What is your f1 Golden Era?
Discussion
entropy said:
I do wonder how acceptable "taming a car" would be for the masses and much more appreciated by aficionados whilst watching a parade.
F1 has been dumbed down to suit the masses (DRS, comedy tyres, Safety Cars that aren't always strictly necessary etc.), and it's boring as hell. And if you think that every race in Clark's era was a procession then you've got a lot to learn. Monza 1967 is a good place to start reading. Kaiser_Wull said:
F1 has been dumbed down to suit the masses (DRS, comedy tyres, Safety Cars that aren't always strictly necessary etc.), and it's boring as hell. And if you think that every race in Clark's era was a procession then you've got a lot to learn. Monza 1967 is a good place to start reading.
There were processional races and entertaining ones - the latter I do not dispute.Clark and his contemporaries could dominate a race and make it look processional and arguably worse than recent decades when it was common for a few drivers (and sometimes much less) to finish on the lead lap.
There were boring races in every season, and a couple of good ones in most seasons too. Every era has something good about it, but a few different stick out for me, for different reasons.
The mid-late 80s turbo era with 1000 BHP and big sticky tyres, for seeing drivers pushing cars to their limits.
1994 was as much drama, controversy and tragedy as a season could possibly deliver. I think F1 lost some of it's magic after that, even if for the right reasons. Or maybe it was just my age at the time (16).
The Hakkinen-Schumacher rivalry of 1998 - 2000 was enjoyable. I kind of felt Hakkinen owed us a couple more years, but perhaps he was smart to retire on a (relative) high.
2009 to 2012 were some of the most open and unpredictable seasons I can remember and quite enjoyable.
The mid-late 80s turbo era with 1000 BHP and big sticky tyres, for seeing drivers pushing cars to their limits.
1994 was as much drama, controversy and tragedy as a season could possibly deliver. I think F1 lost some of it's magic after that, even if for the right reasons. Or maybe it was just my age at the time (16).
The Hakkinen-Schumacher rivalry of 1998 - 2000 was enjoyable. I kind of felt Hakkinen owed us a couple more years, but perhaps he was smart to retire on a (relative) high.
2009 to 2012 were some of the most open and unpredictable seasons I can remember and quite enjoyable.
entropy said:
There were processional races and entertaining ones - the latter I do not dispute.
Clark and his contemporaries could dominate a race and make it look processional and arguably worse than recent decades when it was common for a few drivers (and sometimes much less) to finish on the lead lap.
The point I was making was that, even if Clark was romping away at the head of the field, the sheer spectacle of cars dipping under braking, snaking, sliding, wheel spinning, rubber burning, over-revving etc provided a degree of spectacle that is totally lacking today.Clark and his contemporaries could dominate a race and make it look processional and arguably worse than recent decades when it was common for a few drivers (and sometimes much less) to finish on the lead lap.
As I also said earlier, most of us rarely got to see whole races until the late 1970s. Most of our "experience" of watching F1 was through watching filmed reports on programmes like "Wheelbase", documentaries in cinemas like "9 Days in Summer", movies like "Grand Prix" or, very occasionally, coverage of a race as it happened (although often interrupted for a horse race or a football score update).
Because we weren't seeing much of the cars in action, the odd glimpse of Clark or Hill sliding a car out of Casino Square on full opposite lock with wheels spinning and suspension askew, was enough to get the juices flowing.
The first season I really remember taking note of was 1993, Damon's first proper season. I do look back on this and the following few years fondly but I do also remember it wasn't all roses. I seem to remember the 1993 Williams having ABS, traction control, fully auto up shifts (if so desired), active suspension etc etc. Today's cars are dinosaurs in comparison.
I don't remember overtaking being that much more prevalent during that period than latter periods, in fact maybe a fair bit worse though there were some exceptional races, Donnington 93 being my personal highlight.
Think I'm inclined to agree with other and say that for excitement 2007-2012 was probably it for me. Though 2011 wasn't all that!
I don't remember overtaking being that much more prevalent during that period than latter periods, in fact maybe a fair bit worse though there were some exceptional races, Donnington 93 being my personal highlight.
Think I'm inclined to agree with other and say that for excitement 2007-2012 was probably it for me. Though 2011 wasn't all that!
Eric Mc said:
The point I was making was that, even if Clark was romping away at the head of the field, the sheer spectacle of cars dipping under braking, snaking, sliding, wheel spinning, rubber burning, over-revving etc provided a degree of spectacle that is totally lacking today.
