Is there a double standard in modern F1?

frostie500

I was thinking about the reaction of many fans since the first GP of the year and I wonder is there a double standard?

If you talk to most fans of F1 and ask who are the greatest drivers from the last 40 years you'll get a lot of names from the 70's and 80's but only one or two from the 90's and the last decade. Prost, Senna, Lauda, Stewart, Piquet, Fittipaldi, Gilles Villeneuve and then Michael Schumacher and Alonso.

Is it coincidental that most of these drivers drove in the 'non refuelling' era that it seems fans are already bemoaning?

I realise that Bahrain didn't meet the expectations of many but why do we look back at drivers from the previous era like Senna, who was capable of man handling a car that needed to conserve it's tyres, Prost, who became a driver that would win at the slowest possible speed, or Lauda, who outsmarted drivers in better cars, and gush about their greatness in a time when F1 had a rule that most want removed again?

Non refueling is here again and we as fans of the sport need to reeducate ourselves to what the racing will be like and not pine for refuelling as a cure all. For years fans called for F1 to return to the 'glory days' of the 80s and now that a rule change has been implented from that time fans are calling for massive reform, it seems we can't be kept happy!

Drivers now face a great challenge and while Bahrain not have been exceptionally exciting there is the potential for the current crop of drivers to perform to the same constraints of many of our heroes as they face this new challenge

IM0

buit your missing the point its not just the refuelling, its the refuelling + the fact the cars cant follow each other because they are so efficient aERO wise
the refuelling is simply exacerbating an already boring set of regulatgions.

se conman

Decades ago , races were won by 90% driving and 10% engineering but today races are won by 10% driving and 90% engineering.That is just natural development.While you cannot deny that the engineers have done amazing things , this has been at the expense of "on track , driver against driver RACING"
Bring back F5000."A gate with a big V8 strapped to the back of it"

frostie500

se conman wrote: »

Decades ago , races were won by 90% driving and 10% engineering but today races are won by 10% driving and 90% engineering.That is just natural development.While you cannot deny that the engineers have done amazing things , this has been at the expense of "on track , driver against driver RACING"
Bring back F5000."A gate with a big V8 strapped to the back of it"

But in the past drivers were even more at the mercy of their machinery than they are now. We have the closest fields ever in F1 history with the gap from fastest to slowest usually(disregarding the new teams for a moment) less then 2 seconds. In the past that would separate the top four rows of the grid, So in actual effect the balance has actually shifted more to the driver because the cars are so close now. Is it 'RACING' when there is only one team with a good car and the rest with differing levels of mediocrity?

me@ucd wrote: »

buit your missing the point its not just the refuelling, its the refuelling + the fact the cars cant follow each other because they are so efficient aERO wise
the refuelling is simply exacerbating an already boring set of regulatgions.

I know that aero plays are major part in the lack of overtaking but that's been the case for a long time. The point I was trying to make was that we view so many drivers as being great from an era when there wasn't refuelling and (in this post)when 'racing' occured between drivers with massive differences in the performance of their cars.

amacachi

frostie500 wrote: »

I was thinking about the reaction of many fans since the first GP of the year and I wonder is there a double standard?

If you talk to most fans of F1 and ask who are the greatest drivers from the last 40 years you'll get a lot of names from the 70's and 80's but only one or two from the 90's and the last decade. Prost, Senna, Lauda, Stewart, Piquet, Fittipaldi, Gilles Villeneuve and then Michael Schumacher and Alonso.

Is it coincidental that most of these drivers drove in the 'non refuelling' era that it seems fans are already bemoaning?

I realise that Bahrain didn't meet the expectations of many but why do we look back at drivers from the previous era like Senna, who was capable of man handling a car that needed to conserve it's tyres, Prost, who became a driver that would win at the slowest possible speed, or Lauda, who outsmarted drivers in better cars, and gush about their greatness in a time when F1 had a rule that most want removed again?

Non refueling is here again and we as fans of the sport need to reeducate ourselves to what the racing will be like and not pine for refuelling as a cure all. For years fans called for F1 to return to the 'glory days' of the 80s and now that a rule change has been implented from that time fans are calling for massive reform, it seems we can't be kept happy!

