F1: Then vs. Now

Rachel Gray58 said:Since we’re all sitting here discussing miracles and mythological legends, I can't help but be reminded of this one chilling incident from the world of NASCAR:

By 1991, J.D. McDuffie—a legendary independent racer who had been grinding it out in NASCAR for years—was facing some incredibly steep odds. Back then, most teams were fueled by massive corporate sponsorships, leaving a scrappy, self-funded operation like McDuffie's struggling just to make the starting lineup. He tried to qualify for 14 races that year, but only managed to make the cut for five. Then came the tragedy during the August 11th race at the Watkins Glen road course... he lost a wheel, slammed hard into a retaining wall, and, heartbreakingly, lost his life in the crash. Throughout his career from 1963 to 1991, McDuffie racked up an impressive 106 top-10 finishes, even though a win always seemed to elude him. Fast forward to October 1998, and driver Bobby Hillin, Jr. claimed he saw McDuffie’s ghost standing right at the exact spot where the accident happened, all while Hillin was out there during a testing session. Of course, naturally, nobody actually believed him...

Who knows? Maybe there really is something more to it after all... 🙂

It likely was. Something similar happened to me at Elkhart Lake; both tracks have heavy woods and plenty of moisture. Watkins Glen is particularly damp, and since she mentioned October, my experience in May had roughly the same amount of humidity—if anything, October might be even wetter. That moisture creates this morning mist that slowly rises, making you see things in the haze.

I actually thought I saw Peter Gregg, though I know it was probably just a trick of the light in the fog. Combine the mist with high emotions and a little imagination, and suddenly Peter is standing right in front of you.

I bet that’s exactly what happened with Hillin and McDuffie.

silvercobra68 said:It likely was. Something similar happened to me at Elkhart Lake; both tracks have heavy woods and plenty of moisture. Watkins Glen is particularly damp, and since she mentioned October, my experience in May had roughly the same amount of humidity—if anything, October might be even wetter. That moisture creates this morning mist that slowly rises, making you see things in the haze.

I actually thought I saw Peter Gregg, though I know it was probably just a trick of the light in the fog. Combine the mist with high emotions and a little imagination, and suddenly Peter is standing right in front of you.

I bet that’s exactly what happened with Hillin and McDuffie.

Wait, Peter Gregg—are you talking about the guy who raced in the American sports car series and then took his own life?

Rachel Gray58 said:Wait, Peter Gregg—are you talking about the guy who raced in the American sports car series and then took his own life?

Yes.

I actually mention him briefly in one of my articles—feel free to check it out if you're interested, though it's just a side note. I haven't done a deep dive on him yet, but I plan to eventually.

Peter Gregg was a true legend of American motorsports.

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.

BOLD: It was just more attractive 👍—both in terms of the drivers and the cars and the wheel-to-wheel battles 👍 (mostly thinking about the late 70s and the 80s).

Prost, Keke, Senna, Villeneuve, Lauda, Arnoux, De Angelis, Piquet, Pironi, Mansell, Alboreto, Warwick... I could go on forever listing the giants who defined that era. Honestly, if Vettel tried to cut his teeth back then, he’d be lucky to even get a seat in a mid-field car compared to those guys.

The cars? No need to use too many words here—pure peak Formula 1. They had massive horsepower, incredible downforce, and we actually got to see who was a real driver and who was just riding a rocket. Back then, drivers actually steered the cars—there wasn't any of this modern electronic nonsense, no KERS, no DRS, no sixteenth-generation ABS or whatever other tech they throw at them now.

And don't even get me started on the duels and the overtaking. Do I really need to list them all to compare them to the 90s and everything since, or are you capable of using your own brain? One single lap from Keke through the streets of Monaco is worth more than every "highlight" they've managed to scrape together in modern F1...

Stirling Moss:
"I always understood the risks involved, and honestly, that danger was half the fun of racing. Looking at the sport today, it feels like all the teeth have been pulled—if a corner gets too tricky, they just slap a chicane in there to slow things down. The risk is basically zero now, which is fine if you want to keep everyone safe, but for me, having that threat hanging over your head made everything electric. It’s like the difference between flirting with someone you actually like versus just paying for a service; the thrill comes from the uncertainty, from knowing it might not happen. Racing needs that edge. It’s like cooking—you can make a meal without salt, sure, but it’s going to be bland. For me, racing without danger is just bland."

