FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[zurich_allan]

Thats when racing was racing and not bogged down by the number of manuevers a driver can make to defend their position. Also Senna kept his inertia it seems while Prost and Schumacher did not have the prefered line while attempting to pass thus they lost entry and exit speed. God I miss those days immensely.

Senna was the master at many things and protecting his position without loosing his cool was one of them.

i dont care what label you want to mask it with what senna did in that video is
blocking, everytime prost gets a run he cuts him
up. do you know how hard it is to overtake if the person in front just cuts you off everytime you get a run? too hard, you only need to play f1 2010 to know that. you could be 5 seconds a lap faster but if the car infront aint gonna hive you your rule given right to attempt to pass, you arent getting past in a million years.

I can kind of understand why you think it's blocking - but the simple fact is that it isn't. It's purely 100% due to the onboard cameras without peripheral vision that it looks like that to you. On each of those moves, Senna was on the racing line to turn into the corners in question, and on each of those moves Prost (then Schumacher) were on a tight inside line hoping that Senna would yield. To repeat - Senna was on the racing line in every one of those corners, Prost and Schumacher were not. They were certainly making it difficult for him to turn in and hoping he might not, but clearly they anticipated that he would, as no contact was made. I would be saying exactly the same if it were one of the others on the racing line and Senna tight on the inside, so no bias whatsoever in this one.

Tex - you were too kind with your reply in stating that it was your opinion, because you know as well as I do that what you said wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. I 100% guarantee you that if stewards even today in F1 were watching this, they couldn't find any way to penalise Senna, and in fact if contact were made in any of those corners would be penalising the opposite way to either Prost or Schumacher.

Btw, I too have some experience of racing karts when I was younger, and also as the OP asked for, have been watching F1 for 20+ years.

[FRAFPDD]

Racing is dangerous and comparing that era to our current one is simply......

I thought the OP asked for veterans of F1 opinions and I think my 32yr's of experience might have some weight, guess not since I know nothing about the sport .

In reply to this and the first reply of yours to my post. Yes, and i was reluctant to even reply on this thread i really was, but i looked at it and its like everyone is forgetting the actual question and making excuses to what Senna did, which is awfully telling in my opinion. Having watched the video again i must say i was actually wrong. I was focusing on the car of Senna rather then where it was on the track, and now i see that hes just racing around with Prost trying hard to pass him. So i do apologise. But that doesnt take away the fact that i still know what Senna was like having seen lots now, and i think it was the first move in the video posted was more then choppy. Its still funny how the lynch mob of Schumi wil defend Senna like the demigod he isNT, even though it take sherlock holmes a while to determine who was dirtiest.

[FRAFPDD]

Thats when racing was racing and not bogged down by the number of manuevers a driver can make to defend their position. Also Senna kept his inertia it seems while Prost and Schumacher did not have the prefered line while attempting to pass thus they lost entry and exit speed. God I miss those days immensely.

Senna was the master at many things and protecting his position without loosing his cool was one of them.

i dont care what label you want to mask it with what senna did in that video is
blocking, everytime prost gets a run he cuts him
up. do you know how hard it is to overtake if the person in front just cuts you off everytime you get a run? too hard, you only need to play f1 2010 to know that. you could be 5 seconds a lap faster but if the car infront aint gonna hive you your rule given right to attempt to pass, you arent getting past in a million years.

I can kind of understand why you think it's blocking - but the simple fact is that it isn't. It's purely 100% due to the onboard cameras without peripheral vision that it looks like that to you. On each of those moves, Senna was on the racing line to turn into the corners in question, and on each of those moves Prost (then Schumacher) were on a tight inside line hoping that Senna would yield. To repeat - Senna was on the racing line in every one of those corners, Prost and Schumacher were not. They were certainly making it difficult for him to turn in and hoping he might not, but clearly they anticipated that he would, as no contact was made. I would be saying exactly the same if it were one of the others on the racing line and Senna tight on the inside, so no bias whatsoever in this one.

Tex - you were too kind with your reply in stating that it was your opinion, because you know as well as I do that what you said wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. I 100% guarantee you that if stewards even today in F1 were watching this, they couldn't find any way to penalise Senna, and in fact if contact were made in any of those corners would be penalising the opposite way to either Prost or Schumacher.

Btw, I too have some experience of racing karts when I was younger, and also as the OP asked for, have been watching F1 for 20+ years.

Yeah i admit i was wrong having watched it again, the only fault i can find is the choppy first block on the straight.

