Nostalgia is stupid

I've recently been watching a lot of F1 videos by Finnishdude107 - YouTube who posts mostly onboard vids from the early 2000s era. I like the vids, but the more I read the comments the more I'm dumbstruck by the amount of morons who talk about that era like they were 'the good old days' when there were 'real drivers', 'real cars', 'real racing' and so much better than 2013.

It just made me realise how dumb nostalgia is and how much people love to put on their rose tinted glasses. What I remember from the early 2000s is people constantly complaining about how sh***y, skill-less (with traction/launch control, powerful but very easily driveable engines by F1 standards, and so much downforce the cars were virtually glued to the track at every moment), and boring it was with Schumacher leading most races from start to finish.

I also remember at the time people saying how much better the 90s were. But now I realise at the time of the 90s there were nostalgics bi***ing about how much better the 80s were, and 80s people the 70s and so on.

IMO, F1 at the moment is in a GREAT place, in amongst the best its ever been in its 60+ year history. There are a few downsides, but overall the racing is exciting and unpredictable, the field closer than ever, the driving field consisting of supreme talent, and a championship which will likely again go down to the last round. In the early 2000s i remember my mates bagging me out for watching such a sh***y boring sport. Now they actually want to talk about it because its gotten interesting once more.

Great thought, and I'd have to say overall I agree. Regardless of the era in the sport some will be unhappy with certain things, but I'd say on a whole that F1 is in a better place now than it was in the 90s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webberf1

In the early 2000s i remember my mates bagging me out for watching such a sh***y boring sport. Now they actually want to talk about it because its gotten interesting once more.

---

Not in my experience, I must say.

Nostalgia can be hazardous, as it does often involve the donning of rose-tinted spectacles, but I find it hard to warm to today's falsely unpredictable races, drivers who are either bland or tiresome, derivative circuits and so forth when compared with the era in which I grew up watching F1.

Things weren't great but at least there was no DRS.... I can understand boring but I can't understand that.

I've watched F1 barely missing a race since 1998.

In that time, the most exciting seasons have been 1998-2000, 2007-2008 and 2011-onwards. The Schumacher dominance ruined the early 2000's unfortunately and a lot of the races were processional.

At the moment we do have some "false" racing, but on the whole that is the lesser of two evils. I think DRS could be removed, as long as unpredictable Pirelli tyres and KERS are kept in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I've watched F1 barely missing a race since 1998.

In that time, the most exciting seasons have been 1998-2000, 2007-2008 and 2011-onwards. The Schumacher dominance ruined the early 2000's unfortunately and a lot of the races were processional.

At the moment we do have some "false" racing, but on the whole that is the lesser of two evils. I think DRS could be removed, as long as unpredictable Pirelli tyres and KERS are kept in.

---

This may be slightly off-topic, but it is, I feel, relevant: do you think it's possible for F1 to be enjoyable without any of these deliberately unpredictable (some might say 'false') factors, or must they be the price paid for not having a deathly dull sport?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webberf1

. There are a few downsides, but overall the racing is exciting.

---

Yeah, those DRS passes really make it worthwhile. Don't forget the tyres either, it is supreme watching drivers drive to delta times so as not to destroy their tyres after 3 laps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, those DRS passes really make it worthwhile. Don't forget the tyres either, it is supreme watching drivers drive to delta times so as not to destroy their tyres after 3 laps.

---

I don't say it often, but I agree with you completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, those DRS passes really make it worthwhile. Don't forget the tyres either, it is supreme watching drivers drive to delta times so as not to destroy their tyres after 3 laps.

---

I agree fully with you Gary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't say it often, but I agree with you completely.

---

Me too.

I have only watched F1 since early-mid early 90s (91-93) but I have always loved every season of F1 I have watched honestly.

Some races are always going to be dull but I can say hand on heart I have never watched F1 even in the 2002 & 2004 seasons and felt my love for the sport weign at all.

However 2011 until now for the first time I do begin to grow frustrated at the sports direction. I feel I cant see the wood for the tree's.
i.e - I watch the action and passes that we see week in week out, but I cant relate to them. We never see two drivers race wheel to wheel in a proper battle. One is always at such a disadvantage whether it be worn tyres or victim of DRS. I wonder what I am actually watching.

Say what you like about pre 2011 at any point but mostly we saw drivers able to push hard and race. I mean how often are any of the cars or drivers at full pelt now.

People say its "Great Racing now", but they are probably only going 90% or less sometimes. I mean make them race at 50% and any driver on the grid could win. Does that make it better?

I feel F1 should be about teams developing cars to the best standard they can and handing them over for drivers to push as hard as they can in races (taking out easing off if you are 40 seconds ahead)

Pre 2003 it was more simple as a sport (not engineering). I mean you had Qualifying for 1 hour and a drivers job was to be as fast as possible, as opposed to choosing tyres and then not lapping for strategy purposes. Then while not perfect because of fuel saving, was still about racing more flat out in a race and making lighter fuel work or whatever.

Not racing to delta times.

"The Show" is becoming more important than F1s soul. In many ways.