🙏

So, these days, being an F1 driver isn't just about having world-class technical skills; you also need to have some serious guts to actually handle the seat.

wearyraven41 said:Stirling Moss:
"I always understood the risks involved, and honestly, that danger was half the fun of racing. Looking at the sport today, it feels like all the teeth have been pulled—if a corner gets too tricky, they just slap a chicane in there to slow things down. The risk is basically zero now, which is fine if you want to keep everyone safe, but for me, having that threat hanging over your head made everything electric. It’s like the difference between flirting with someone you actually like versus just paying for a service; the thrill comes from the uncertainty, from knowing it might not happen. Racing needs that edge. It’s like cooking—you can make a meal without salt, sure, but it’s going to be bland. For me, racing without danger is just bland."

🙏

So, these days, being an F1 driver isn't just about having world-class technical skills; you also need to have some serious guts to actually handle the seat.

If anyone is looking for that old-school thrill, just tune into an IndyCar race and enjoy the chaos if that's your thing. Just because drivers are safer these days doesn't mean they lack nerve. I mean, sitting in an F1 cockpit and screaming down a track at over 200 mph, inches away from another car—where you're practically brushing tires—that still takes a massive amount of courage. Though, I suppose if anyone on this forum actually had the stones to attempt that, especially at a place like Monaco, we'd certainly know about it!

And honestly? The fact that F1 has evolved into the absolute pinnacle of motorsport technology—rather than just some makeshift contraption built in a shed in rural England—is a pretty wonderful thing in my book.

jadeseal7 said:If anyone is looking for that old-school thrill, just tune into an IndyCar race and enjoy the chaos if that's your thing. Just because drivers are safer these days doesn't mean they lack nerve. I mean, sitting in an F1 cockpit and screaming down a track at over 200 mph, inches away from another car—where you're practically brushing tires—that still takes a massive amount of courage. Though, I suppose if anyone on this forum actually had the stones to attempt that, especially at a place like Monaco, we'd certainly know about it!

And honestly? The fact that F1 has evolved into the absolute pinnacle of motorsport technology—rather than just some makeshift contraption built in a shed in rural England—is a pretty wonderful thing in my book.

Do you honestly think it takes the same kind of courage to drive a modern car as it did to sit in one back in, say, 1982? Especially when you consider that in the decade leading up to that—roughly 1970 to 1982—fifteen drivers died in those machines, including legends like Gilles Villeneuve, Jochen Rindt, and Ronnie Peterson?

An F1 driver actually mentioned a few years ago that driving a car on a public road is more dangerous than driving an F1 car on a track... and he wasn't trashing Formula 1, he was just making a point about responsible driving on American streets.

jadeseal7 said:If anyone is looking for that old-school thrill, just tune into an IndyCar race and enjoy the chaos if that's your thing. Just because drivers are safer these days doesn't mean they lack nerve. I mean, sitting in an F1 cockpit and screaming down a track at over 200 mph, inches away from another car—where you're practically brushing tires—that still takes a massive amount of courage. Though, I suppose if anyone on this forum actually had the stones to attempt that, especially at a place like Monaco, we'd certainly know about it!

And honestly? The fact that F1 has evolved into the absolute pinnacle of motorsport technology—rather than just some makeshift contraption built in a shed in rural England—is a pretty wonderful thing in my book.

Those are my favorite arguments... these guys have been racing karts since they were toddlers, climbed through every junior formula imaginable, and get paid millions, yet they compare themselves to some random guy on a forum claiming it took more bravery to drive cars where pilots refused to wear seatbelts because they'd rather be ejected during a crash than burn alive inside.
It's like saying no one on this forum is allowed to criticize ConEd workers just because they don't know how to swap out an insulator on a high-voltage power line.

jadeseal7 said:If anyone is looking for that old-school thrill, just tune into an IndyCar race and enjoy the chaos if that's your thing. Just because drivers are safer these days doesn't mean they lack nerve. I mean, sitting in an F1 cockpit and screaming down a track at over 200 mph, inches away from another car—where you're practically brushing tires—that still takes a massive amount of courage. Though, I suppose if anyone on this forum actually had the stones to attempt that, especially at a place like Monaco, we'd certainly know about it!

And honestly? The fact that F1 has evolved into the absolute pinnacle of motorsport technology—rather than just some makeshift contraption built in a shed in rural England—is a pretty wonderful thing in my book.

