silvercobra68
Active Member
61 messages
joined Feb 2010
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.
