'The Good Old Days'

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 12 Oct 2010, 16:58

Browsing through the threads earlier, a thought came to me about how many people reminisce about 'the good old days', the 50s and 60s when the circuits were longer than the average worker's daily commute, and the cars and drivers had real personality and meaning.

Alternatively many consider the turbo-era of the early and mid 1980s when the cars were monsters and half the grid was filled with real world class drivers, Prost, Senna, Lauda, Piquet, Mansell, etc, etc.

But what about the current period of F1, with it's hyper-development, megabucks front running teams and the whole corporate running of the sport? Will future generations of F1 fans look back to the late noughties/early teens and reminisce as fans do now?

My opinion of it is that for three of the last four years we've had title battles that have gone down to the wire with the drivers going at to the end, with truly incredible stories across each season. We now have a grid of talent not witnessed since the 1980s, like I mentioned above, with no less than 4 world champions and others such as Kubica, Vettel and Rosberg that could all potentially be future champions as well. We now have technical regulations that have prompted a wave of new innovations that have either been banned or incorporated into the formula, and more teams on the grid than at any other point for 15 years. The calender has some spectacular new tracks on it, such as Turkey and Singapore, as well as the classics alongside like Monza, Monaco and Silverstone.

Yet from various different places there seems to be a lot of evidence that people consider this period of F1 to be a 'low point' in its history, and I'm at a loss as to why this may be. The amount of friends I know who aren't even F1 fans but who stopped watching it during the early noughties as Schumacher made the sport his personal cakewalk are now coming back to it, in part due to the success of Lewis and Jenson, but also because in the past few years, Formula 1 has become a much more interesting, complex sport than it was 10 years ago.

But I want to know what everyone else thinks. Am I correct in thinking this period to be one of the sport's high points, and likewise, was the preceeding early-mid 00s really that bad in comparison? How does this period match up to those other perceived high points in the 50s/60s and the 80s?

Fire away!

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 12 Oct 2010, 17:33

AndreaModa wrote:But what about the current period of F1, with it's hyper-development, megabucks front running teams and the whole corporate running of the sport? Will future generations of F1 fans look back to the late noughties/early teens and reminisce as fans do now?

In a few words: yes, they'll do.

They will hear histories from the "good old days" from older people, who happened to start following F1 on the 2000s, back when a team that on February was on the verge of disappearing could go on to win both titles; when competition was so close that you could win a title by overtaking at the final corner... They'll admire that German guy who managed to win 7 championships and score 91 wins; they'll talk about that dominating performance of Lewis Hamilton at Silverstone in 2008. They'll talk of the times when a backmarker team could get pole position and nearly win a race.

"That doesn't happen anymore", they'll say, taking the exception as the rule. Exactly as people do know when they remember those "good old times" of the 80s and earlier. Time erases bad memories and preserves good ones. And you're usually more fond about things that happened while you were a kid, or at least a young man. I discovered F1 in 1997 and started watching 1999-00. And sometimes I find myself thinking "oh, those were the days"... For me, it was great. And I thought F1 was even greater in the 80s and early 90s, because that's what people used to say back then... Now I know it depends a lot more on the way people see it, that on how it really is.

coops · Post by **coops** » 12 Oct 2010, 17:33

Its all perception I think, like modern music all sounding the same and chicken really tasting like chicken. I often watch the old grainy footage of racing in the seventies when the cars all looked like porn stars and wonder at how great it surely was to witness it all. Or the halcyon days in the fifties where the drivers were literally inches from death, to be able to watch such heroism would've been an honour. The reality of both eras was that there was hardly any up to date television coverage and to know what was going you would either have to attend each race or learn about it from reading a newspaper, the latter of which would hardly do it justice.

In another thread ADx-Wales asked me if I thought F1 would be still going in fifty years time, to which I replied that I thought it would but it may be as different to todays sport as todays sport is to the racing of the forties and fifties. I was thinking about that later and pondered the probability that the fans of the 2060 F1 World Championship may look back on our years of racing as the 'good old days', when the cars werent as safe as the 2060 spec cars are, when the drivers were more bullish and brave and so on.

I also considered a large glass cylinder containing the defrosted and reanimated head of Bernie Ecclestone directing everything but I thought Id better keep that bit to myself...

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 12 Oct 2010, 18:41

People hardly ever recognise the inherent quality of the present while they're harking back to the "good old days". I think we've actually had some of the best racing we've ever had since Schumi left Ferrari, and I look back at the early-mid 2000s with a big yawn.

