1989 vs 2009

[noisebox]

I've just watched the BBC re run of the 1989 Hungarian GP which I think is available to those in the UK only. A few things struck me that point to where some of the problems are with comtemporary F1. The main difference was that in 1989 there were so many more variables - 2 different tyre makers, different engine configurations (V8, V10 and V12), and different approaches to aerodynamics. This resulted in a race where even in Hungary there was plently of overtaking - clearly cars were able to follow much more closely in those days.

The issue we now have is that much more is standardised - only one tyre make, all V10 engines with similar output and very good reliability and less divergence in terms of aero with cars designed using CFD.

I'm concerned that the cost capping measures to be introduced will only make this problem worse. How can more variables be introduced to make the racing more unpredictable, without costs increasing? Is this what is needed?

I'm not looking at this through rose tinted glasses - this GP was a rare exception to a McLaren dominated season where there was such a large field spread that often the racing was fairly dull. It's great that the standard from front to back is so high now, but the racing is becoming more and more sterile...

Edit link to BBC race highlights: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 161332.stm

[CarlosFerreira]

The approach in the FIA has been the contrary: more standardized components bring closer racing and more competition. Check out how much closer things are nowadays. Sure, I thing you're right in pointing out that different approaches lead to unpredictable results, because the winning car for Hungary could be out of its depth in Spa, for example.

I really like diversity. I was one of the people unhappy to heard that the WTCC will run standardized 1.6 turbos starting in 2011. I for one like that fact that you have a tall and boxy diesel powered car bringing the struggle to a rear-wheel drive petrol powered sedan. The same with MotoGP and Superbikes, where different arquitectures (and, in Superbikes, even different displacements) contribute to the quality of the racing.

[BB01]

I've often thought that the reason that many categories have become a bit mundane is because the cars competing are so close, none of them have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, therefore making overtaking very difficult, even if one car is slightly faster than the other.

The other thing you'll notice about those 20-year-old races is that the race is not won by pushing all the way from the beginning. Drivers would have to look after the tyres in the beginning and could use that to their advantage by not pitting or having more performance later on. Modern races are so close, however, that if you're not on the ragged edge from lap 1, you're nowhere. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, just making the observation.

[noisebox]

I've often thought that the reason that many categories have become a bit mundane is because the cars competing are so close, none of them have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, therefore making overtaking very difficult, even if one car is slightly faster than the other.

The other thing you'll notice about those 20-year-old races is that the race is not won by pushing all the way from the beginning. Drivers would have to look after the tyres in the beginning and could use that to their advantage by not pitting or having more performance later on. Modern races are so close, however, that if you're not on the ragged edge from lap 1, you're nowhere. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, just making the observation.

All good points - it's interesting that the defining factor of the last 3 races has been the weather/track temperature - that goes to show just how sensitive and close to each other these cars are.

[Bort]

I've said it before and I'll say it again I am sure, but Formula One has become so watered down that it saddens me.

Imagine if two drivers today got into the kind of scrap Arnoux and Villeneuve got themselves into at Dijon in 79.
They would BOTH receive a whole bunch of penalties and fines for their driving.


Not that it would matter too much, because todays cars would probably fall apart the first moment wheels were touched.

[thehemogoblin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again I am sure, but Formula One has become so watered down that it saddens me.

Imagine if two drivers today got into the kind of scrap Arnoux and Villeneuve got themselves into at Dijon in 79.
They would BOTH receive a whole bunch of penalties and fines for their driving.


Not that it would matter too much, because todays cars would probably fall apart the first moment wheels were touched.

Not 100% true... Webber and Barrichello made contact last race and it didn't incapacitate either car.

[Bort]

Not 100% true... Webber and Barrichello made contact last race and it didn't incapacitate either car.

True, although it was hardly the kind of agressive wheel-banging that happened back in the 70s.
It was a fairly light and accidental tap. The Dijon fight involved deliberate wheelbanging and offensive defence of the driving line.

[Salamander]

Not 100% true... Webber and Barrichello made contact last race and it didn't incapacitate either car.

True, although it was hardly the kind of agressive wheel-banging that happened back in the 70s.
It was a fairly light and accidental tap. The Dijon fight involved deliberate wheelbanging and offensive defence of the driving line.

There was that last lap scrap between Massa and Kubica in Fuji 2007...

[RejectSteve]

True, although it was hardly the kind of agressive wheel-banging that happened back in the 70s.
It was a fairly light and accidental tap. The Dijon fight involved deliberate wheelbanging and offensive defence of the driving line.