That saaaiiidd, your playing a dangerous game implying that stewarding decision is the be all and end all of what is right and wrong in F1, and you did imply it.
Half of what Senna achieved was because he was allowed much more leway then anyone else in what he could do. Drivers on a hot lap would move out the way of him on a hot lap just to not annoy him, Senna built up this reputation himself and wrung it of all its advantages, like smashing drivers off for the title. All of this doesnt mean he wasnt dirty, dirtiest of them all. But not in this video, although the OP only used the video as an example not the only piece of evidence in which to base things on. And i dont by any means myself consider myself a veteran of F1 but there isnt no age restriction in the title and as such if i feel i have half a leg to stand on i will. But i was nonetheless wrong, in my first post that is.

[Hammer278]

Thats when racing was racing and not bogged down by the number of manuevers a driver can make to defend their position. Also Senna kept his inertia it seems while Prost and Schumacher did not have the prefered line while attempting to pass thus they lost entry and exit speed. God I miss those days immensely.

Senna was the master at many things and protecting his position without loosing his cool was one of them.

i dont care what label you want to mask it with what senna did in that video is
blocking, everytime prost gets a run he cuts him
up. do you know how hard it is to overtake if the person in front just cuts you off everytime you get a run? too hard, you only need to play f1 2010 to know that. you could be 5 seconds a lap faster but if the car infront aint gonna hive you your rule given right to attempt to pass, you arent getting past in a million years.

I can kind of understand why you think it's blocking - but the simple fact is that it isn't. It's purely 100% due to the onboard cameras without peripheral vision that it looks like that to you. On each of those moves, Senna was on the racing line to turn into the corners in question, and on each of those moves Prost (then Schumacher) were on a tight inside line hoping that Senna would yield. To repeat - Senna was on the racing line in every one of those corners, Prost and Schumacher were not. They were certainly making it difficult for him to turn in and hoping he might not, but clearly they anticipated that he would, as no contact was made. I would be saying exactly the same if it were one of the others on the racing line and Senna tight on the inside, so no bias whatsoever in this one.

Tex - you were too kind with your reply in stating that it was your opinion, because you know as well as I do that what you said wasn't an opinion, it's a fact. I 100% guarantee you that if stewards even today in F1 were watching this, they couldn't find any way to penalise Senna, and in fact if contact were made in any of those corners would be penalising the opposite way to either Prost or Schumacher.

Btw, I too have some experience of racing karts when I was younger, and also as the OP asked for, have been watching F1 for 20+ years.

Hamilton got a warning in Malaysia for "getting out of the way" of Petrov multiple times....coined as 'dangerous swerving on the straights'. You sure the stewards would be lenient on those blocks by Senna? Todays stewards? I can tell you confidently at 0:41 seconds its a surefire penalty call. Matter of opinion of course but I'm pretty confident Ayrton would be getting a call for a 10 second penalty (no drive thru in those days)

[killem2]

Thanks for the responses I should apologize, I didn't mean to imply only people who watched these races live, I should have known better, I could leave this post go torrent every GP from 1980 and watch it until 2009 if I wanted to, this gathering the same experience.

Keep up the discussion this is awesome.

[FRAFPDD]

Thanks for the responses I should apologize, I didn't mean to imply only people who watched these races live, I should have known better, I could leave this post go torrent every GP from 1980 and watch it until 2009 if I wanted to, this gathering the same experience.

Keep up the discussion this is awesome.

Way i see it is "hindsight is a beautiful thing" the fact that i can only really watch videos and already know the results before watching them means that i can take a much more objective view in my opinion. Those at the time who may have the vast knowledge of being able to see every race, whereas there are some that just cannot be found publicly have the all round knowledge of it, but are subject to nostalgia, and that plays an absolutey IMMEASURABLE part in forming opinion. Its like fighting a winless war if you so much as break a nail of the late great Senna, because hes untimely death did him one of the most dramatically ironic favours ive ever heard of.

A lot of what makes a driver the greatest ever is personal opinion. I hate people that laugh at others or make a jest of them for totally scrapping the textbook answer of Senna was the greatest when they can easily back up their statement with evidence. Im not even going to say the usual dont get me wrong senna was this and that because its so cliche, true as hell, but cliche, that it makes me gag. I dont really need to tell other people Senna could do this and that do i? Sennas legend says that better then i could, especially not being as big a fan of him as others. What is unfortunate that just so much as choosing Prost over Senna gives me an automatic rubberstamped hater of Senna, because its considered ludicrous to support the former. But i always support the person i think is the better racer regardless fo nationalityetc, which is why i support the Senna styled Hamilton over Prost styled Button, despite one being based on my favourite racer ever and both being WDC's.

[TacoMac]

Everyone that posted in this thread was wrong.

The real reason was simply this: It was DANGEROUS.

Back then, the cars weren't half as safe as they are now. There also was no runoff areas at all. The gravel traps weren't half as effective either. Drivers actually drove with some level of fear.

If you watch carefully, it's easy to see Prost backing off every time Senna moves over. Today, that doesn't happen. Today, they just hit each other and put each other out of the race because they're not actually the least bit worried about getting hurt.

The other advantage they have today is that they have so much runoff area, there is PLENTY of room to make mistakes and recover from it. They had to be a lot more carfull back then or they were dead. After all, the tracks were much more narrow, and the only thing at the edge of the white line was grass. That was it. No extra grasscrete runoff, no extra pavement, no safety wall...in most cases, not even a tire wall.

What they've done is make it so safe that nobody has to worry about staying on the track or hitting another car, so you don't see any real overtaking because nobody has any fear because they know they wont get hurt.

Back then, one mistake meant your death. That's why you got some guys that could pass anybody, anywhere at any time and some that couldn't pass a guy with a car that was head and shoulders above his would be victim.

You can mark the end of overtaking with the advent of runoff areas, grasscrete and improved car construction. From that point on, you see 10 times the number of wrecks and off track excursions, but seldom if ever does anyone get so much as a headache over it.

[texasmr2]

Maybe 99.8%.

Your being too generous .

Everyone that posted in this thread was wrong.

I watched it carefully live and standby my opinion but as Hammer278 said I'm only right maybe 99.8% of the time.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Sorry, chaps, but you're all mistaken. The proper answer, in a word, in M-O-N-E-Y.

[youtube]P-M32RrGUEU[/youtube]

Yes, the circuits are safer. Yes, the cars themselves are 1000% safer. But those changes all were driven by the cold, rational cost-benefit realities of operating a half billion Euro racing team. The fact is that some time in the past quarter century, F1 stopped being about the racing and started being about the business.

The first great era of F1 was dominated by the great drivers (Fangio, Ascari, Nuvolari). The second great era of F1 was dominated by the great innovators (Brabham, McLaren, Chapman). We're presently in the third great era of F1, one in which the sport is dominated by the accountants, and accountants are all about limiting risk.

McLaren's 1994 budget was $40 million USD. Even with FOTA's "Resource Restriction Agreement," their 2010 budget reportedly was €220 million, equivalent to $300 million USD. There's been approximately 50% inflation since 1994, making 40 million 1994 dollars worth 60 million today. So adjusted for inflation, McLaren are spending five times as much to race F1 today as they were 17 years ago, RRA and all.

Of course they couldn't spend such cubic cash on a racing program if it weren't for sponsors. Some sponsors are paying as much as $50 million USD per season to see their marque painted on an F1 car. With 24-hour telly, communication satellites and world broadcast rights, sponsors are more willing than ever to pay these enormous sums to advertise in F1.

With so much being spent to field a car, and the sponsors being quite keen not to see "their" car in a smouldering heap of carbonfibre splinters resting against the Armco, it only made sense that the FIA should leverage the racing venues to modify their circuits into foam rubber lined nerf-tracks that would make it impossible for the drivers to hurt themselves.

And for fear of costs spiraling out of control the FIA (nee: His Bernieness) have mandated a great many aspects of the car's design and construction. Since 2006, for instance, engines have been required to be normally aspirated, 2.4 litre, 90-degree V-8s with four valves per cylinder. Materials permitted for engine block, cylinder heads, crankshaft, connecting rods and piston construction already were prescribed by the Technical Regulations.

The FIA's efforts to constrain costs have been largely unsuccessful but they have succeeded at stifling innovation. Innovation is motor racing's version of evolution. Without it the design of all the cars assumes a parallel path. And because success breeds imitation, the parallel paths eventually begin to converge and the cars grow progressively more and more alike. This in turn produces very closely matched cars, so close that, absent some cock-up, overtaking becomes quite difficult.

And piloting survival cell cars on nerf circuits, drivers have virtually no fear of death. Remember Nelsinho Piquet's bespoke Singapore crash?

[youtube]VrEYyEBzEGA[/youtube]

If he had feared injury, could he have performed his pirouette this with such élan?

So I'm afraid F1 is a victim of it's own success. Today's lack of "dicing" like in the video linked to in the OP comes down to F1 taking seriously the task of looking after all those hundreds of millions of Euros they are spending which, often as not, means playing it safe, not racing to win but rather racing not to lose.

[What's Burning?]

The fact is that some time in the past quarter century, F1 stopped being about the racing and started being about the business.

Perhaps around the same time it happened to NASCAR from your previous posts on that topic.

[geetface9]

Sorry, chaps, but you're all mistaken. The proper answer, in a word, in M-O-N-E-Y.

[youtube]P-M32RrGUEU[/youtube]

Yes, the circuits are safer. Yes, the cars themselves are 1000% safer. But those changes all were driven by the cold, rational cost-benefit realities of operating a half billion Euro racing team. The fact is that some time in the past quarter century, F1 stopped being about the racing and started being about the business.

The first great era of F1 was dominated by the great drivers (Fangio, Ascari, Nuvolari). The second great era of F1 was dominated by the great innovators (Brabham, McLaren, Chapman). We're presently in the third great era of F1, one in which the sport is dominated by the accountants, and accountants are all about limiting risk.

McLaren's 1994 budget was $40 million USD. Even with FOTA's "Resource Restriction Agreement," their 2010 budget reportedly was €220 million, equivalent to $300 million USD. There's been approximately 50% inflation since 1994, making 40 million 1994 dollars worth 60 million today. So adjusted for inflation, McLaren are spending five times as much to race F1 today as they were 17 years ago, RRA and all.

Of course they couldn't spend such cubic cash on a racing program if it weren't for sponsors. Some sponsors are paying as much as $50 million USD per season to see their marque painted on an F1 car. With 24-hour telly, communication satellites and world broadcast rights, sponsors are more willing than ever to pay these enormous sums to advertise in F1.

With so much being spent to field a car, and the sponsors being quite keen not to see "their" car in a smouldering heap of carbonfibre splinters resting against the Armco, it only made sense that the FIA should leverage the racing venues to modify their circuits into foam rubber lined nerf-tracks that would make it impossible for the drivers to hurt themselves.

And for fear of costs spiraling out of control the FIA (nee: His Bernieness) have mandated a great many aspects of the car's design and construction. Since 2006, for instance, engines have been required to be normally aspirated, 2.4 litre, 90-degree V-8s with four valves per cylinder. Materials permitted for engine block, cylinder heads, crankshaft, connecting rods and piston construction already were prescribed by the Technical Regulations.

The FIA's efforts to constrain costs have been largely unsuccessful but they have succeeded at stifling innovation. Innovation is motor racing's version of evolution. Without it the design of all the cars assumes a parallel path. And because success breeds imitation, the parallel paths eventually begin to converge and the cars grow progressively more and more alike. This in turn produces very closely matched cars, so close that, absent some cock-up, overtaking becomes quite difficult.

And piloting survival cell cars on nerf circuits, drivers have virtually no fear of death. Remember Nelsinho Piquet's bespoke Singapore crash?

[youtube]VrEYyEBzEGA[/youtube]

If he had feared injury, could he have performed his pirouette this with such élan?

So I'm afraid F1 is a victim of it's own success. Today's lack of "dicing" like in the video linked to in the OP comes down to F1 taking seriously the task of looking after all those hundreds of millions of Euros they are spending which, often as not, means playing it safe, not racing to win but rather racing not to lose.

I know you're mostly right about the money and business aspect of the sport, but I guarantee that's not the whole reason for the safer tracks and cars. With all the praise of the holy Senna on these boards I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have preferred run off areas and tire walls if it would have saved His life. Remember, a fair amount of corpses led to the development of the safer tracks of today. And I'd bet if you asked Massa, Webber, and Kubica if they were afraid of dying when they were struck by car parts, airborne, or spinning about and smashing into walls, I'd bet they'd say they were pretty fearful.

[bigpat]

Great thread!
A lot of different opinions on this, and some valid points.

I have a long standing opinion on this, based upon rule changes to the cars themselves, which I feel plays THE biggest part of the equation.

In my opinion, starting with changing to narrower rears tyres in 93, followed by the changes since Imola 94, have all worked to make the cars rely more and more reliant on the front & rear wings and topside appendages for grip, reducing the ability to overtake.

I the '80's & '90's F1 cars had the flat floors and BIG diffusers. The majority of their aero grip came from the floor, rather than the wings alone. Like under car tunnels in Indy Cars, flat floors are far more tolerant of following a car ahead, and less affected than wings by the turbulent air that results.
The large slick tyres also endeared these cars with a great amount of mechanical grip, which also helped cars race in close quarters to one another.

The rule changes post '94, have all resulted in reducing the amount of downforce produced under the car, and making them more reliant on wings. Reducing the effectiveness of the floor, with the stepped plane, smaller diffusers, & wing sizes etc have only made the wings themselves even more critical, which results in a dramatic loss in downforce when cars are close together on track. Last year we saw how critical the wings are. We all saw what a difference in speed is possible when stalling less than 15% of the rear wing with the F-duct......

Tyre wise, the development of radial ply tyres have resulted in much higher grip levels, but much less tolerant to sliding. Radials work at much smaller slip angles than old early 80's cross ply tyres, which is why we saw the awesome footage and pics of these old cars being able to be driven sideways.
Radials give greater ultimate grip, but the smaller slip angle range, results in peakier grip window. Over step the slip angle, and the grip level drops off quickly, which means you effectively can't slide the tyre . This plays out as the understeer the cars experience when close together on track.

What to do?
Although politically frowned upon, I believe we should go back to a flat floor, with a muted version of tunnels. Now you have a much more consistent level of aero grip, and more tolerant of disturbed air. This would allow a drastic reduction in size and effectiveness of wings. I believe IndyCar had it right, mandating the shape of the wings themselves. I still believe we should wings, for aesthetics and for the sponsors sakes. Aerodynamically, I believe this will alleviate a lot of the aero issues present.

Tyre wise, I can't see a return to cross plies, they are dead and buried. I don't know enough about the science of tyre construction to say what the solution is there, suffice to say I believe that something can be done to make the cars more benign to drive.

Driver wise, I don't believe todays drivers in talent, are any better or worse than drivers of different eras. You can only be as good as the cars you given. Saying that, I believe that overtaking is harder now that 20 years or more ago. It is always easier to drive a low grip car at the limit than a high grip car. Everything happens slower, and the sliding gives you leeway in car control. Everything happens so much faster now, without doubt, as the cars need to be driven with more precision.

I understand why the rulemakers have put all these rules in, as I believe today's drivers are more ruthless than in years gone by. What Senna did to Prost at Suzuka in 1990 was deplorable, but no one had seen that level of single mindedness before. But he and Michael Schumacher both took aggression to a higher level than what was the norm at the time. Schumacher re-wrote win at all costs, when he rammed Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in '97. Funnily Jenson Button said he saw nothing wrong with it....It came full circle for Schumacher though. When Alonso went around the outside of him of 130R at Suzuka 2005, I think he saw the fearlessness of the new breed. Fast forward, 3 years, and Schumacher is getting absolutely carved up by young guns, who have a ruthlessness bred into them from karts, all the way up the junior categories......

Sorry about the essay peoples, but just wanted to put my opinion across!

[texasmr2]

The 'carving' as you put it is 99.99% the car, strictly my opinion of course .

[SuperAguriUK]

Thats what is what like back then yes i agree with you but now there are too many "laws" stopping drivers of today doing so.
Like the rule states "You can only block once then you must hold that position until 200m before the next turn".

[bigpat]

I actually believe it is a change in mentality of the drivers. You need to put some laws in place, as if not, there would be some MONUMENTAL crashes, Webber's one at Valencia being a possible outcome.

Most of the younger drivers grew up watching Schuey on TV. The "If that's what it takes to him, well I'll do the same", sort of attitude. Reputations mean nothing to them. There is absolutely no fear, partly driven by the pressure to perform, and be seen as a racer. It does your value no harm at all if you can go wheel to wheel with Schuey, and come out on top.

An example of the mentality comes from a former race engineer with whom I worked alongside a few years back.

He worked for Helmet Marko's F3000 team in 96 & 97 when Montoya drove for them......

Quite often Montoya and some crew would drive to and from races together. Quite often, they would cross bridges not quite 2 cars wide. Normally one car pulls across at the start of the bridge, and signals the car at the other end to cross. At these, JPM, would just drive onto the bridge at speed, even with an oncoming vehicle. asked if the was enough room for 2 cars, his response was (no lie), " Don't worry, he's got a family, he'll move over...." Needless to say, a few wing mirrors were lost during the season......

That's the sort of mentality I'm talking about.....