Formula 1

[birchesgreen]

I do remember that era, what made it more interesting was that cars were much less reliable. So a dominant car (as you have always have had in F1) would break down every now and then which opened things up a lot more. Now you have the dominant Mercedes and any technical issues are very rare.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Seems so much more entertaining that it is at the minute.

30 years on you forget the duff races. And there were plenty, even then. It always sounds more exciting when you talk about, say, the 1989 Japanese GP rather than, say, the 1989 San Marino Grand Prix where Senna lapped everyone apart from Prost. Don't believe the rose-tinted hype.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

30 years on you forget the duff races. And there were plenty, even then. It always sounds more exciting when you talk about, say, the 1989 Japanese GP rather than, say, the 1989 San Marino Grand Prix where Senna lapped everyone apart from Prost. Don't believe the rose-tinted hype.

Thankyou for the insight. I guess your probably very much right about nostalgia talking and making races seems much more entertaining than they are now.

Another question, who do you think was better out of Prost and Senna. I new who Senna was but never heard of Prost until the other week, yet looking at him as a driver and his record, it seems like he can make a strong case for being as good as Senna, if not even better?

I do remember that era, what made it more interesting was that cars were much less reliable. So a dominant car (as you have always have had in F1) would break down every now and then which opened things up a lot more. Now you have the dominant Mercedes and any technical issues are very rare.

That is one thing I notice with the current Mercedes, it never seems to have mechanical issues.

 

[birchesgreen]

Another question, who do you think was better out of Prost and Senna. I new who Senna was but never heard of Prost until the other week, yet looking at him as a driver and his record, it seems like he can make a strong case for being as good as Senna, if not even better?

Senna was the better driver but Prost was very good too, but Prost was better at managing a race.

 

[Domh245]

So a dominant car (as you have always have had in F1) would break down every now and then which opened things up a lot more. Now you have the dominant Mercedes and any technical issues are very rare.

The statistically most dominant car ever was the MP4/4 winning all bar one race that it entered, with 4 DNFs (2 technical) and 1 DSQ - not that dissimilar to the Mercedes in some recent seasons. I suppose the prost/senna battle made it slightly more entertaining than it would otherwise have seemed (a bit like 2014-16 where it was a generally close fight between Lewis & Nico)

That is one thing I notice with the current Mercedes, it never seems to have mechanical issues.

The Mercedes team are insanely good. The last couple of years Ferrari arguably had a faster car but kept losing to Mercedes because they weren't as good a team. They're a team who in their 6th year of dominance still strive to keep improving, and on the rare occasion they make a mistake they make sure they learn from it

 

[birchesgreen]

The statistically most dominant car ever was the MP4/4 winning all bar one race that it entered, with 4 DNFs (2 technical) and 1 DSQ - not that dissimilar to the Mercedes in some recent seasons. I suppose the prost/senna battle made it slightly more entertaining than it would otherwise have seemed (a bit like 2014-16 where it was a generally close fight between Lewis & Nico)

Yes i know it has happened before, the Williams too at times, though i don't recall a dominant era of a rock solid reliable car as long as the Mercedes team has enjoyed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Another question, who do you think was better out of Prost and Senna.

I'd say Prost. Senna got the headlines when he went and beat everyone by a minute, but Prost was more canny and never tried to beat everyone by a minute. Niki Lauda always said that the aim was to win at the slowest speed possible and, in 1984, Lauda won the title by 0.5 points from Prost. Prost learned that lesson and made sure it didn't happen again. Prost was there in 86 when Williams spaffed the title away and even in 88, widely regarded as Senna's best title, Prost outscored Senna (back then you could drop your three lowest scores, which cost Prost more points than Senna).

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I'd say Prost. Senna got the headlines when he went and beat everyone by a minute, but Prost was more canny and never tried to beat everyone by a minute. Niki Lauda always said that the aim was to win at the slowest speed possible and, in 1984, Lauda won the title by 0.5 points from Prost. Prost learned that lesson and made sure it didn't happen again. Prost was there in 86 when Williams spaffed the title away and even in 88, widely regarded as Senna's best title, Prost outscored Senna (back then you could drop your three lowest scores, which cost Prost more points than Senna).

Out of the greatest drivers Prost seems to be the most underrated. Plus in regards to Senna I watched the video of when he crashed Prost off the track winning himself the title at the expense of Prost, and I have to admit I have no clue as to how he didn't get penalised for it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The statistically most dominant car ever was the MP4/4 winning all bar one race that it entered

It's a shame we'll never know if the 1992 Williams FW14B could have matched it, as Mansell clearly checked out after Italy when it became public knowledge that Frank Williams had royally shafted him.