When I started watching, back in 1996, it was all so exciting... but it was more mysterious for me back then. I didn't know everything about it, I didn't know where the drivers had come from or who they were, they were just names and helmet colours. I didn't even know what most of them looked like... I'd hear about Heinz-Harald Frentzen or Olivier Panis week after week, but it could be months before I actually got to see their faces. Perhaps that's why I grew to love the mid-fielders and back-markers - everyone knew what Hill or Schumacher looked like, but you just didn't get to see the guys at the back.

I look back at the 1998 season as being a bit of a classic - the chaotic races in Belgium and Canada, the British and Italian races that I attended, the down-to-the-wire championship battle... but in reality, it was quite a frustrating season. There was a huge stink after the Spanish GP about how no one could overtake and all the passing was done in the pits, and I think all in all many of the actual races were a little bit bland. Not as bad as the first half of the 2000s, of course. Yet Bahrain aside, every race of 2010 has been at least entertaining, and has thrown up surprise after surprise.

One improvement, incidentally, which it's easy to take for granted now, is the homogenisation of the FIA TV coverage. There were certain races I'd always dread because of the dire local TV coverage - either obsessively covering the home team or driver, or simply not having the imagination to watch anyone but the leader. I remember tearing my hair out with despair as the commentators described the battles further down the field, while the picture showed the same car going round and round and round. I seem to remember the French GP was usually the worst, and the British GP was generally the fairest.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » 12 Oct 2010, 19:52

I consider the period from 1995-2006 to be particularly bleak. Not a lot of new teams and diminished grids, regulations that didn't favour spectacle, good circuits getting out of the calendar, only M. Schumacher and Häkkinen as real candidates to the title (then Räikkönen and Alonso as well)...But the new regulations have helped getting better races, and the level of the field has increased. Plus, we have 3 new teams, and I foresee more will access the sport in the future. And the title fights are getting incredibly close and interesting. Not to mention the high rate of development even if we consider the fact tests are banned. If this keeps up, we could have some vintage years.

madmark1974 · Post by **madmark1974** » 13 Oct 2010, 09:19

As someone who's been watching since 1980, I think a lot of it has to do with the driver personalities involved. Heros / Villains, etc.

As my Dad used to work for Lotus my favourite driver at the time had to be Elio De Angelis (I never liked Mansell), but then when Senna nearly won at Monaco in the
Toleman we started to see the emergence of a new hero (whatever you may have made of him in his McLaren days, he was a hero in his early years), so when he
signed for Lotus he had to become my favourite. As Senna got better and the Lotus got worse my allegiance followed him to McLaren and I've been a fan of theirs
ever since. This of course made Prost the villain in my eyes, later followed by Schumacher, and I'd basically support anyone who had a go at beating those two.

I think you need someone to cheer and someone to jeer. Some of the most memorable races (or incidents at least) to me are therefore Suzuka 1989 and 1990,
Australia 1994, Jerez 1997, all of which contain at least one of those drivers mentioned above. If it's two drivers you are indifferent about racing for the title you just
don't invest as much passion into it. With the current highly corporate style and very restrictive regulations of F1 it's difficult to stand out or show any real flair or take
many risks, which is why there aren't so many big personalities or flamboyant teams around these days.

I dare say anyone who watched an F1 race for the 1st time on Sunday would instantly have Kobayashi as their favourite driver due to his standout performance,
unless they were a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan, who would then like Vettel and Red Bull, sadly ...

FullMetalJack · Post by **FullMetalJack** » 13 Oct 2010, 09:24

madmark1974 wrote:a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan

I hate people like that, and people who jumped on the Button bandwagon during 2009.

bighaydo · Post by **bighaydo** » 13 Oct 2010, 09:38

redbulljack14 wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan

I hate people like that, and people who jumped on the Button bandwagon during 2009.

...or worse, the people that jumped on the Hamilton bandwagon from 2007 (with a complete disregard to the established stars and the sport's history!).

I think that 'The Good Old Days' comes down to a couple of factors: the rise of technology and the way that F1 has marketed itself.

In the 'Good Old Days' you had men in machines that were created before we really understood the technology that made them quick - this meant that form could fluctuate wildly from season to season. Technological advancement was something you saw season on season. Safety was something that was in its developmental stage... you look back as far as the 80s and wonder how on earth those guys had the testicular fortitude to do what they did - and more so for each decade you go back!

The other thing is that I suspect that 'back in the day' F1 was more 'physically' accessible than it is now - I've seen photos were the paddock was quite literally that - a paddock. Teams used to keep their bodywork out front of the garages for the world to see...

The problem with the current marketing strategy is that it is highly elitist (on purpose!) and the show has gotten so much bigger... Suzuka used to look like an enormous complex and these days it looks quaint compared to some of the newer tracks.