Fast forward 30 years, when a "driver" just memorizes an ideal racing line and programs the car to drive itself while their actual job is monitoring nitrogen flow sensors and trying to beat lap times by optimizing pit stop efficiency... then, and only then, will today's cars look like some piece of junk built in a shack.

wearyraven41 said:Do you honestly think it takes the same kind of courage to drive a modern car as it did to sit in one back in, say, 1982? Especially when you consider that in the decade leading up to that—roughly 1970 to 1982—fifteen drivers died in those machines, including legends like Gilles Villeneuve, Jochen Rindt, and Ronnie Peterson?

An F1 driver actually mentioned a few years ago that driving a car on a public road is more dangerous than driving an F1 car on a track... and he wasn't trashing Formula 1, he was just making a point about responsible driving on American streets.

Those are my favorite arguments... these guys have been racing karts since they were toddlers, climbed through every junior formula imaginable, and get paid millions, yet they compare themselves to some random guy on a forum claiming it took more bravery to drive cars where pilots refused to wear seatbelts because they'd rather be ejected during a crash than burn alive inside.
It's like saying no one on this forum is allowed to criticize ConEd workers just because they don't know how to swap out an insulator on a high-voltage power line.

Fast forward 30 years, when a "driver" just memorizes an ideal racing line and programs the car to drive itself while their actual job is monitoring nitrogen flow sensors and trying to beat lap times by optimizing pit stop efficiency... then, and only then, will today's cars look like some piece of junk built in a shack.

Times have undeniably shifted, and one could argue that Formula 1 is no longer the death trap it once was. I hold all three of the men you mentioned in the highest possible regard, truly; yet, does it not follow that some of today’s elite drivers might have actually thrived during that perilous era if given the chance?

I’m sitting here rewatching the '94 Japanese GP.

Honestly, even the geniuses running things today couldn't dream up something this ridiculous.

So the race gets red-flagged, right? But once they get things moving again, they start calculating all those gaps from the moment the flag actually dropped, which is just wild. 🙏 🤦

Then you see Hill pulling out of the pits behind Alesi and Mansell, even though he was actually leading them on track before the chaos.🙏

And then Mansell breezes past Alesi, yet somehow he's still trailing him by five seconds? Makes zero sense. 🙏

The rulebook 🙏
is a total joke.

darkmarlin16 said:I’m sitting here rewatching the '94 Japanese GP.

Honestly, even the geniuses running things today couldn't dream up something this ridiculous.

So the race gets red-flagged, right? But once they get things moving again, they start calculating all those gaps from the moment the flag actually dropped, which is just wild. 🙏 🤦

Then you see Hill pulling out of the pits behind Alesi and Mansell, even though he was actually leading them on track before the chaos.🙏

And then Mansell breezes past Alesi, yet somehow he's still trailing him by five seconds? Makes zero sense. 🙏

The rulebook 🙏
is a total joke.

It reminds me of the 2007 European GP. Remember when Markus Winkelhock was leading? I think something similar happened there. Correct me if I've got that wrong.

Oh, I certainly remember that rule... It’s one of those scenarios where a red flag is thrown because someone falls twenty seconds behind once the race gets underway. Even if they happen to cross the line physically first, they still have to make up that twenty-second gap to actually claim the win. It’s all about the time aggregation—not unlike how they handle things over at the Daytona 500.

George Ramos15 said:It reminds me of the 2007 European GP. Remember when Markus Winkelhock was leading? I think something similar happened there. Correct me if I've got that wrong.

Nah, there wasn't any actual coordination happening back then. It was just a couple of guys like Miller and Davis thinking they could pull it off.

darkmarlin16 said:I’m sitting here rewatching the '94 Japanese GP.

Honestly, even the geniuses running things today couldn't dream up something this ridiculous.

So the race gets red-flagged, right? But once they get things moving again, they start calculating all those gaps from the moment the flag actually dropped, which is just wild. 🙏 🤦

Then you see Hill pulling out of the pits behind Alesi and Mansell, even though he was actually leading them on track before the chaos.🙏

And then Mansell breezes past Alesi, yet somehow he's still trailing him by five seconds? Makes zero sense. 🙏

The rulebook 🙏
is a total joke.

You’re clearly still pretty green—honestly, it was just standard practice for almost 50 years. They didn't even start making a distinction between trail order and official order until the late 90s.

