions and images to reflect on.

personally thought 2003 was pretty bad with lack of a dominant performance and whilst was topsy turvy reeked of artificiality to create it.

[skylark68]

Originally posted by Don Capps

I was at Le Mans that year and saw the aftermath firsthand. It was worse than it looks on tape. The carnage that was readinly evident after the crash has alway made me question the death toll. We had the grandstand area to the "left" of the impact perhaps just 45 minutes earlier to walk up the track towards the White House and that area. A friend of ours stayed back and saw the Mercedes sail past and into the grandstands. He said he heard a noise, then saw cars going willy-nilly with the 300SLR being launched up and then into the crowd.

I don't think the footage elucidates the real carnage so it is one of those "you had to be there" to see what really happened. I had always heard about the incident but when I saw it, I got one of those weird chills down my back.

I recall watching a tire roll into a crowd (may have been Nascar??? I forget) and I could clearly understand the possibilities and indeed some fan was killed. That was one tire. Imagine a car.

I thing that accident still stirs memories and has people, even those like me who didn;t live it, believing it was a momumental disaster.

I saw the 82 incident at Montreal (didn't see it actually happen but was able to get much closer after-the-fact) and I still think about it. I could imagine the LeMans incident having the same effect.

[1george]

1955.

Originally posted by Don Capps
I was at Le Mans that year and saw the aftermath firsthand. It was worse than it looks on tape. The carnage that was readinly evident after the crash has alway made me question the death toll.

Don, I can understand your feelings that day. Sorry for being OT, but I had a similar experience in different circunstances last month. The worst thing was the smell of the carnage, I needed two seasons of psicological help to accept that experience and is really difficult take off from your mind, beacause comes back without give you a warning.

[Henri Greuter]

As for reasons posted in the other poll, I opted for 1982.
The first races of the season a litany of either politics, rule bending/breaking, tragedies, it just didn't stop. Personally, Gilles accident was the'worst for me but it was only an event in a catalogue of mishaps between some (admittedly) good racing.

But it was close between 1982 and 1955
Though not from personal memory, '68 must have been a bad one, same for '70.

Also '73 with the Indy 332.5 stretched over 3 days and all carnage that month, Williamson at Zandvoort and Cevert later on was a nasty one.

94 is bad for me because of many F1 tragedies and incidents alone but also the seeds for the CART/IRL war sewn (the beginning of the end of what we at the time knew as Indy), sportscar racing nearly died.

Henri Greuter



Henri Greuter

[HP]

I choose 1990. Accidents are always sad and freaky, but if is announced one day in advance.. Hope Ralf keeps his cool this season...

[fifi]

Originally posted by arcsine
1994 for so many reasons; Tragedies, controversy, questions over the legality of cars, disqualifications/bans and the title being decided in such an unsatisfactory manner.

well said

[BorderReiver]

While 1994 lives vividly in the memory, I'm afraid it has to be 1968 in terms of tragedy. A terrible year, Clark, Schlesser, Spence, Scarfiotti and others.

And there were terrible years in the 70s too, 1973 stands out with the horrific Williamson incident and Ceverts appalling crash at the Glen.