Plus I think that in 'The Good Old Days' we were probably all learning about the sport, and had to dig deep to find out about it. These days with the internet, driver quotes can be sent all over the world in seconds, and has brought about the image conscious PR aspect... which combined with political correctness and corporate orientation has meant that some of the glamour has disappeared too.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:01

redbulljack14 wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan

I hate people like that, and people who jumped on the Button bandwagon during 2009.

This is why I've never understood Ferrari fans. Or fans of McLaren either, I suppose, but particularly Ferrari fans. They spent five years winning pretty much every race, and still the fans would go crazy if they won or be suicidal if they lost. But after five years, how is that any way against expectations? Surely victory is only genuinely exciting if it's either against expectations, or is hard-fought. I could never get my head around being so entrenched in supporting a team that something which is practically routine still evokes high passion.

To be fair to the 2009 championship, mind you, that was a genuine fairytale - I could get excited about Button winning all the early races because it was so unexpected, both in terms of team and driver, you knew it wasn't going to happen again for a long long time, and you knew that it was only a matter of time before it would end.

madmark1974 · Post by **madmark1974** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:25

I agree with the above (mostly, except that I am a McLaren fan). I think some of my favourite moments have certainly been where the unexpected has occurred. If you think about it, apart
from Brawn last year, every title since 1980 has been won by either Williams, McLaren, Benetton/Renault (basically the same people) or Ferrari, however only the Ferrari wins have been
really dull as there had been very little competition within the team due to an established no. 1 / no. 2 driver and the fact that the car was so much better than anyone else's.
Most of the Williams or McLaren dominant wins had at least some inter-team battling (Hill/Villeneuve, Prost/Senna), if not closer battles with other teams too (Mansell/Senna, Senna/Prost again,
Hakkinen/Schumacher etc).

Two spring to mind instantly - Panis winning in the Ligier at Monaco 1997 and Trulli winning at Monaco when Montoya hit Schumacher in the tunnel behind the safety car
(probably one of the best jump off the sofa and shout 'yes' moments in recent times - the 'tunnel incident' I mean) ...

coops · Post by **coops** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:31

redbulljack14 wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan

I hate people like that, and people who jumped on the Button bandwagon during 2009.

Not me. I spent most of the noughties explaining to people why JB was still a good driver to the point where they'd get up and sit at another table.

Incidentally, if Schumacher comes good next year lets just see how many do the same thing. I'll stick my neck out and say he will, whether or not he'll get the title is another matter which is just as it should be with the high level of competition we're currently enjoying. Good old days ahead.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:51

madmark1974 wrote:Two spring to mind instantly - Panis winning in the Ligier at Monaco 1997

1996. It's odd how often this gets quoted as '97!

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:54

coops wrote:Incidentally, if Schumacher comes good next year lets just see how many do the same thing. I'll stick my neck out and say he will, whether or not he'll get the title is another matter which is just as it should be with the high level of competition we're currently enjoying. Good old days ahead.

I don't know why but I want Schumacher to win another championship before he retires even though I don't see it being a guarantee or sometimes even a possibility... and this is coming from a Nico Rosberg supporter.

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:56

fjackdaw wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:Two spring to mind instantly - Panis winning in the Ligier at Monaco 1997

1996. It's odd how often this gets quoted as '97!

Probably because Panis was so damn epic in 1997 before he had that leg-breaking smash in Canada... if I remember correctly he was 2nd in the championship heading into Canada and Villeneuve was quoted as saying that Panis will be one to watch... then again I may have just made that second bit up

EDIT: Turns out he was 3rd at the time and he could have scored a podium at Argentina had the electrics not called it quits...

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 10:58

Wizzie wrote:
fjackdaw wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:Two spring to mind instantly - Panis winning in the Ligier at Monaco 1997

1996. It's odd how often this gets quoted as '97!

Probably because Panis was so damn epic in 1997 before he had that leg-breaking smash in Canada... if I remember correctly he was 2nd in the championship heading into Canada and Villeneuve was quoted as saying that Panis will be one to watch... then again I may have just made that second bit up.

He was my favourite driver in '97, and I was hugely disappointed when his career was wrecked in Canada. He could have done some great things.

jackanderton · Post by **jackanderton** » 13 Oct 2010, 12:32

Next year I think there is a very strong possibility McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes and ...I was going to say Renault, but Kubica, will be evenly matched. I can't see Mercedes being this far behind next year, while the chances of Red Bull being so far ahead of McLaren and Ferrari 2 years running seems, based on experience, quite low. Even more next year, it could come down to the car's preferences at different circuits and drivers trying weird inside-out logic when it comes to strategy.

