Best era of F1 ?

After its fourth season, 1984, I became a rather casual observer of the FIA Formula 1 World Champonship, not really caring or very much interested in what happened after that, the antics of, among others, Senna da Silva and Ecclestone putting paid to any sense of -- in even the loosest use of the word -- enthusiasm for the series. The only time -- thanks to my son -- that I paid any attention after the 1984 season was while Damon Hill was around.

I really think that after taking a step or two back, there probably is no "best era of F1," there being no end of minuses to offset any pluses one might toss into the fray. There has always been a degree of rot in either of the championships, whether from 1950-1980 or 1981 to the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Capps

I really think that after taking a step or two back, there probably is no "best era of F1," there being no end of minuses to offset any pluses one might toss into the fray.

---

That pretty much reflects my view, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Well, when Senna joined McLaren his team mate was a double world champion with McLaren already. Didn't stop him from challenging him and neither did it stop McLaren from allowing him to do so. So why shouldn't Lewis have been allowed to in 2007. McLaren never had a #1/#2 hierarchy.

---

The difference is that when Senna joined McLaren he had four GP seasons and six GP wins behind him while Hamilton was making his F1 debut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger

If we are looking at the depth of driving talent of the entire field, 2012 was just about as good as it gets.

---

I am not really sure about it if we are really talking about the whole field. By 2012 we already had had an influx of paydrivers and there was a significant discomfort that several good/better drivers had been pushed aside due to funding issues.

However, let's take a look at, say, 2007, which IMO is one of the best seasons in driver depth. The "worst" driver on the grid was perhaps Albers and even he wasn't particularly embarrassing. Just your solid backmarker driver, who wasn't going to amount for much more, aka Firman, Bruni, di Grassi, Monteiro and others. I don't remember any paydrivers that year. Perhaps Sutil and Albers brought something to Spyker, but basically all the drivers on the grid were there on merit. However, most of the grid consisted of drivers, who you wouldn't be embarrassed to have in a top team at least as a #2 driver.

That was the depth I felt in 2007. In 2012 I didn't feel such depth across the whole field any more to be honest.

I don't think any era is "better" than another, just different, so perhaps the question should have been "What is your favourite era of Formula?"
Mine was the [first] turbo era, which is when I started watching Formula 1 (in the mid-1980s). The cars were tricky to drive, with horrendous turbo lag, but they were impressive machines in race trim (not to mention qualifying trim, where they were allowed special qualifying engines and fuel.)
I wonder how next season's turbo cars will compare? I'm looking forward to seeing them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corvettian

I don't think any era is "better" than another, just different, so perhaps the question should have been "What is your favourite era of Formula?"
Mine was the [first] turbo era, which is when I started watching Formula 1 (in the mid-1980s). The cars were tricky to drive, with horrendous turbo lag, but they were impressive machines in race trim (not to mention qualifying trim, where they were allowed special qualifying engines and fuel.)
I wonder how next season's turbo cars will compare? I'm looking forward to seeing them!

---

Great Post.

I agree with the fact that no Era is better or worse really.

Mostly it depends when you start watching the sport. i.e you have the fondest memories of mid 80s.

I am the same start watching in early mid 90s. So 93-98 for example have special memories for me.

Someone who starts watching in 2005 will look back in 10 years and remember fondly.


I too cant wait to see these new Turbo cars, but I dont think it will be the same as the 80s.

I think the current era, from around the time of the rise of Alonso until now, is the greatest.

Why?

1. It's still on ;p

2. The rise of child prodigy drivers: Alonso, Raikkonen, Hamilton, and Vettel.

3. Strict technical regulations suddenly result in a more egalitarian playing field: everyone can have one of three championship winning engines at a relatively reasonable price (by historic standards) and chassis regulations leave very little room for leapfrogging each other. The top teams still win most of the time, but the delta is now much smaller. Gone are the times when the leading car could regularly lap cars 6,5,4, etc.

Yup, I'm not sure I think there's a best or worst era either.