Drivers now face a great challenge and while Bahrain not have been exceptionally exciting there is the potential for the current crop of drivers to perform to the same constraints of many of our heroes as they face this new challenge

I'm not trying to be funny, but are you purposely trying to be obtuse? Leaving aside the last 3 years as they're too recent to get all misty-eyed about, there's only been four world champions since 1990 that aren't on that list, 3 of whom had ridiculously dominant cars (and it could be argued so did Hakkinen, and only one on the list who wasn't a champ. Generally fewer world champions means less drivers who look so good.
The last three titles have been won by Raikkonen, (who while I think he is excellent,) who's done nothing since he won it, Hamilton who is too young to say is a great driver, and Button who was in the mire for years until he broke through.

Give it 5-10 years, if Hamilton/Alonso/Vettel stay near the top we'll be hearing about them for a long time.

*EDIT*
The issue with the refuelling is that as a year-long thing 2007 and 2008 were two of the best in living memory. It was annoying enough that last year was spoiled somewhat, but with the cars getting closer again it looked like we could get back to 2007/2008 but with closer-following cars and more chances for overtaking, but no, there had to be tinkering which there's no doubt will detract from races. As I said before, the only reason there was ever good racing back in the day (other than close following being possible) was that the tyre were properly differentiated, bomb around, make a pitstop, overtake 3/4 cars, have a shot at the win. That's just not how it is. Alonso said on F1.com that the tyres are all 3/4 steps harder than last year, so I'd be shocked if the super-softs (if they're using the super-softs) don't last near enough 1/3 race distance on Sunday, followed by get-it-back-to-the-line mode for the rest of the race. The tyres have gotten too good that making the extra stop would barely gain enough time even without the time lost in overtaking.

smooch71

se conman wrote: »

Decades ago , races were won by 90% driving and 10% engineering it"

That's not true at all. Formula 1 has always had dominant teams.

I remember 1988 as one of the most boring seasons of F1 ever because McLaren won every race bar 1. 1992 was also a tedious season.

It's all too easy to remember the good old days by looking on Youtube and watching review videos and dvds that always highlight the more exciting moments of the race.

We all know the famous clips like Senna and Mansell going side by side down the straight in Spain in 91 with sparks flying and we think every lap was like that. But it wasn't.

My point is, we should not get caught up in rose tinted memories of how good things used to me because broadly speaking very little has changed in terms of race quality. Most seasons have had great races, boring races and stand out classics.

That's the nature of Formula 1. It's a competition to build the best car and employ the best driver. If you want to watch a spec series with more overtaking, watch GP2, Formula 2, IRL, etc.

I wasn't expecting Bahrian to be a great race, it never is, but what really p1ssed me off was when Michael Schumacher remarked about how this is all we can expect under the current regulations.

The guy knows what he's talking about, he's probably right and to be honest I had fallen into the trap of thinking this is going to be a sh1te season. And I bitched and moaned about here on boards too.

But Kubica's comments about how overtaking is no harder now than it has been over the last couple of years is refreshing to hear. It means we shouldn't write F1 off this year based on one race that's never an exciting one anyway.

So after watching some of the practice on the BBC this morning (making me late for work) I head into the Australian GP with renewed enthusiasm for what to me is the best sport in the world.

amacachi

smooch71 wrote: »

It's all too easy to remember the good old days by looking on Youtube and watching review videos and dvds that always highlight the more exciting moments of the race.

Hell even now sometimes at the end of a race when they show a montage I'm wondering how the race was so boring. :pac:

I wasn't expecting Bahrian to be a great race, it never is, but what really p1ssed me off was when Michael Schumacher remarked about how this is all we can expect under the current regulations.

The guy knows what he's talking about, he's probably right and to be honest I had fallen into the trap of thinking this is going to be a sh1te season. And I bitched and moaned about here on boards too.

But Kubica's comments about how overtaking is no harder now than it has been over the last couple of years is refreshing to hear. It means we shouldn't write F1 off this year based on one race that's never an exciting one anyway.

As you said, he knows his stuff. As well as this I'd believe him over say, Alonso. Alonso to me has always come across as winning=good, and that's it. While Schumacher is no doubt still competitive and I look forward to when he has a choice between right and wrong to gain a place, I'd guess that a few years on the sidelines has given him an appreciation of the sport as a spectator rather than purely as a driver.
Also, overtaking may be no harder than recent years, but it should be a lot easier than up til 2 years ago.

smooch71

amacachi wrote: »

Also, overtaking may be no harder than recent years, but it should be a lot easier than up til 2 years ago.