I'd desperately like Williams to be in that mix though...

coops · Post by **coops** » 13 Oct 2010, 15:06

Wizzie wrote:I don't know why but I want Schumacher to win another championship before he retires even though I don't see it being a guarantee or sometimes even a possibility... and this is coming from a Nico Rosberg supporter.

Were it not for MSC punting him off in Adelaide 1994 then Ive always believed Damon Hill couldve been a four times world champion. 1994 obviously, 1995 as a result of not wilting under the Schumi Pressure, 1996 because the car was so good and 1997 because the car was still so good and Frank wouldnt have replaced him with HH Frentzen.

So to sum up, Michael Schumacher is a bastard.

That said, hes gone and made himself the underdog again and alot of people like to see the underdog come good.

Me too.

Go Michael.

You bastard.

Rocks with Salt · Post by **Rocks with Salt** » 13 Oct 2010, 15:30

The fact that I've only been watching F1 for a few years means that I don't have a concrete recognition of 'The Good Ol' Days' as much as I'd like to. In fact, I was watching the 1990 San Marino GP yesterday and was floored by how things have changed: If your car at any point drove off the track or into the pits unscheduled, you had retired, no questions asked. And even the frontrunners were vulnerable to such mechanical teething issues to the point where it wouldn't make as big a splash if the leader was out of the race due to an engine problem as it would today (I refer to Thierry Boutsen's engine problems at Imola whilst he was leading; the commentators shrug it off like it's no big deal and go back to the race!).

Another thing that strikes me as odd is how lax things were at the racetrack in general. Several camera shots revealed marshals milling around the track as the race thundered around them, something that would never happen at today's races unless there is a crash. The pit crews were clad in short shorts! Just the sight of that yellow-and-black, helmet-less, short-shorted menagerie changing Mansell and Prost's tires simply made my jaw drop. Even the commentary of the race struck me as politically incorrect. During the race, Mansell went around the backmarker Dallara of de Cesaris, who touches him and nearly puts him into a spin. After Mansell beautifully recovers, the commentator remarks, "That was De Cesaris doing his usual performance taking no notice of the leaders...Mansell was leading the race and look at this idiot! It really is a disgrace that he is allowed to interfere with Grand Prix racing and, apart from spoiling the race for the other drivers out there, he spoils it for the spectators as well!" There is absolutely no way that this would be allowed by today's commentators!

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » 13 Oct 2010, 15:33

Ah, harking back to the "Good old days"

Its a British disease, when Daily Mail readers think of the days when we ruled half the world and lived in an age of deference to the upper classes in society. British people love nostalgia, talking about the weather and moaning about the national football team. This sort of talk is proof of that.

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 13 Oct 2010, 16:58

madmark1974 wrote:from Brawn last year, every title since 1980 has been won by either Williams, McLaren, Benetton/Renault (basically the same people) or Ferrari

1983. Piquet drove for Brabham when he won the title.

eagleash · Post by **eagleash** » 13 Oct 2010, 17:48

DonTirri wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:from Brawn last year, every title since 1980 has been won by either Williams, McLaren, Benetton/Renault (basically the same people) or Ferrari

1983. Piquet drove for Brabham when he won the title.

& 1981

Post by **mario** » 13 Oct 2010, 18:47

Debaser wrote:Ah, harking back to the "Good old days"

Its a British disease, when Daily Mail readers think of the days when we ruled half the world and lived in an age of deference to the upper classes in society. British people love nostalgia, talking about the weather and moaning about the national football team. This sort of talk is proof of that.

Although it is indeed a depressingly recurrent theme within certain sections of the Press within the UK, when it comes to Formula 1, I think that you will find that this sort of rose tinted nostalgia is very widespread, regardless of nationality. I've seen quite a few people from other nations on other forums constantly banging on about the good old days in a similar way, so I think that it is a bit of a mistake to think that it is just endemic within the UK.

The problem is, over the years, people tend to forget how dull most races could be, even in the supposed "Good Old Days", and the passing of the years can distort the image of some races. For example, take the 1982 Monaco Grand Prix, which is famous for what happened in the final two laps after rain started falling. However, if you watch the race, up until Lap 74, it was actually fairly dull - after Arnoux spun his car whilst going into Turn 15, due to pressure from Prost, it looked as if Prost was going to take an easy win, and there wasn't a great deal of action going on further down the field. Moreover, whilst we complain about the effects of politics on the sport, and the FIA-FOTA battles, that is nothing compared to what was going on in the 1980's as the FISA-FOCA war was in full swing.