There was that last lap scrap between Massa and Kubica in Fuji 2007...

Massa, in a Ferrari, was in the tarmac runoff to pass Kubica on that final lap. One year later, Hamilton, in a non-Ferrari, runs wide at Spa, gives the position back and then retakes Raikkonen, in a Ferrari, and all hell breaks loose in the stewards' office.

And people want Todt to be FIA President?!?

[FullMetalJack]

From watching the 1989 race earlier today, it just goes to show how much Formula 1 has changed, and none of it for the better. The 1986, 1988, 1989 and even the 1997 Hungarian GP's were epic. That overtake at the 1986 race was brilliant. It's a shame Formula 1 will probably never be that good again. The cars are too reliable.

[Ross Prawn]

Rose tinted spectacles I'm afraid.

There have been many processional races and championships in the past. I remember Stewart's victories as being quite sleep inducing, as were Andretti's in the ground effect Lotus. And many of Senna's victories were a bit sterile, once Prost had moved on.

The worst thing of course is to have the best driver in the best car, always boring. People would probably remember Jaques Villeneuve as a bore, if he had ever been given a decent car to drive.

Thats not to say that the current F1 isn't over regulated and over politically correct to the point of boredom. Some big improvements are needed. But the the only races from the past that get remembered are the good ones. The other ones we slept through.

[Waris]

The issue we now have is that much more is standardised - only one tyre make, all V10 engines with similar output and very good reliability and less divergence in terms of aero with cars designed using CFD.

We have V8 engines.

[noisebox]

The issue we now have is that much more is standardised - only one tyre make, all V10 engines with similar output and very good reliability and less divergence in terms of aero with cars designed using CFD.

We have V8 engines.

I knew that...

[Ben Gilbert]

Rose tinted spectacles I'm afraid.

There have been many processional races and championships in the past. I remember Stewart's victories as being quite sleep inducing, as were Andretti's in the ground effect Lotus. And many of Senna's victories were a bit sterile, once Prost had moved on.

The worst thing of course is to have the best driver in the best car, always boring. People would probably remember Jaques Villeneuve as a bore, if he had ever been given a decent car to drive.

Thats not to say that the current F1 isn't over regulated and over politically correct to the point of boredom. Some big improvements are needed. But the the only races from the past that get remembered are the good ones. The other ones we slept through.

I think that races in the past were a middle ground, between the picture painted here and the rose tinted vision.

Yes there were dull races in the past, there always are, but there were less of them. There was more unreliablity, real mistakes, great manoueveres (and a bloody decent commentary), probably at least once a race all of these would happen. Now it's once a season that a truly memorable move happens.

Also, the perception of dullness has changed since then, due to what was the norm in the different times. A dull race back then would probably be that the leader wasn't challenged for many laps, and there were a few overtaking manouveres. Now back in modern times, a dull race is the leader winning having lead al race, not been challenged at all and simply being in a different league, with very few rather poor passing moves.


Dominance has also been a major factor, as for much of the 'glory years' there was a definite dominant driver, usually Senna, Prost or Mansell. They would usually control the race, and win in a sterile manner, but behind them at least, there was a wealth of worthy drivers battling and fighting for the lower points. A race that is dominted and won by the same driver as the preceeding week doesn't have to be boring, as there was usually good racing going on behind the dominance.

Contrast that with today. We have no real dominant force in F1, since Shumi left, and judging by the 1982 season, which was the same sort of situation, brilliant racing should follow. Sadly this isn't happening, and there are no real battles on track, with no one able to get anywhere near the car in front, and no overtaking. I know this sort of dull proccession was happening back in the eighties, but at least a good race would be just around the corner.

(By the way, as I write this, I'm watching a 'highlights' video on youtube of the 1985 season. While this is obviously the best bits of it, there is a definite higher frequency of great moves and passes making the video. If the same sort of moves were chosen for the current season highlights video, it would be two or three minutes in length. This one is split into four, ten minute segments.)

Also, little timeline I have picked up on from your comment.If we count the glory years starting with the rise of Gilles Vileneuve and ending when Prost retired:

1969-1973: Stewart victories (sleep inducing)
1978: Andretti in GE Lotus
1979-1993: Glory Years (Senna's sterile victories fit in intermittently)
1994-20??: Boring Boring Boring.

While I do agree with you Ross Prawn that the glory years were tainted with soporific spectacles, there is a little discrepancy with your timeline.