But as with many others, I go for my first years (late 90s/early 00s). Because back then, drivers and cars actually retired from races. Even with the top 6 points Caterham or Marussia could have grabbed a point or 2 maybe.

Also, when mistakes were made, you were in the gravel and your race was over there and then. It was around 2001 when all the tarmac run-offs started.

For me it was definitely the 80's and very early 90's. Great drivers, great rivalries, powerful cars that sounded awesome, lots of aggression, off track antics that were a great sideshow, the list goes on and on. Currently F1 is not too bad from 2000 onwards, but those earlier years were "fan bloody tastic"!

Mid 70's to mid 80's when there was plenty of innovation and designers weren't handcuffed by stupidly restrictive design limitations. Just think about some of the things in that 10+ years. Six wheels, ground effects, turbo charged monsters etc.

Anfield, that was the era I grew up with, so it will always be a favourite of mine.

Which brings me to my Philosophical Thought of the Day.

The best eras are the one you grew up with, and the present.

Anything else will just leave you disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parabolica

Which brings me to my Philosophical Thought of the Day.

---

Easy now, it's Friday, don't stress your brain too much there :p: ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parabolica

Anfield, that was the era I grew up with, so it will always be a favourite of mine.

Which brings me to my Philosophical Thought of the Day.

The best eras are the one you grew up with, and the present.

Anything else will just leave you disappointed.

---

Part 1 I agree with. It seems everyone loved the era they first watched. For me the mid 90s until the mid 00's. Despite Schumi Dominance.

However I feel the currant years have not enthralled me as much. The present F1 leaves me slightly cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parabolica

Anfield, that was the era I grew up with, so it will always be a favourite of mine.

Which brings me to my Philosophical Thought of the Day.

The best eras are the one you grew up with, and the present.

Anything else will just leave you disappointed.

---

Part 1 I agree with. It seems everyone loved the era they first watched. For me the mid 90s until the mid 00's. Despite Schumi Dominance.

However I feel the currant years have not enthralled me as much. The present F1 leaves me slightly cold.

---

I go along with this. The era when you were, say, 12 to 15 when you were old enough to understand what was happening but still young enough to find it all enthralling.
And I find the current F1 so artificial and contrived.
Which is how I ended up hosting the History Forum. ;)

but it can happens that some of us, after gaining a Motor Racing culture, will see that the best era wasn't when they discovered F1.

For me, the best era can't be other than the 1963 / 1970 ... and I was too young to have an interest in Motor Racing, and there was no TV or radio coverages, only mags that I discovered after .

Followed F1 the year Emerson Fittipaldi won his first WC and what happened since 1972 until 1993 .... but nevertheless Jim Clark era rules !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parabolica

Anfield, that was the era I grew up with, so it will always be a favourite of mine.

Which brings me to my Philosophical Thought of the Day.

The best eras are the one you grew up with, and the present.

Anything else will just leave you disappointed.

---

You are undoubtedly quite correct.

That's my quota for this decade used up right there, then!

I've found every era of F1 that I have known to be riveting. There are always things that could be better, but I love F1 unconditionally.

Of course, unconditional love was better in my day.

It could leave its front door open, too.

My problem with modern F1 is that the rules are too restrictive and designers are all in effect turning out facsimilies of each others cars. I have always thought F1 is the top of the tree where single seat circuit racing is concerned. This being true it is logical to assume the best designers and engineers populate the brainy side of the garage. Under today's draconian rules they are not being allowed to innovate. It would be like mandating when to apply the brakes, when to change gears and how much throttle percentage drivers can use.

Champcars just before it's death went down this path, by telling all drivers when they had to make pit stops i.e. in a 60 lap race they WOULD stop on lap 20 and lap 40, effectivly doing away with a driver's race craft and strategy, it made the racing absolutely pathetic and the series thankfully died and was consumed by the IRL.