That isn't to say that there weren't some great races along the way - there were - but we must look at things in context.

Mister Fungus · Post by **Mister Fungus** » 13 Oct 2010, 19:26

Got to say I watched many older races (mostly from 80's and 90's) on a justin.tv channel, and the majority of them were fairly boring to watch. Even if there was more on track action which was not often the case, the choice of the race director was usually bad (improves more as you get nearer to modern age) so very little action was showed and you were at a mercy of commentator to find out where you favorite backmarker is cause they never showed standings outside of top 6 during the race. Maybe I've been spoiled with the modern technology which allows me to follow the race with much more detail, who knows.

Ferrim · Post by **Ferrim** » 13 Oct 2010, 19:48

Rocks with Salt wrote:The fact that I've only been watching F1 for a few years means that I don't have a concrete recognition of 'The Good Ol' Days' as much as I'd like to. In fact, I was watching the 1990 San Marino GP yesterday and was floored by how things have changed: If your car at any point drove off the track or into the pits unscheduled, you had retired, no questions asked. And even the frontrunners were vulnerable to such mechanical teething issues to the point where it wouldn't make as big a splash if the leader was out of the race due to an engine problem as it would today (I refer to Thierry Boutsen's engine problems at Imola whilst he was leading; the commentators shrug it off like it's no big deal and go back to the race!).

This is one of the things I actually miss on current races. Until the early 2000s reliability was pretty low and you could expect at least 5 mechanical-induced retirements. Something could happen to the race leader (ask Mika Häkkinen in his championship years) and it's a variable that has been nearly lost in recent seasons, due to the race on standardasing and making every part of the car last for ages. Which is another thing I don't like.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 13 Oct 2010, 22:00

Ferrim wrote:
Rocks with Salt wrote:The fact that I've only been watching F1 for a few years means that I don't have a concrete recognition of 'The Good Ol' Days' as much as I'd like to. In fact, I was watching the 1990 San Marino GP yesterday and was floored by how things have changed: If your car at any point drove off the track or into the pits unscheduled, you had retired, no questions asked. And even the frontrunners were vulnerable to such mechanical teething issues to the point where it wouldn't make as big a splash if the leader was out of the race due to an engine problem as it would today (I refer to Thierry Boutsen's engine problems at Imola whilst he was leading; the commentators shrug it off like it's no big deal and go back to the race!).

This is one of the things I actually miss on current races. Until the early 2000s reliability was pretty low and you could expect at least 5 mechanical-induced retirements. Something could happen to the race leader (ask Mika Häkkinen in his championship years) and it's a variable that has been nearly lost in recent seasons, due to the race on standardasing and making every part of the car last for ages. Which is another thing I don't like.

Same here - there seem to be far fewer retirements among the top teams these days. I still have fond memories of bursting with excitement on the occasions the camera would cut to Schumi's car crawling to a halt by the side of the track.

lostpin · Post by **lostpin** » 14 Oct 2010, 00:47

fjackdaw wrote:
Ferrim wrote:
Rocks with Salt wrote:The fact that I've only been watching F1 for a few years means that I don't have a concrete recognition of 'The Good Ol' Days' as much as I'd like to. In fact, I was watching the 1990 San Marino GP yesterday and was floored by how things have changed: If your car at any point drove off the track or into the pits unscheduled, you had retired, no questions asked. And even the frontrunners were vulnerable to such mechanical teething issues to the point where it wouldn't make as big a splash if the leader was out of the race due to an engine problem as it would today (I refer to Thierry Boutsen's engine problems at Imola whilst he was leading; the commentators shrug it off like it's no big deal and go back to the race!).

This is one of the things I actually miss on current races. Until the early 2000s reliability was pretty low and you could expect at least 5 mechanical-induced retirements. Something could happen to the race leader (ask Mika Häkkinen in his championship years) and it's a variable that has been nearly lost in recent seasons, due to the race on standardasing and making every part of the car last for ages. Which is another thing I don't like.

Same here - there seem to be far fewer retirements among the top teams these days. I still have fond memories of bursting with excitement on the occasions the camera would cut to Schumi's car crawling to a halt by the side of the track.

Well I think that the reliability issue is a part of the cost-cutting measures that were introduced by the FIA. They're using the same engine design for almost five or six years, it's rev limit is fixed to 18,000, they can't afford to lose engines because of the 8 engine rule per season, etc.

Jeroen Krautmeir · Post by **Jeroen Krautmeir** » 14 Oct 2010, 02:34

I'll admit, that being as young as I am, and only really beginning to watch the sport in 2003, I probably cannot give such an accurate statement, but I will try my best.

