Printable View
Agree with most points on the DRS and tires. I think either DRS or aero changes are a good idea, because F1 had reached a point where you simply couldn't get through the dirty air and make a pass all too often. But there should be a solution that still makes passing much harder, but possible. Likewise with the tires... let Pirelli make tires that last longer and can be pushed hard for those extended runs.
I hated those years :) . IMO, 92 was the worst year ever in F1, never before had one car such a technological advantage over the rest of the field. That active Williams of Mansell just disappeared into the horizon every time and the slower Patrese did the same while others struggled with their stick shifts etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Nowadays we have more potential winners whereas in the old days you'd have about 2-3 drivers who could win. And the guy finishing sixth would usually be a lap down on the winner :) .
I kinda disagree with the complaints about tyres and DRS, I think it has opened the sport up and allowed drivers to race each other rather than get stuck behind due to aerodynamics effecting the air behind the car as the early 2000's were.
Every decade has had good racing though even in the "boring" years there has been stand out races.. Donington 1993 was amazing in a year the Williams totally dominated again just as they had in 92.
I am quite nostalgic about late 90's and early 00's and like to watch memories on YouTube. But this is a different kind of nostalgy. Because the era co-incides with my child-/youthhood, when I was getting into F1. So I had very strong feelings and emotions at the time. So this era sort of remains special for me. With all those unique cars and liveries (green Jaguars, Orange Arrows, yellow Jordans, Stewarts, dark blue Prosts, etc), "classical drivers of the era" like Herbert, Salo, Panis, Irvine, Frentzen, Alesi, Häkkinen, Verstappen, etc.
But I am aware that racing at the time was more boring than it is now. So from excitement point of view I wouldn't swap anything. Competition was more boring too. Usually McLaren and Ferrari were well above others and only in 2001 Williams started coming good. While now we have five teams, who could win races on merit.
There is one thing I genuinely miss though and this is the 1 hour-12 lap qualifying format. I cannot say that it is superior to the current version, which is very much a matter of taste and the current one provides a lot of action. But I personally liked the gradual rise of tension of that format. In the first 5-10 mins no-one is on track, so you are just pondering, what could happen, while everyone is smiling out of their cars. Then the next 10 mins backmarkers come out. Then midfielders. And from half-way through frontrunners start banging in laptimes.
But at the moment we have a situation, where the first two sessions (50 mins all in all including breaks) don't count at all in terms of pole position and basically only the last minute decides the top10 order. While back then if someone put in a very strong lap half-way through the session, you knew he would be high up on the grid even if he crashed and didn't improve the time. And not to mention - often you could see a full lap of a front-runner with all sector times and his driving technique. While now there are so many cars on track at once that you really can't concentrate on the driving art of anybody. Nor do you have tension - "does he beat the pole-time or not?!"
It's also an absurdly complex qualifying format to explain to anyone who doesn't already understand it, and this has to be a bad thing. Sport should be simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by jens
The 1 hour qualifying was great. There was no strategy involved it was just about who was the fastest.
There was also the chance of a strange pole sitter if a midfield car set a time before the rain.
All in all it was simple and as it should be about who is the fastest as I said earlier.
it's still better than the boring single lap qualifying was though
This qualifying format has been popular enough to spread to other formulae. World and British Superbikes are two I know of that operate a similar qualifying format. Even MotoGP now has something a bit similar, though that is purely calculated to get some TV coverage for the slow Claiming Rules teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
I quite liked the old WSB Superpole format - the top 16 each get one flying lap on an empty track. Puts a massive amount of pressure on the rider to get it right with that one opportunity, and of course you get to see every lap. Not quite sure why it never really worked in F1.
I hated it. Really hated it.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
Had to wait for something like 20 mins for proper action with a parade of F1 rejects cleaning up the track.
Twin 1 hr quali could be made dull by rain over a weekend
The only thing the old 1 hr quali had going was that for a half hour-20mins there would be a fantastic duel for pole eg. Schumi vs. Hakkinen.
Mika Häkkinen qualifying in San Marino 2000 - YouTube
F1 Japanese GP 2000 Qualifying - Hakkinen Vs Schumacher - YouTube
So let's enjoy nostalgia. :D To this day I can enjoy this stuff... and I could manage the "half-an-hour" build-up phase too if we get special last 20 minutes. After all, in current format the 20 minutes of Q1 is nothing more than a build-up phase either, at least for frontrunners. Yes, unlike back in the day the go out on track, but you know they are not trying their best, but just going fast to go through. So it doesn't matter to me much if they are out there or not if I know they are not taking things 100% seriously and the laptimes don't matter in terms of the front of the grid. The main excitement in Q1 is which of the midfielders fails.