 

[greatvoyager]

Senna was the better driver but Prost was very good too, but Prost was better at managing a race.

I would agree with that.

 

[Howardh]

As someone who is only just getting into Formula 1, I have been reading about past world champions in Formula 1 and looking at it it seems like the late 80's and 90's were the most exciting time to be a formula 1 fan. You got to watch the greatest drivers ever being Prost, Senna and Schumacher battle it out plust some unexcted wins such as Villeneuve and Damon Hill. Seems so much more entertaining that it is at the minute.

These days races are won in the pits, IMO there's way too much technology involved. Problems with the car are registered and fixed and the car doesn't even have to box. To me the best racing was in the 70's and 80's when it was driver, car and you'r virtually on your own. The perfect mix would be that excitement + today's safety.

 

[greatvoyager]

These days races are won in the pits, IMO there's way too much technology involved. Problems with the car are registered and fixed and the car doesn't even have to box. To me the best racing was in the 70's and 80's when it was driver, car and you'r virtually on your own. The perfect mix would be that excitement + today's safety.

I think technology is taking away from the show too.

 

[gswindale]

Was just thinking about Damon Hill. Could have been a triple champion had it not been for the cheating M Schumacher and if Williams had retained his services for 97.

 

[greatvoyager]

Was just thinking about Damon Hill. Could have been a triple champion had it not been for the cheating M Schumacher and if Williams had retained his services for 97.

Also, if the current points system had always been in place, there could’ve been many differences in who became world champion in each season.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Was just thinking about Damon Hill. Could have been a triple champion had it not been for the cheating M Schumacher and if Williams had retained his services for 97.

Also, if the current points system had always been in place, there could’ve been many differences in who became world champion in each season.

I read somewhere that Prost could have been an 8 time world champion if the modern point scoring method was used back then.

 

[greatvoyager]

I read somewhere that Prost could have been an 8 time world champion if the modern point scoring method was used back then.

I read that too, apparently Eddie Irvine would’ve been 1999 champion with the current system.

 

[najaB]

These days races are won in the pits, IMO there's way too much technology involved.

I think technology is taking away from the show too.

For the contrary viewpoint the fact that there's a whole team involved makes it more interesting to me.

 

[AM9]

I read somewhere that Prost could have been an 8 time world champion if the modern point scoring method was used back then.

It's pointless saying that there would have been a different outcome if current rules were applied to the racing results in seasons decades ago. The teams, cars, drivers and races would have been run in a way to maximise the points then. The only difference would be the availability of certain safety and advanced technology measures such as head restraint and some of the telematics.
The pure driving skills that the likes of Senna, Prost and Hamilton* have demostrated would put them at the head of the field, but even those skills would have been (and are) applied to get the best frome contemporary rules.

* In the opinion of many experts in the racing world, (e.g. Lauda), Hamilton's skill ranks with the best in F1 history, and his style in many ways not unlike Senna's. There is every reason to believe that he would be amongst peers (if were it possible), in a competitive race against them, and the reliability of his current car is helpful, but no substitute for that skill.

 

[greatvoyager]

For the contrary viewpoint the fact that there's a whole team involved makes it more interesting to me.

I agree about team involvement, but I think some of the technology, such as DRS, makes the racing a bit artificial.

 

[najaB]

I agree about team involvement, but I think some of the technology, such as DRS, makes the racing a bit artificial.

Well, DRS is a fix for the problems caused by too much aerodynamic downforce. It will be eliminated with the move back to ground effect from 2022 onwards.

 

[greatvoyager]

Well, DRS is a fix for the problems caused by too much aerodynamic downforce. It will be eliminated with the move back to ground effect from 2022 onwards.

I hope so.

 

[najaB]

I hope so.

The 2021 technical regulations include provision for DRS but the rear wing design is much simpler so it's not likely to provide nearly as much of a 'boost' as it does now. In fact, most of the reviewers I've listened to think it's only been included as a "just in case" and most tracks won't include DRS zones from 2022 onwards.

 

[Geezertronic]

The Mercedes team are insanely good. The last couple of years Ferrari arguably had a faster car but kept losing to Mercedes because they weren't as good a team. They're a team who in their 6th year of dominance still strive to keep improving, and on the rare occasion they make a mistake they make sure they learn from it

I wouldn't say "insanely good" but they are very good indeed.