Yes, I am indeed one of those people who miss the 'Good Old Days', but most of the romance has to have something to do with the driver persona's, the team characters etcetra. Senna wouldn't have been so well loved had it not been for his startling performances in the Toleman, and his role as hero in the Prost-saga. Then, back in those days, rain would put practically everyone on equal footing, except for Life, of course, and people like to see underdogs dogfighting with the supposed invincibles. Performances such as Senna/Bellof at Monaco 84' are the birth of legends, and when you have someone like Pierluigi Martini in a Minardi doing something like qualifying 2nd, you will definitely go "WOW!", for good reason.

For people who started watching in the 00's, and then begin watching 'old' races, they probably will find it more exciting, in a way. I doubt they would ever have heard of Ligier, and in fact, that is what happened to me. When I watched Monaco 96', I was simply awestruck. Schumacher crashing out in a Ferrari? Impossible! Why's Eddie Irvine in a Ferrari? Who's Damon Hill? Villeneuve drove for Williams? These questions keep attacking you, and you feel compelled to find out more, to the point you go further back, to the 70s, 60s and 50s. When you learn of the Nordschleife, you go, "That thing is so bathplugging long!", and when you learn of the deaths there, you go "Those guys were brave bastards." When you listen to the sound of turbos for the first time, when you see Senna's accident, it makes you think how crappy F1 is nowadays, despite the fact in the last few years, we have had some good battles.

People who begin during the current V8 era are the ones who think that the Schumacher/Ferrari era are ultra-amazing, because of the V10's and the supposed heroics done. They think that you have to work extremely hard to produce a good chassis, and that is true, but they completely miss the fact that it was complete boredom for the people who watched the races.

The reason some 'New-F1 fans' I might say, think the old days are good, is, dare I say it, death. You don't see people dying in F1 nowadays, Kubica's crash in Montreal and Massa's Budapest crash are the closest the new-era of fans get to see of a possibly-fatal accident, when something like that would have killed you instantly back in the years preceeding 1998. As much as I hate to say it, people think death is cool. If you die in a sport like this, you become something of a cult hero, and unfortunately, this is, in my opinion, why people babble about the Good Old Days. I personally do want to see a return of the cars of the 80s, along with 3.0 l V8's, and the return of privateers, just to see how 'good and brave' these drivers are. I don't deny they have talent, how else do you drive an F1 car, but you have so many amateurish crashes from the likes of Vettel and other people, what if he had slammed his death trap into another death trap? I wouldn't say death, but severe injury surely? And a return of insane tracks such as the Nordschleife. At least make them drive in treacherous conditions. If they say its too dangerous, I'm sorry, the new era of drivers are cowards.

And, err, yes, I didn't really know where I was at times either. :oops:

madmark1974 · Post by **madmark1974** » 14 Oct 2010, 08:37

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:People who begin during the current V8 era are the ones who think that the Schumacher/Ferrari era are ultra-amazing, because of the V10's and the supposed heroics done. They think that you have to work extremely hard to produce a good chassis, and that is true, but they completely miss the fact that it was complete boredom for the people who watched the races.

I agree with the above statement, it always disappointed / annoyed me when F1 went to Indianapolis and the majority of the crowd would be Schumacher fans (or Mikey as I believe they referred to him),
for no other reason than they didn't know much about the sport and he was the only sucessful driver they were aware of. It may be a broad generalisation, but Americans like a winner, whereas us Brits
like the underdog (and because most of our sportspeople aren't quite good enough to win regularly) ...

Jeroen Krautmeir wrote:And, err, yes, I didn't really know where I was at times either.

Don't worry, I completely forgot about Piquet and Brabham in my 30-year title analysis earlier! Apologies to all ...

muttley · Post by **muttley** » 14 Oct 2010, 09:17

Ferrim wrote:They'll talk of the times when a backmarker team could get pole position and win a race.

Fixed it for you. Vettel, Toro Rosso, Monza.

Myrvold · Post by **Myrvold** » 14 Oct 2010, 14:40

Torro Rosso wasn't a backmarker team at that time, was it? And i think I remember they going for a wet setup, while others didn't and that it payed off? Oh well, a win is a win

However, I think it's also a bit up to each person, I really loved the 96.98 seasons, and miss those times.

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 14 Oct 2010, 14:53

fjackdaw wrote:
Ferrim wrote:
Rocks with Salt wrote:The fact that I've only been watching F1 for a few years means that I don't have a concrete recognition of 'The Good Ol' Days' as much as I'd like to. In fact, I was watching the 1990 San Marino GP yesterday and was floored by how things have changed: If your car at any point drove off the track or into the pits unscheduled, you had retired, no questions asked. And even the frontrunners were vulnerable to such mechanical teething issues to the point where it wouldn't make as big a splash if the leader was out of the race due to an engine problem as it would today (I refer to Thierry Boutsen's engine problems at Imola whilst he was leading; the commentators shrug it off like it's no big deal and go back to the race!).