Couldn't agree more. The mid 60s was the aesthetic high point for F1. Everything appears in balance, man, machine, danger, glory. So many captivating images from that era.I wasn't around in 1967 but I've keenly followed motor racing for my entire life and spent many happy days watching historic racing of every era around the world. I love everything connected with the history of the sport so I'm not blinkered to the 'good old days'.
BUT I would totally dispute that today's F1 isn't a dramatic spectacle. I would defy anybody to stand on the infield at Monza at the turn-in point for Ascari and not quiver at the drama of the noise and motion. The sheer violence of the top cars through there on a low fuel run is just ludicrous. I mean, it's spell-binding.
Sure, the cars from the 1960s were deeply expressive, but I think it does the sheer performance and capabilities of a modern a massive disservice to dismiss them as unspectacular. They're phenomenal machines in their own right. Oh and if you like expressive machinery, head over to the Antipodes and see a V8 Supercar at close quarters...
And there is some awesome racing out there too. We're so immensely fortune today. We can go to Goodwood and watch drivers like Chris Goodwin slithering around in a McLaren M1B. The weekend before we can be at Monza watching the nearest things to automotive jet fighters doing combat. How fortunate we are - we have all this wonderful historic racing and incredible modern machinery to enjoy too.
On top of that, you could spend a lifetime travelling the globe watching every conceivable kind of motor racing and still not experience it all.
BUT I would totally dispute that today's F1 isn't a dramatic spectacle. I would defy anybody to stand on the infield at Monza at the turn-in point for Ascari and not quiver at the drama of the noise and motion. The sheer violence of the top cars through there on a low fuel run is just ludicrous. I mean, it's spell-binding.
Sure, the cars from the 1960s were deeply expressive, but I think it does the sheer performance and capabilities of a modern a massive disservice to dismiss them as unspectacular. They're phenomenal machines in their own right. Oh and if you like expressive machinery, head over to the Antipodes and see a V8 Supercar at close quarters...
And there is some awesome racing out there too. We're so immensely fortune today. We can go to Goodwood and watch drivers like Chris Goodwin slithering around in a McLaren M1B. The weekend before we can be at Monza watching the nearest things to automotive jet fighters doing combat. How fortunate we are - we have all this wonderful historic racing and incredible modern machinery to enjoy too.
On top of that, you could spend a lifetime travelling the globe watching every conceivable kind of motor racing and still not experience it all.
I agree, Modern F1 cars are spectacular IN THE FLESH. The look and sound awesome - when seen for real. However, they are extremely neutered by TV - which is where most of us get to see them in action.
My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
That is what captivated me by watching films of Jimmy Clark, think it is now on the champions series of videos, incar camera around Oulton and Chrystal Palace. in his Lotus 25. The speed the guy carries on skinny tyres, threading the needle through every coner. Far more suspension movement giving all the impressions of speed and movement, then of course you very quickly notice the trees and lack of guardrails and think, Wow.
Eric Mc said:
I agree, Modern F1 cars are spectacular IN THE FLESH. The look and sound awesome - when seen for real. However, they are extremely neutered by TV - which is where most of us get to see them in action.
My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
Eric Mc said:
The point I was making was that, even if Clark was romping away at the head of the field, the sheer spectacle of cars dipping under braking, snaking, sliding, wheel spinning, rubber burning, over-revving etc provided a degree of spectacle that is totally lacking today.
As I also said earlier, most of us rarely got to see whole races until the late 1970s. Most of our "experience" of watching F1 was through watching filmed reports on programmes like "Wheelbase", documentaries in cinemas like "9 Days in Summer", movies like "Grand Prix" or, very occasionally, coverage of a race as it happened (although often interrupted for a horse race or a football score update).
Because we weren't seeing much of the cars in action, the odd glimpse of Clark or Hill sliding a car out of Casino Square on full opposite lock with wheels spinning and suspension askew, was enough to get the juices flowing.
I would love to see the cars sliding around more - it is what I and us aficionados love to watch but as I repeatedly pointed out is it something the masses ie. the general tv viewer or casual fan would want to see? Is sliding cars going to make up for a procession? As I also said earlier, most of us rarely got to see whole races until the late 1970s. Most of our "experience" of watching F1 was through watching filmed reports on programmes like "Wheelbase", documentaries in cinemas like "9 Days in Summer", movies like "Grand Prix" or, very occasionally, coverage of a race as it happened (although often interrupted for a horse race or a football score update).