Well, this is true.

Makes you wonder what the Overtaking Working Group were doing and what the hell they're doing now

EvilMonkey

People remember the old days with rose tinted glasses and highlights packages.

The problem isn't just overtaking, team strategy has completely been removed and all pit stops will happen within a handful of laps of each other. If you went for a piss in at the wrong time watching Bahrain you could have missed every stop.

The second round of pit stops were always a second chance for teams to get closer or improve their position, now there is nothing then the race settled down with 20 - 40 laps. I know some races were always 1 stoppers for the front runners but rarely every team on the grid was on the same strategy.

smooch71 wrote: »

Well, this is true.

Makes you wonder what the Overtaking Working Group were doing and what the hell they're doing now

Once double diffusers were allowed the Overtaking Working Group never had a fair chance of working, but it was never going to be a quick solution that fixed every thing. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport, it should be hard to overtake!

smooch71

EvilMonkey wrote: »

F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motor sport, it should be hard to overtake!

I agree and I also think that F1 is about more than just overtaking. Like I said earlier there are any number of other series out there if people want to see cars passing each other lap after lap.

In fact you can have a 20 lap battle between 2 cars without overtaking and that in itself can be exciting. And you're right, even the different pit stop strategies made things interesting.

Also, the lack of overtaking is largely down to the stupid tracks in F1 these days more than to aerdynamic efficiency of the cars

Top Dog

smooch71 wrote: »

Also, the lack of overtaking is largely down to the stupid tracks in F1 these days more than to aerdynamic efficiency of the cars

Stirling Moss might disagree with you there. Yup, the tracks are crap - but the aerodynamics are having a huge impact on things.

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/12359.html

TheChrisD

Sir Stirling Moss wrote:

Right now I would rather see a good IndyCar race than I would a Formula One race, because it is far more entertaining to watch

QFT.

aidan_dunne

I've been watching F1 for almost 25 years and I knew some people's expectations of the racing suddenly becoming epic with overtaking moves on every lap just because refuelling was gone were way too high. F1 has never been like that but I do think that the racing was better back in the 80's and early 90's, but not just because of the lack of refuelling. It was a combination of things which made the racing more "interesting" back then (note how I didn't say "there was more overtaking" but I said it was more "interesting"). Equal fuel at the start, different engines (turbos vs. normally aspirated in the 80's, then in the 90's V8s vs. V10s vs. V12s), drivers having to manage fuel consumption and tyre wear very carefully through a race, having to sometimes nurse cars because they were much less reliable than today's cars, much more varied circuits (as opposed to the bunch of similar Tilkedromes we have now) and, of course, the big one being the fact that the aerodynamics of the cars weren't as advanced back then as we see today.

Those variables are no longer around and the cars are so evenly matched now and so reliable that for people to think the ban on refuelling alone was going to suddenly turn F1 into MotoGP was a ridiculous expectation. As for those people who have come out criticising the "show" of F1 over the past couple of weeks after their expectations were shattered, I say go off and watch WWE wrestling if you want a "show". F1 (and motorsport as a whole, in fact) is about more than that and I will continue to watch as I have done over the past 25 years despite different regulations, periods of dominance by one team or driver, etc., etc.

EvilMonkey

aidan_dunne wrote: »

I've been watching F1 for almost 25 years and I knew some people's expectations of the racing suddenly becoming epic with overtaking moves on every lap just because refuelling was gone were way too high. F1 has never been like that but I do think that the racing was better back in the 80's and early 90's, but not just because of the lack of refuelling. It was a combination of things which made the racing more "interesting" back then (note how I didn't say "there was more overtaking" but I said it was more "interesting"). Equal fuel at the start, different engines (turbos vs. normally aspirated in the 80's, then in the 90's V8s vs. V10s vs. V12s), drivers having to manage fuel consumption and tyre wear very carefully through a race, having to sometimes nurse cars because they were much less reliable than today's cars, much more varied circuits (as opposed to the bunch of similar Tilkedromes we have now) and, of course, the big one being the fact that the aerodynamics of the cars weren't as advanced back then as we see today.