This is one of the things I actually miss on current races. Until the early 2000s reliability was pretty low and you could expect at least 5 mechanical-induced retirements. Something could happen to the race leader (ask Mika Häkkinen in his championship years) and it's a variable that has been nearly lost in recent seasons, due to the race on standardasing and making every part of the car last for ages. Which is another thing I don't like.

Well I think that the reliability issue is a part of the cost-cutting measures that were introduced by the FIA. They're using the same engine design for almost five or six years, it's rev limit is fixed to 18,000, they can't afford to lose engines because of the 8 engine rule per season, etc.

I'm afraid that advances in design, simulation, quality assurance and quality control have drastically reduced the number of mechanical problems these days. You wouldn't believe how much work and resources we devote to post-race analysis of any engine that fails, to determine the root cause of the failure and to develop and implement corrective actions. For us, a repeat of an engine problem is inadmissible and any engine failures are brought up in the board meeting every week.

IntegratorTypeR · Post by **IntegratorTypeR** » 14 Oct 2010, 16:52

Faustus wrote:
fjackdaw wrote:
Ferrim wrote:This is one of the things I actually miss on current races. Until the early 2000s reliability was pretty low and you could expect at least 5 mechanical-induced retirements. Something could happen to the race leader (ask Mika Häkkinen in his championship years) and it's a variable that has been nearly lost in recent seasons, due to the race on standardasing and making every part of the car last for ages. Which is another thing I don't like.

Well I think that the reliability issue is a part of the cost-cutting measures that were introduced by the FIA. They're using the same engine design for almost five or six years, it's rev limit is fixed to 18,000, they can't afford to lose engines because of the 8 engine rule per season, etc.

I'm afraid that advances in design, simulation, quality assurance and quality control have drastically reduced the number of mechanical problems these days. You wouldn't believe how much work and resources we devote to post-race analysis of any engine that fails, to determine the root cause of the failure and to develop and implement corrective actions. For us, a repeat of an engine problem is inadmissible and any engine failures are brought up in the board meeting every week.

Faustus - you're quite right on the engine reliability front. Even during the early 2000s, Schumacher's Ferrari went for something like 20 odd races without a mechanical retirement? While at the same time you had Williams BMW and Mclaren Mercedes DNFing with all sorts of reasons.

I think the single biggest contributer to increased reliability was/is the PARC FERME rule introduction in 2003 with the single lap qualifying and the subsequent interations of it which meant they had to qualify their car in exact race trim. Before this, you'd have mechanics and engineers fiddling with the cars post quali to prepare for the race and that introduced an element of potential human error, a weak hydraulic nut, something not quite 100% put back together etc etc. At a stroke all that potential for error was pretty much removed and even though engines and gearboxes were being made to do a slightly greater distance, I think if you compared like for like races in 2002 against those in 2003, there'll probably be a huge decrease in DNFs (except Brazil).

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 14 Oct 2010, 17:31

All exceptional posts guys, really makes for an interesting read.

Having thought a bit more about it, I think personally for me it's the loss of the innocence of the sport. Both from watching it as a kid as Hill and Schumacher did battle, but also from the sport in general. It's all too serious now compared to the more haphazard, care-free times of yesteryear.

But in terms of the racing, the stories, etc I think this period we're in has to be one of the high points.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 14 Oct 2010, 17:46

AndreaModa wrote:All exceptional posts guys, really makes for an interesting read.

Having thought a bit more about it, I think personally for me it's the loss of the innocence of the sport. Both from watching it as a kid as Hill and Schumacher did battle, but also from the sport in general. It's all too serious now compared to the more haphazard, care-free times of yesteryear.

People were saying that in the Hill/Schumacher era about the racing of their youth. I think it all depends on what age and how carefree you happen to be at the time. I think it may even have chilled out a bit recently, if anything. I remember during the 90s that winners on the podium, Schumi aside, hardly expressed any joy at all. I don't know if it wasn't considered cool, or what. Now they look genuinely jubilant. I don't think there was any more innocence back then as there is now, I don't remember it being any less controversial or less serious, I think it's just memory and perception.

AndreaModa · Post by **AndreaModa** » 14 Oct 2010, 17:54

Yes perhaps I should have been more specific, when I meant the innocence of the sport, I'm talking really about pre-1990s F1 which was when all the commercialism really started to take off I guess.