In the 70's/80's the design rules were less draconian, designers had plenty of room to move and tiny little teams like Tyrrell could come up with a car that was different to the big teams, and could win races and championships. Todays rules kind of remind me of a modern housing estate where every house looks the same. Think of the song called 'Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds (look up the lyrics)

It's not just the restrictive rules. It's the total artificiality of it all. It's no longer a competition, it's now a show. And to provide a 'show' they stifle innovation as they don't want somebody running away from the field the way, for example, the Lotus 78 and 79 did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

It's not just the restrictive rules. It's the total artificiality of it all. It's no longer a competition, it's now a show. And to provide a 'show' they stifle innovation as they don't want somebody running away from the field the way, for example, the Lotus 78 and 79 did.

---

With respect, it is clearly still a competition.

One that Red Bull are running away with.

If it wasn't a competition, and a high-quality one at that, then there would not be the difficulty to beat red Bull that, evidently, there is.

There aren't the headline-grabbing, turn-the-world-on-its-head innovations of yesteryear, but the technical developments in areas like exhaust-blown-diffusers are, for me, just as fascinating.

Off-throttle-blown-diffusers are, I feel, something Colin Chapman would be impressed by.

There is innovation. The rules prevent a left-field game-changer arriving, I completely accept, and that is something that I too regret. I don't let it ruin my interest in the technical revolutions that still take place, albeit more subtle ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parabolica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

It's not just the restrictive rules. It's the total artificiality of it all. It's no longer a competition, it's now a show. And to provide a 'show' they stifle innovation as they don't want somebody running away from the field the way, for example, the Lotus 78 and 79 did.

---

With respect, it is clearly still a competition.

One that Red Bull are running away with.

If it wasn't a competition, and a high-quality one at that, then there would not be the difficulty to beat red Bull that, evidently, there is.

There aren't the headline-grabbing, turn-the-world-on-its-head innovations of yesteryear, but the technical developments in areas like exhaust-blown-diffusers are, for me, just as fascinating.

Off-throttle-blown-diffusers are, I feel, something Colin Chapman would be impressed by.

There is innovation. The rules prevent a left-field game-changer arriving, I completely accept, and that is something that I too regret. I don't let it ruin my interest in the technical revolutions that still take place, albeit more subtle ones.

---

Again you are correct. But it is always the big teams with the cash that seem to find these little tweeks because thay can afford to look, the small terams are too concerned with merely creating a version of this seasons little box that is consumong all of thier budget and expertise. There is no way a small team like Caterham could possibly divert resource into researching blown diffusers for example. So it is a case of the rich get richer.

The current crop of designers and engineers are in some ways far better than any that have gone before, it is a crying shame that their talents are being squandered on trying to find small gains in loopholes, rather than being allowed to design.

Wasn't it always the case that the bigger teams were more likely to innovate? Lotus were not exactly minnows when the monocoque chassis was debuted, and were top-flight by the era of the 79. Brabhams fancar was not knocked up in a shed, either. The back of the grid in every era was made up of teams and cars which were anything but revolutionary.

Of course, I agree with you that the current rules are not conducive to overt innovation, but I always try to find the silver linings and don't worry about the black cloud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

It's not just the restrictive rules. It's the total artificiality of it all. It's no longer a competition, it's now a show. And to provide a 'show' they stifle innovation as they don't want somebody running away from the field the way, for example, the Lotus 78 and 79 did.

---

Spot on D Type.

"Show" pushes me over the edge. :bomb:

Oh all so recent.
This question appeared elsewhere and I suggested (and many agreed) that, from a UK point of view, it had to be 1958.
A dominant multiple World Champion had (effectively) retired and the mantle passes to UK drivers. Any one of 4 of those could easily have inherited the crown. The one who did was not the most expected one. Two competitive makes. Two others not so far behind. Crucially, the final dominance of "real" cars with the engine at the front - albeit with clear signs of impending change to that. Scarred by multiple tragedies within and immediately after the season. You couldn't get away with writing a film script to cover that - they considered it and dropped it (and now we have 1976, the next least believable year, at the movies...)

I love looking back at those eras' but as I was only born in 1986 and have only watched F1 since early 90s I don't know enough about that time.

