Posts by cosmiccyclist8

448 posts shown.

F1: Then vs. Now in Formula 1 · Jul 12, 2014

silvercobra68 said:You guys are acting like absolute children. You don't understand anything. Formula 1 is moving forward, not backward. If you want vintage racing, there’s plenty of it—you’ve got the Silverstone classics, the Jim Clark memorial at Hockenheim, the traditional Monza races, or those classic Saturday morning sprints before the 24 Hours of Daytona. Watch those instead of whining about bringing the past back to F1.

But obviously, F1 is something else entirely. F1 is supposed to be cutting-edge technology—the kind of stuff that leaves you breathless when you see it. Just like it was thirty years ago. All those technical solutions you keep mentioning were actually the peak of technology back in their day.

And now, let's finally bust another myth. It isn't true that F1 was "better" back then than it is today. It wasn't better, and it wasn't worse; it was just different. Some things were worse, some were better. Let's break it down;

The 60s
1) Drivers had to drive with massive margins because the cars were fragile, and frankly, because they were terrified. People were dying back then.

2) There were no TV broadcasts and no onboard cameras (unless you count the footage from Frankenheimer’s *Grand Prix* film).

3) On the grid, you had about ten professionals and about ten amateurs—people like Guy Ligier, who was a hockey player, or even more unconventional types like Michael Parkes, who clawed his way into a seat after spending years as a Ferrari engineer.

4) Sometimes those amateurs were actually quite talented, like von Trips or the son of a pharmaceutical tycoon, Joakim Bonnier, who actually managed to snag a couple of Grand Prix wins.

5) The performance gaps between cars were massive. Races would end with only two or three cars in the same lap, while everyone else was two or more laps down. How can you expect any unpredictability? Critics would say the only real uncertainty was whether the Lotus would hold together; if it did, they’d win, if not, it would be a Brabham driver or someone like that—rarely some random guy.

The 70s

1) "Safety" becomes the main topic. After losing about fifty colleagues in the previous decade, drivers started striking, complaining, and boycotting races more frequently.

2) TV coverage still isn't really a thing, or if it is, it's just highlights on Sunday night or sometimes even Monday.

3) Drivers are still driving conservatively, even though wings and slicks made driving much easier. Overtaking happens, but not nearly as much as we imagine. There were a few fun drivers like Peterson or Villeneuve—but honestly, nothing more exciting than Hamilton.

4) The number of wealthy trust-fund kids grows, and some of them even take championships—one before the Nürburgring barbecue era, one after. During the barbecue year, the title goes to none other than a playboy.

The 80s

1) Politics. The war between the FIA and FOCA.

2) After a lull, the "Ecclestone-ization" of the sport begins.

3) A lot of races boil down to fuel management. McLaren dominates in '84 and '85 simply because they are the most efficient, while Brabham struggles. Prost takes his third title. And Piquet gets three too. Hmm... leaves a big question mark over the quality of the drivers.

4) We have TV coverage now. Murray does wonders, which is great, but we don't hear Murray; we hear some guy with a monotonous voice, saying "Piquet first, Prost second..."

So, that's how it was. If there are any more questions, just ask.

Okay, but what kind of "progress" are we actually talking about here? Rivers shape their course over millions of years—unless some human factor steps in to create an artificial flow. It's the same thing with today's cars. Development isn't following some natural evolution; instead, every scrap of available knowledge is being squeezed out (within the rules, obviously) just to build faster, more aggressive machines.

That's why we end up with these ridiculous cars covered in all sorts of spoilers and wings... even though we all know a car could practically hit the track without a front or rear wing and still stay glued to the pavement. So why bother with the wings if they're essentially redundant? Plus, from a safety standpoint, it's kind of impractical—no matter how sturdy they claim these things are, pieces still break off or hang loose, which just leads to more chaos.

This is just one example, really; I could probably write a hundred pages on this. How can you call it progress when, throughout history, the cars have actually regressed to specs used a decade prior?

If the cars were becoming too risky and draining the drivers, then the move should have been to shrink the engine size while still allowing for maximum development.