But I agree its all about perception, looking back and watching some of the mid-1990s racing, and some of the races are as dull as dishwater yet when I recall it, sat on the sofa as a youngster with mum and dad, it was brilliant stuff.

fjackdaw · Post by **fjackdaw** » 14 Oct 2010, 19:34

AndreaModa wrote:Yes perhaps I should have been more specific, when I meant the innocence of the sport, I'm talking really about pre-1990s F1 which was when all the commercialism really started to take off I guess.

But I agree its all about perception, looking back and watching some of the mid-1990s racing, and some of the races are as dull as dishwater yet when I recall it, sat on the sofa as a youngster with mum and dad, it was brilliant stuff.

Yeah, I thought the 96 season was the most exciting thing ever.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 14 Oct 2010, 19:42

fjackdaw wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:Yes perhaps I should have been more specific, when I meant the innocence of the sport, I'm talking really about pre-1990s F1 which was when all the commercialism really started to take off I guess.

But I agree its all about perception, looking back and watching some of the mid-1990s racing, and some of the races are as dull as dishwater yet when I recall it, sat on the sofa as a youngster with mum and dad, it was brilliant stuff.

Yeah, I thought the 96 season was the most exciting thing ever.

Nah, I think 94 was the most eventful and exciting, despite/because of the injuries and cheating, and constant driver changes and the high reject count!

Waris · Post by **Waris** » 15 Oct 2010, 02:58

I agree with most of the points made in this thread. Characters and mystery were a big part of what made the old days so exciting. In the past, you might not hear anything about Formula One until the next race, when there was an article in a newspaper, a radio report, and a few years later maybe a live television broadcast, and then the whole circus was gone for the next two weeks again. This, of course, added greatly to the heroism. Those drivers, those cars, people like Colin Chapman and Enzo Ferrari, those mythical tracks like the Nordschleife and the old Spa... Their rarity, their elusiveness in itself was almost enough to make them legendary!

Speaking of characters, I really do think we need more 'outsiders' and less bland PR, which is one of the reasons I want Jacques Villeneuve to come back. In terms of a hero-villain dynamic, the Alonso-Massa saga is developing nicely at Ferrari. Alonso, like him or not, is almost always controversial, a great character that seems to have come right out of a movie, and of course a darn good driver, whereas Massa was a nice, amiable guy to begin with, and now after his accident, it seems almost heartless not to support him. Kobayashi is also a nice, colourful character. The mix of old and young drivers this season is also very interesting.

As for the actual racing, I believe this period might actually be something to enjoy as 'the good days of now'. Here's why: After 2008, I thought 2008 was the best F1 season I'd ever witnessed. After 2009, I thought 2009 was the best F1 season I'd ever witnessed. Right now, in 2010, I'm thinking the same about 2010. And with everything that's in store for next year, it doesn't seem such a stretch of the imagination to predict it might be even better. For me, this is very encouraging, because I think a lot about 'living in the moment' and how it's no use to long back melancholically for times past. It's quite nice to think the time people will be talking about like "Do you remember when all that happened?" is, in fact, going on right now.* The only thing that takes away a little from the enjoyment is the super-ultra-mega-reliability, which is why I think more wet races (something one of course cannot influence), worse tyres, and some other technical changes could improve the spectacle even more. The tracks we complain about so much don't seem all that bad actually, now that the racing is good. Of course, some are more boring than others and you can predict a race at, say, Sakhir or Valencia Street is going to be one of the more boring ones all season. But if they can replace two or three of those with some more interesting ones, I don't think that would be a good reason to complain anymore.

*Of course, this might also have something to do with me having followed F1 since the late 90's and 'growing up' throughout the boring Schumacher-dominated years. In general, as you've said, the F1 you watched when you were growing up matters a lot to your perception of the present F1.
Btw, apologies for such a long post.

RAK · Post by **RAK** » 15 Oct 2010, 22:23

redbulljack14 wrote:
madmark1974 wrote:a glory-seeking Manchester United type fan

I hate people like that, and people who jumped on the Button bandwagon during 2009.

To be fair, I was going to support Brawn even if they'd been as pathetic as Honda during 2008. Lest we forget, they were the last-minute entry which turned out to have produced an outstanding car which otherwise would have been wasted.

coops · Post by **coops** » 16 Oct 2010, 09:43

RAK wrote:To be fair, I was going to support Brawn even if they'd been as pathetic as Honda during 2008. Lest we forget, they were the last-minute entry which turned out to have produced an outstanding car which otherwise would have been wasted.

The Rejects That Won. What a movie that would've been. Perhaps even as good as 'Driven'.