However I stick to the mantra that F1 is good no matter what era its in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

I love looking back at those eras' but as I was only born in 1986 and have only watched F1 since early 90s I don't know enough about that time.

However I stick to the mantra that F1 is good no matter what era its in.

---

I tend to agree with you. I enjoy the current era, but there was certainly more excitement back in the 80's than we get today.

It's like our local saloon car racing (like your touring cars). In the 80's and 90's we had great racing with door to door action, bumps aplenty, trackside skirmishes that were fantastic and racers that even woman recognised.

While the current racing is good now, I prefer the early days when there was far more action and often the fastest way round the track was to get the back end out in most corners :)

Personally, since I've been aware of fully aware of F1, it's been from the 89 Australian GP (first one I can recall watching), til the end of the 93 season (Australian GP). Looking back, I feel that 93 was the last "real" year of F1. It's not that the racing was more entertaining or anything, but that 93 was the last year of "real" F1 cars. The regulations introduced for 94 (and subsequent) were, in retrospect, farcical. Since then, I think the regs have slowly eroded the "authenticity" of a proper F1 car, even though the performance has increased out of sight. The introduction of mandatory fuel stops was comical and unnecessary. Even though they've gotten rid of that, the marshmallow tyres introduced since then is an attempt to appease fans, for whom mandatory stops have become the norm. It isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M Needforspeed

but it can happens that some of us, after gaining a Motor Racing culture, will see that the best era wasn't when they discovered F1.

.... but nevertheless Jim Clark era rules !

---

Yeah, I agree on both counts.

With regards to my following the sport (1978 - mid 1990's mostly). At least from the mid-1980's and back I got to watch the races performed on decent (and beautiful) circuits: Zandvoort, Brands Hatch, Paul Richard, Hockenheim, Osterreichring to name a few. Back then the trackside-sponsorship-overload didn't appear as bad. Not to mention some of the soap-opera-drama (tabloid porn) that played out between drivers, wasn't as apparent like it is now, which became increasingly common the last 25 years. That is probably due to the increase coverage of the sport since those bygone days.

Oddly enough, after Clark passed on, sponsorship starting taking a bigger role in the GP/F1 fraternity.

There are definetly times I wish I was born earlier to observe and appreciate the birth of the rear-engine era and onwards to the late 1980's.

It's all been good but the era with Hill, Stewart, Rindt, Fittipaldi was when I was growing up, so from a nostalgic standpoint I've got to go with that. The stars were bigger than life and the cars were very interesting, if not very safe. It was a tragic era, but watching the safety crusade unfold was most interesting and I have to give Jackie Stewart his due for making it a better sport.

Yeah I don't have a problem with the increase with safety other than the over abundance of chicanes. Though I could see the instance where the original SPA needed to be put down. With telephone poles, houses, wire fences (think Bristow 60') and 20 foot drop-offs (think Bonnier 66') decorated along the roadway.

Back in 67', pole sitter Jim Clark even complained about blurred vision while engaging the Masta Kink, initially thinking it was suspension troubles. Needless to say, it was not a good location to encounter such an experience.

It's no wonder Stewart's safety campaign began there.

My hat is off to anyone who drove on it, much less went fast enough to qualify for the event back then. Only to look forward to another 28 laps or so.

Every era has a unique feel to it that makes it special. It is hard to quantify or even compare.

But I don't feel the 2010s are "special" in any way any more... Maybe getting old.:p: Or need to re-evaluate in 10-20 years time.

Now that would be scary; to re-evaluate 10 or so years later and find out these were better racing days. Not far fetched though, as I found myself doing just that with the 2000s, during the Schumula Won era. Never thought I'd say that though.

Maybe if Bernie goes... ehh, nevermind, that's too big of a 'maybe' to hope for.

The 3.5l era is the peak evolutionary period of F1 so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Every era has a unique feel to it that makes it special. It is hard to quantify or even compare.

But I don't feel the 2010s are "special" in any way any more... Maybe getting old.:p: Or need to re-evaluate in 10-20 years time.