Little things let them down primarily their tyre wear as shown during the British Grand Prix where an easy 1-2 became a 1-11 only because of the late pitstop tactics from Red Bull which meant Verstappen could not take advantage of Hamilton driving over 1/2 a lap on three tyres. Also the next weekend at the same circuit but softer tyres showed that even though they got a 2-3 they are still vulnerable because of their excessive tyre wear compared to other teams

 

[LOL The Irony]

I have to admit I have no clue as to how he didn't get penalised for it.

Because Balestre knowingly screwed him out of the title the year so had to eat humble pie. That or Senna blagged his way out of it.

Senna was the better driver but Prost was very good too, but Prost was better at managing a race.

Agreed.

Was just thinking about Damon Hill.

I read that too, apparently Eddie Irvine would’ve been 1999 champion with the current system.

Damid Hill & Middie Irvine. Damid can join Crapes Villeneuve as drivers who somehow won a championship, although they differ in that Damon isn't a fraud.

Could have been a triple champion had it not been for the cheating M Schumacher and if Williams had retained his services for 97.

The Michael certainly knew how to bend the rules at times.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Was just thinking about Damon Hill. Could have been a triple champion had it not been for the cheating M Schumacher and if Williams had retained his services for 97.

Schumacher should have had an immediate disqualification for his deliberate ramming of Hill off the track.

 

[greatvoyager]

I wouldn't say "insanely good" but they are very good indeed.

Little things let them down primarily their tyre wear as shown during the British Grand Prix where an easy 1-2 became a 1-11 only because of the late pitstop tactics from Red Bull which meant Verstappen could not take advantage of Hamilton driving over 1/2 a lap on three tyres. Also the next weekend at the same circuit but softer tyres showed that even though they got a 2-3 they are still vulnerable because of their excessive tyre wear compared to other teams

Definitely - Mercedes are not always 100%.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Schumacher should have had an immediate disqualification for his deliberate ramming of Hill off the track.

At least Schumacher got his karma moment when he tried and failed to crash Villneuve of the track in 1997 and ended up only causing himself to not finish the race.

 

[greatvoyager]

The 2021 technical regulations include provision for DRS but the rear wing design is much simpler so it's not likely to provide nearly as much of a 'boost' as it does now. In fact, most of the reviewers I've listened to think it's only been included as a "just in case" and most tracks won't include DRS zones from 2022 onwards.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

 

[Tetchytyke]

differ in that Damon isn't a fraud.

I don't think you can fairly call a multiple IndyCar champion and an F1 world champion a "fraud", regardless of what you think of him as a person.

Jacques is a bit of a pillock but so was his dad, really.

Because Balestre knowingly screwed him out of the title the year so had to eat humble pie. That or Senna blagged his way out of it.

Different rules back then. Nowadays Senna would have been disqualified in 89 for having marshalls' assistance in getting going again. And nobody had really deliberately and blatantly did what Senna did in 90 before, so they didn't react well. Jackie Stewart, who interviewed him after the race, was not impressed with Senna's BS quote about "going for a gap".

But having let Senna away in 90, it led to Schumacher getting away with it in 94 too. It would have been interesting to see if he'd have got away with it in 97 if it had worked, but because it didn't work it was easier to give him a nothing punishment. By then he was a known cheat though, his ex-teammate Brundle calling it as a cheat in commentary in the race ("that didn't work Michael, you hit the wrong bit of him my friend!")

These days races are won in the pits, IMO there's way too much technology involved.

Races have been won in the pits for at least the last 25 years, it's nothing new. It's better than it was 94-08 when we had refuelling. But strategy has always been important in F1, even in the 80s with the monster turbos strategy was important in making sure the engine didn't explode or run out of petrol.

As for technology, the modern cars don't have ABS or traction control. In terms of driver aids, the 93 Williams was probably more advanced.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't think you can fairly call a multiple IndyCar champion and an F1 world champion a "fraud", regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And instantly went to pot after winning his F1 title. So if he's not a fraud, he's a fluke. Remember when he bigged himself up to Jenson, got outscored (reminder Jenson missed Monaco due to his quali shunt) and was booted out of BAR before the final race?

Different rules back then. Nowadays Senna would have been disqualified in 89 for having marshalls' assistance in getting going again.

Cars nowadays also have anti-stall, so no need for marshals' assistance.