Those variables are no longer around and the cars are so evenly matched now and so reliable that for people to think the ban on refuelling alone was going to suddenly turn F1 into MotoGP was a ridiculous expectation. As for those people who have come out criticising the "show" of F1 over the past couple of weeks after their expectations were shattered, I say go off and watch WWE wrestling if you want a "show". F1 (and motorsport as a whole, in fact) is about more than that and I will continue to watch as I have done over the past 25 years despite different regulations, periods of dominance by one team or driver, etc., etc.

I agree but most people i know(that are aware of F1) didn't think that the refuelling ban would lead to more overtaking. I don't think that was the expectation. The high expiations came from how close all the teams were by the end of last year + Schumacher coming back, in my opinion.

One of the things that made F1 more interesting recently was fuel/pit stop strategy. That's now gone and is highlighting the lack of overtaking.
Vettels lap today was exciting, no overtaking necessary.

amacachi

Was Turbo vs Normally aspirated really all that interesting very often? Other than the odd very, very hot or high-altitude race the NAs struggled to beat any turbos. The award each season for the best NA car shows this surely?


I don't think anyone expected the ban on refueling to make things more interesting, I said it would make it less interesting and I still think that will be case. It's the frustration at changing a rule that was obviously going to take away from the racing that annoyed me.

smooch71

Top Dog wrote: »

Stirling Moss might disagree with you there. Yup, the tracks are crap - but the aerodynamics are having a huge impact on things.

I think todays OZ GP confirmed what I suspected.

That Sir Stirling is talking out of his arse. "in my era"!! Give me a f*cking break.

I know the rain helped today but I reckon you'll still see overtaking in Canada, Spa, Monza, Brazil etc this year. The decent tracks

But never at Bahrain, Singapore, Korea whatever other tracks designed by Hermann Tilke

enzo7

smooch71 wrote: »

That Sir Stirling is talking out of his arse. "in my era"!! Give me a f*cking break.

Can he even rem the long ago, stirling moss is a twat himself and that muppet stewart should never be aloud to air their views:mad:

Top Dog

smooch71 wrote: »

That Sir Stirling is talking out of his arse. "in my era"!! Give me a f*cking break.

I know the rain helped today but I reckon you'll still see overtaking in Canada, Spa, Monza, Brazil etc this year. The decent tracks

Time will tell if your prediction is accurate or not, but are you seriously saying that he's wrong about the aerodynamics having a dramatic effect on things these days?

smooch71

Top Dog wrote: »

Time will tell if your prediction is accurate or not, but are you seriously saying that he's wrong about the aerodynamics having a dramatic effect on things these days?

It's not exclusively down to the downforce on the cars. They have an effect but I still maintain the tracks are more to blame.

The aero effect on the cars is nothing new. We've had this for a long time now and like I said in a previous post, people seem to remember a lot more overtaking in the "good old days"

The truth is, overtaking has not been common in F1 for a long time now. You look at how the newer racetracks are designed and look then at the classic tracks I've mentioned previously. You see more overtaking on the "good" tracks that have tight corners followed by long straights followed by tight corners. Not those twisty Scalectrix tracks we now see.

But should overtaking be easy in F1? In my view no, it should be a challenge. And if its a challenge then its all the more satisfying when it happens.

And it is a challenge on the decent traditional tracks like Spa, Monza, the old Hockenheim, Nurburgring, Silverstone, Interlagos. Magny Cours, Montreal etc. But the point is it still happens.

But you won't see it in Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Valencia, and most likely Korea.

So I believe the move away from the traditional tracks is what is ruining the quality of the racing in Formula 1. More than the aero efficiency of the cars.

It annoys me when the likes of Stirling Moss starts bullsh1tting about "his day". Theres no comparison or common ground between the two except the cars had 4 wheels then and they have 4 wheels now. Time has moved on. He mouths off about F1 being boring after just one race. And Bahrain is boring every year.

He says Indycars are more exciting......Yeah maybe in 1995 they were. Last years IRL championship was one of the worst in years. Even the oval racing was rubbish. But like F1 does every year it threw up some good races.

I've said it before, if you want to see lots of overtaking, don't watch or complain about Formula 1. Watch MotoGP or touring cars or something.