Before that—after every single restart—it would always recalculate everything just to make sure nobody got screwed over.

That's what I call clean racing—pure class.

Look, you kids just don't get it—honestly. It’s your fault we’re stuck with all this modern nonsense anyway, since you didn't understand a damn thing to begin with.

darkmarlin16 said:Nah, there wasn't any actual coordination happening back then. It was just a couple of guys like Miller and Davis thinking they could pull it off.

I guess I fell for a total illusion then...

ruggedhawk20 said:You’re clearly still pretty green—honestly, it was just standard practice for almost 50 years. They didn't even start making a distinction between trail order and official order until the late 90s.

Before that—after every single restart—it would always recalculate everything just to make sure nobody got screwed over.

That's what I call clean racing—pure class.

Look, you kids just don't get it—honestly. It’s your fault we’re stuck with all this modern nonsense anyway, since you didn't understand a damn thing to begin with.

Regarding this matter...
Yes, accounting for those gaps used to be about fairness; nowadays, simply nullifying them is all about TV ratings and creating a spectacle. It’s a bit cynical, isn't it? A truly brilliant performance can now be easily called into question just because of when a red flag happened—essentially turning a driver's skill into pure luck (and I won't even get started on Singapore 2008).

ruggedhawk20 said:You’re clearly still pretty green—honestly, it was just standard practice for almost 50 years. They didn't even start making a distinction between trail order and official order until the late 90s.

Before that—after every single restart—it would always recalculate everything just to make sure nobody got screwed over.

That's what I call clean racing—pure class.

Look, you kids just don't get it—honestly. It’s your fault we’re stuck with all this modern nonsense anyway, since you didn't understand a damn thing to begin with.

Guess I’m just not old enough for you.

Before that, after any red flag or restart, they always recalculated everything so that absolutely no driver was getting screwed over.

Terrible way to handle it.

That’s what we call racing integrity.

Nope. You can't call that racing integrity under any circumstances.

There was—and still is—a dead simple way to actually maintain some level of integrity:
They could have just started in intervals, you know, one after another based on their actual gaps. Kind of like how they do it in Olympic biathlon.

It would be fair, and it would keep a normal order on the track.

But you kids don't get it anyway. It's because of people like you that all this modern nonsense was introduced—because you just didn't understand the old ways.

So you're calling someone younger than you an idiot just because they think it's stupid that the guy who is actually in 3rd place is effectively in 1st. 😕

Anyone who thinks third place is actually first just basically crowned themselves king of nothing.

Look, I didn't label anyone anything. I just pointed out exactly who brought all that dirty drama into F1 in the first place.

It’s the same mess that’s driving the people responsible absolutely crazy right now.

But again—I haven't called anyone names, let alone a moron.

If some people feel targeted by my general observations, well, that's on them, not me.

There was this one driver once who said, "I'll let you pass, but you better prove you're actually faster"—and honestly, that's the whole damn point.

F1 isn't the NFL; we don't need touchdowns. Overtaking isn't a scoring play.

You typed out a bunch of words, but honestly? You didn't actually say anything at all.

Answer these questions for me

Is a race where nobody overtakes basically just a soccer match that ends 0-0?

How many overtakes actually happen in track and field?

How many goals are there in basketball?

What exactly did the world champion win—some specific race or some imaginary one that never even happened?

What even is an overtake?

Can a slower person actually pass a faster one?

If they can't, then what's the actual problem here?

Isn't it a total logical paradox—having the faster guy stuck behind the slower one, only for the slow guy to pull ahead?

And isn't it also a paradox that two different drivers could technically "win" the same imaginary race?

Doesn't the guy doing the passing look worse than the one being passed, just because he let himself get put in a position where he had to pass in the first place?

How many drivers ever overtook Amanda Kelly?

What's today's date—and why does anyone even care?

What kind of questions even are these? 🤣

So you're telling me it makes sense for everyone to just line up at the same time after a red flag, ignoring all the gaps and advantages built up during the race? Like, if Driver B is sitting twenty seconds behind Driver A, he could totally wreck Driver A's entire race by slamming into him, and honestly, twenty seconds is a massive gap to just ignore in this absolute circus.

It’s way more logical to just have them restart in their actual order, keeping those time gaps intact from when the race was halted, so we actually have a legitimate running order on the track.

There is absolutely no way the first option is more logical or fairer than the second.