---

You haven't discovered America here. I think a lot of people probably feel the same. While still worth watching, four years of Red Bull and Vettel domination, followed by at least two years of Mercedes domination, where 2014 was the only year Rosberg could possibly challenge Hamilton, doesn't strike me as a great era. The 00s were a fine era, as well as 90s, and 80s. Regardless what which era or decade was the greatest, the current one is certainly isn't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman racer

The 3.5l era is the peak evolutionary period of F1 so far.

---

It's not clear to me what you mean here. Peak of the evolution of what? Engine displacement, speed, power, or the competition?

Personally, when I think about the 3.5L engine era, I can't stop thinking about the disappointing years of one-car dominance, major scandals, or Senna's death. Let's go back to some facts: the 1989, 1990, and 1994 season championships ended with championship deciding collisions, at least two of those clearly premeditated. 1994 was mired with well documented cheating allegations against Benetton. Senna also died early in 1994. 1992 and 1993 were one-car domination seasons, easily won by Williams-Renault-Newey juggernaut. And so, when I look for a scandal-free and fairly competitive year during the 3.5L-only era of F1 racing, apparently 1991 is the only year, and this one is hardly ever mentioned or remembered by anyone these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

... the 1989, 1990, and 1994 season championships ended with championship deciding collisions, at least two of those clearly premeditated. 1994 was mired with well documented cheating allegations against Benetton... And so, when I look for a scandal-free and fairly competitive year during the 3.5L-only era of F1 racing, apparently 1991 is the only year, and this one is hardly ever mentioned or remembered by anyone these days.

---

Well I'm guilty as charged of not remembering much of 91' as I was put off by the events mentioned above; first time I had such disdain for the sport that I merely followed the races through newspapers rather than watching the occasional race - to avoid wasting my time anticipating another Suzuka.

Idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

It's not clear to me what you mean here. Peak of the evolution of what? Engine displacement, speed, power, or the competition?

---

The history of F1, and any motorsport that was considered the highest level previous to the F1WC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

Personally, when I think about the 3.5L engine era, I can't stop thinking about the disappointing years

---

No surprise to me. From what I've noticed, you only pick at anything you don't like in F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

of one-car dominance,

---

Yes. If you look at the history of motorsport, and understand it fundamental reason for it existing. You'd realise this is what's supposed to happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

major scandals, or Senna's death. Let's go back to some facts: the 1989, 1990, and 1994 season championships ended with championship deciding collisions, at least two of those clearly premeditated. 1994 was mired with well documented cheating allegations against Benetton. Senna also died early in 1994.

---

These have nothing to do with the regulations of the cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

1992 and 1993 were one-car domination seasons, easily won by Williams-Renault-Newey juggernaut.

---

Yes. This is what's supposed to happen. The Williams FW14B/15C backs up my opinion, and highlights the superiority of the 3.5l rules over any other period. The Williams FW14B/15C is the single best racing car ever built, so far in all motorsport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

And so, when I look for a scandal-free and fairly competitive year during the 3.5L-only era of F1 racing, apparently 1991 is the only year, and this one is hardly ever mentioned or remembered by anyone these days.

---

1991 has been mentioned. You might want to have a look elsewhere on this board. Also, you seem to only be interested in the superficial aspect of F1/motor racing. Which is why you get excited over a WEC a Silverstone, by what seemed to occur on the track. When overall it's not important.

The 3.5l cars are the last, full blown F1 cars going around. Up until 1994, F1 rules were constructed out of necessity, practicality, to reflect it's position as the leading motorsport class. Up until 93, it was a genuine Open car class. Since then, rules have been slowly narrowed down to a quasi spec class.

The rules since 94 have been introduced to satisfy "the fans". The current mire that is modern day F1, has been chipped away at for 21 years. All designed so that zak is happy. But he still isn't, and is keen to point out how great a WEC race at Silverstone is. Despite the fact few people care.

Have you ever seen a FVee race at Phillip Island? Much better wheel to wheel racing that what WEC could produce.

Victorian state/Phillip Island FVee>>>>>>WEC at Silvertone>>>>>>>F1