Top Dog

Can't argue with you there smooch - that post makes an awful lot of sense.

Nozebleed

yesteradys race was great..probably the best i've seen in 10 years. to be honest F1 has been muck since 1990'ish..prost mansell senna etc..when they changed the qualifying to what we have now it ruined the sport. qualifying used to be better than the race. too many changes too little racing. im delighed to see the re fuelling banned. i didn't know what was going on half the time at the front of the race.

EvilMonkey

Nozebleed wrote: »

yesteradys race was great..probably the best i've seen in 10 years. to be honest F1 has been muck since 1990'ish..prost mansell senna etc..when they changed the qualifying to what we have now it ruined the sport. qualifying used to be better than the race. too many changes too little racing. im delighed to see the re fuelling banned. i didn't know what was going on half the time at the front of the race.

Qualifying last year was brilliant, this year not so much with the new teams and the cars aren't as close as last year. We had scalps like Ferrari going out in Q1. The only thing missing was low fuel Q3.
No refuelling is a step backwards. In fairness it wasn't hard to see what was going on.
Best in 10 years, really? i wouldn't say it was that great.

smooch71

Nozebleed wrote: »

yesteradys race was great..probably the best i've seen in 10 years. to be honest F1 has been muck since 1990'ish..prost mansell senna etc..when they changed the qualifying to what we have now it ruined the sport. qualifying used to be better than the race. too many changes too little racing. im delighed to see the re fuelling banned. i didn't know what was going on half the time at the front of the race.

Couldn't disagree more.

Rose tinted glasses again I'm afraid.

Under the old qualification system the drivers were allowed 1 hour and 12 laps. For the first 40 minutes we were looking at empty race tracks.

How was that better?

I'm not trying to be insulting but if you couldn't understand what was going on with the commentary and on-screen graphics etc, maybe F1 is not for you.

frostie500

smooch71 wrote: »

Under the old qualification system the drivers were allowed 1 hour and 12 laps. For the first 40 minutes we were looking at empty race tracks.

How was that better?

I know that I'm in a massive minority but I always prefered the old 12 lap qualifying. Even now when I look at my old videos of F1 races from years ago I'll watch the quali tape as well. It may not have had 60 mins of on track action but it was thrilling having 22-26 cars on the track at once all chasing their fastest time. The skill of doing a lap at the end of those sessions was immense and I loved watching and seeing drivers gradually build up their speed and then go for a banzai lap at the death

EvilMonkey

I liked the old qualifying but this new one isn't too bad. The one lap one was shíte. The only thing I don't like with the current format is the start the race on your qualifying tyres(fuel last year) and no set up changes for the race. I want the cars going as fast as they can for qualifying and the race, not some compromise for both.

frostie500

EvilMonkey wrote: »

I liked the old qualifying but this new one isn't too bad. The one lap one was shíte. The only thing I don't like with the current format is the start the race on your qualifying tyres(fuel last year) and no set up changes for the race. I want the cars going as fast as they can for qualifying and the race, not some compromise for both.

Yeah I like the current quali too but the park ferme rules are crap. Cars should be able to be optimised for both qualifying and the race. Even this year the FIA made a mess of it with the top 10 starting on Q3 tyres, why are they disadvantaged for being faster?

who the fug

smooch71 wrote: »

That's not true at all. Formula 1 has always had dominant teams.

I remember 1988 as one of the most boring seasons of F1 ever because McLaren won every race bar 1. 1992 was also a tedious season.

.

1988 Prost and Senna going at each other boring, are u mad , dragged many punters into F1

1992 did become a procession , but Senna & Mansell in Monaco is still the best couple of laps ever

smooch71

who the fug wrote: »

1988 Prost and Senna going at each other boring, are u mad , dragged many punters into F1

1992 did become a procession , but Senna & Mansell in Monaco is still the best couple of laps ever

Don't get me wrong, I admire Senna and Prost as much as the next man but you see I didn't find one team lapping the whole field exciting.

People always rave about what a great year it was and I just don't remember it that way. But having said that I was only 16 at the time and maybe would have appreciated it a bit more as an adult.

And you're right about Senna and Mansell in 1992 in Monaco and that proves the point I was making in an earlier post. No overtaking happened but it was the battle itself that was exciting.