Because we weren't seeing much of the cars in action, the odd glimpse of Clark or Hill sliding a car out of Casino Square on full opposite lock with wheels spinning and suspension askew, was enough to get the juices flowing.
Aussie V8s are going strong but NASCAR's numbers are dropping badly for the past few years - both TV and spectating, Indycars can oversteery but still struggling to break into the US general public's conscience.
Eric Mc said:
I agree, Modern F1 cars are spectacular IN THE FLESH. The look and sound awesome - when seen for real. However, they are extremely neutered by TV - which is where most of us get to see them in action.
My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
I take your point, Eric, but motor racing is a live experience. The current breed of cars provides a savage and other-worldly spectacle. My point is that older cars were spectacular on film, TV and even in photographs as well as for real.
The sad point is that TV coverage of older racing was so poor.
I'm probably way out of touch but I spend as much time as humanly possible pursuing my passion travelling around the UK and the rest of the world to watch racing. If sitting in my living room offered even 1% of the pleasure of standing in the rain watching the drivers earning their money then I'd be immensely disappointed.
Racing should always be about the live experience, with TV and magazine coverage there to fill the gaps.
simes43 said:
If you have not seen this 70's video of Depailler in the wet at Montreal, you are
very lucky. Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFDfctC_6M
Fuuuuuuuuuu......! That boy could drive!very lucky. Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFDfctC_6M
I think you are talking about the ideal world Mr Chevron. Most of us petrol heads wouldn`t be looking through the catch fencing at all given the chance to get our backsides into a racing car. Sadly for me , I didn`t have a Father who was interested in motorsport. The first book I read was about Tazio Nuvolari winning the 1935 German GP. That fired a life long enthusiasm, but I couldn`t attend a race until I was under my own power. Then if you can find a woman who understands that cars are the most important thing in life, you stand half a chance!
chevronb37 said:
I take your point, Eric, but motor racing is a live experience. The current breed of cars provides a savage and other-worldly spectacle.
I'm probably way out of touch but I spend as much time as humanly possible pursuing my passion travelling around the UK and the rest of the world to watch racing. If sitting in my living room offered even 1% of the pleasure of standing in the rain watching the drivers earning their money then I'd be immensely disappointed.
Racing should always be about the live experience, with TV and magazine coverage there to fill the gaps.
I'm probably way out of touch but I spend as much time as humanly possible pursuing my passion travelling around the UK and the rest of the world to watch racing. If sitting in my living room offered even 1% of the pleasure of standing in the rain watching the drivers earning their money then I'd be immensely disappointed.
Racing should always be about the live experience, with TV and magazine coverage there to fill the gaps.
simonpeter said:
I think you are talking about the ideal world Mr Chevron. Most of us petrol heads wouldn`t be looking through the catch fencing at all given the chance to get our backsides into a racing car. Sadly for me , I didn`t have a Father who was interested in motorsport. The first book I read was about Tazio Nuvolari winning the 1935 German GP. That fired a life long enthusiasm, but I couldn`t attend a race until I was under my own power. Then if you can find a woman who understands that cars are the most important thing in life, you stand half a chance!
Well if you put it like that...chevronb37 said:
I take your point, Eric, but motor racing is a live experience. The current breed of cars provides a savage and other-worldly spectacle.
I'm probably way out of touch but I spend as much time as humanly possible pursuing my passion travelling around the UK and the rest of the world to watch racing. If sitting in my living room offered even 1% of the pleasure of standing in the rain watching the drivers earning their money then I'd be immensely disappointed.
Racing should always be about the live experience, with TV and magazine coverage there to fill the gaps.
I'm probably way out of touch but I spend as much time as humanly possible pursuing my passion travelling around the UK and the rest of the world to watch racing. If sitting in my living room offered even 1% of the pleasure of standing in the rain watching the drivers earning their money then I'd be immensely disappointed.
Racing should always be about the live experience, with TV and magazine coverage there to fill the gaps.
I'm lucky my father was an enthusiast and took me to my first race when I was three years old. We've been doing the same for the last 27 years. My missus is also a fan so I can pull audacious stunts like summer holidays to Bathurst. I guess that's unusual but that's our passion. Nothing touches that total body sensation of watching an F1 car at close quarters. Any era...it's magical.
V10 era, especially late 90s/early 2000s. I work with them every day and they still amaze and entertain me like nothing else. The are wonderful, pure, SIIC powered things and an absolute pleasure to be around. Early V8 era isn't bad either but it was this point where the rules really started to bite and as soon as KERS became mandatory I lost interest in them.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff