FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[thepitlane]

Just been watching some great clips of Senna and Mansel in the early 90s and while the clips are clearly only a snapshot of the best moves from the time it seemed that back then F1 was much more competitive, in fact I would say it definately was more competitive.

Now is this because of money, budgets etc being smaller and so more teams could afford to be competitive?
What are peoples thoughts on the engines back then? There was obviously less of a gulf in class which meant that it wasn't just 2 or 3 teams pushing for race wins and championships.

With that in mind does anyone think the proposals for a standardised engine has any weight in it whatsoever, combined with the higher rear wing from next season which in theory should make overtaking easier? Or is standardised engines not what F1 is about?

At the end of the day I want to see great races and would love to see more drivers winning races and getting podiums. It would be great if the field had 5 or 6 teams that could, on any given day, win a grand prix. Just not sure I like the sound of a standard engine for all teams though.

[Red Racer]

Have you seen jap prac 2? 18 drivers by a second you blink and there goes 4 cars, but i understand what you mean.
I personally blame the aero, they have made it so if you get close enough behind another car it screws your aero. With new rules theres not to much between with engines, back then you look at last place and it might be a V8 compared to 1st with a V10.
I think that the racing is close but if these cars could give more of a tow which i hope they do next year then there would be alot more passing.

[thepitlane]

Yeah I totally take your point about them being only a second apart and its something I have in fact picked up on. Even Force India are not so far behind Ferrari/McLaren in practice and qualifying, very fine margins.

However in a race situation they're no where near as competitive. I guess its easy (or easier should i say) to put in one good flying lap than do it consistently over 50-60 laps. Maybe it's down to drivers? I guess partly it is but it must be down to more than that. You know if everything goes well McLaren or Ferrari will win the grand prix 9 times out of 10

[f1maniac95]

The aero is a huge factor in the racing we get now because the teams are allowed to put just about anything on their cars.

[McLaren Fan]

With respect, I cannot completely agree with your analysis, thepitlane. For the most part, the 1980s and '90s were decades of dominance by McLaren and Williams. Also, save for some seasons, like 1991, one of those two teams ran away with the titles. Also in those days you had big differences in lap times between the fast cars and slower cars. Sometimes it was as high as six to ten seconds per lap! The money team's spent then was also far less than how much they spend now. Despite all of this, I agree with you that Formula One was more exciting a decade or more ago. There is a number of reasons for this, in my view. The cars were designed differently (wider, more focused on mechanical grip) and were more tricky to drive - so one could see who is and isn't as talented - and this was coupled with circuits that had history, character and which presented a great challenge to some of the circuits today. There was also more room for innovation that what there is now. All of these came together to make for exciting racing: more overtaking, more breathtaking corners etc. Another issue was that drivers were more charismatic in the past. Since Senna died, Formula One has lost a proper character or personality. For the most part, drivers nowadays or boring, robotic and scared of their own shadow. Finally, I'm against the standard engine and believe it will compromise the ethos of Formula One, lead to boring racing, is a knee-jerk reaction and tyrannical proposal from Mosley. It is, however, being talked about on another thread, so you'll find people's thoughts there.

[thepitlane]

Sorry I should perhaps make myself clearer. I never really watched F1 in the early 90's, I started watching it in the mid 90's a year or 2 after Senna died. The 1st season I remember watching and getting hooked on F1 was when Hill won the 96 championship. So I'm in no position to know how close etc it all was......it just seemed that way looking back.

I guess I was asking if it really was that competitive back then (which from what i gather it was-certainly more so than today) or whether people just look back on the past with rose tinted glasses.

[McLaren Fan]

Like I say, I do think things were more exciting. Even if there were races with little overtaking - and, to be frank, Formula One never had a lot of overtaking - things still felt more interesting because it was still exciting to see the cars swooping around some wonderful tracks, like the old Hockenheim, where the cars blasted at 225 mph through the forests etc. There were some boring races back then and some of the problems like affect Formula One today affected the sport back then as well. Political bullpoo has always been an issue in Formula One. Balestre was completely biased for Renault and Prost and was supplanted by Mosley, the stewarding system was still a fiasco, and Ecclestone and Mosley always ganged up on teams who were reluctant to sign the Concorde Agreement again (McLaren, Williams, Tyrell).