The trouble is real Motorsport fans can watch F3, Formula Ford, GP 2 or saloon cars and just love pure racing because thats what they are about. Now it seems F1 needs to attract new fans who arent keen on pure motor racing and want artifical racing to claim being a fan.

Not what F1 should be for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not in my experience, I must say.

Nostalgia can be hazardous, as it does often involve the donning of rose-tinted spectacles, but I find it hard to warm to today's falsely unpredictable races, drivers who are either bland or tiresome, derivative circuits and so forth when compared with the era in which I grew up watching F1.

---

i am with you about what you say about the drivers, with a few obvious exceptions, the drivers are really dull, aren't they? I love watching, for example, alonso, and, di resta on track, but I could fall asleep watching them in interviews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, those DRS passes really make it worthwhile. Don't forget the tyres either, it is supreme watching drivers drive to delta times so as not to destroy their tyres after 3 laps.

---

Im for and against this^. Without tyres that are designed to wear down quickly and turn it into more of a tactical game, wouldn't you expect RBR to win every race since the end of 2010? They have had the quickest car since then after all.
On the other hand, when you get Bunson on the team radio, asking his team if he should push or save his tyres, this does sound a bit stupid when a driver has to ask that question. I'd fear potential F1 fans/newbies asking WTF is this a race or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tfp

. I'd fear potential F1 fans/newbies asking WTF is this a race or what?

---

They would, but also if it was hard racing with less "Show" Passing they would ask the same.

When team orders are needed they would ask the same.

New F1 fans I meet are split into two. Those who want to learn about F1 and love the racing and are interested. The others are those who say. "More Crashes is what F1 needs"

The latter F1 could do without atracting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bezza

I've watched F1 barely missing a race since 1998.

In that time, the most exciting seasons have been 1998-2000, 2007-2008 and 2011-onwards. The Schumacher dominance ruined the early 2000's unfortunately and a lot of the races were processional.

At the moment we do have some "false" racing, but on the whole that is the lesser of two evils. I think DRS could be removed, as long as unpredictable Pirelli tyres and KERS are kept in.

---

I think you're forgetting 2003, an absolutely cracking season... which split three absolute shockers in 2001, 2002 and 2004.

And as far as the DRS goes, I think the biggest issue is the FIA not getting it right in terms of setting the zones. Their choices in China were total overkill... but when they get it right it can be fantastic and not feel 'fake' at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Yeah, those DRS passes really make it worthwhile. Don't forget the tyres either, it is supreme watching drivers drive to delta times so as not to destroy their tyres after 3 laps.

---

Refer to my previous post on the DRS.
And in regards to the tyres, the fact is that 90% of the time in the race the drivers DO still push the limits because those are their racing instincts. Yes, slightly more durability might be nice but the fact is it is rarely stopping drivers from trying to push to pass on the track rather than wait for pitstops.

And even then (assuming you're an old time fan), are you putting on your rose tinted glasses again and conveniently forgetting parallels with the past? Because dont forget in past eras, drivers would nurse the cars for a large percentage of the time because reliability was so bad and the engine might blow up or they'd run out of fuel if they kept pushing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

However 2011 until now for the first time I do begin to grow frustrated at the sports direction. I feel I cant see the wood for the tree's.
i.e - I watch the action and passes that we see week in week out, but I cant relate to them. We never see two drivers race wheel to wheel in a proper battle. One is always at such a disadvantage whether it be worn tyres or victim of DRS. I wonder what I am actually watching. .

---

Lol come off it mate. Like I said, the drivers are racing as balls out as ever, just watch this video Formula 1 2012 - Top 15 Overtakes (HD) - YouTube
Absolutely brilliant stuff

The biggest problem is badly chosen or too long DRS zones like in China. Correct that and you have very hard racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webberf1

And even then (assuming you're an old time fan), are you putting on your rose tinted glasses again and conveniently forgetting parallels with the past? Because dont forget in past eras, drivers would nurse the cars for a large percentage of the time because reliability was so bad and the engine might blow up or they'd run out of fuel if they kept pushing.

---

Yes, this is true. There were a lot of tedious races in eras gone by. However, at least F1 then didn't resemble a video game, as it does so often now, with cars looking like they're on rails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

However, at least F1 then didn't resemble a video game, as it does so often now, with cars looking like they're on rails.

---

That's fundamentally an issue of too much grip/too little power though isn't it?

Nostalgia is different for everybody depending on your age. The early to mid 90's was an era I enjoyed the most but no doubt those watching from 2000 onwards will be able to draw differences to now and remember what they enjoyed about their preferred era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

That's fundamentally an issue of too much grip/too little power though isn't it?

---

Indeed. I would prefer less grip, rather than more power, as I think much modern motorsport has become too fast. I say that not out of safety concerns, but because I simply don't think outright speed is all-important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Nostalgia is different for everybody depending on your age. The early to mid 90's was an era I enjoyed the most but no doubt those watching from 2000 onwards will be able to draw differences to now and remember what they enjoyed about their preferred era.

---

Again, very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webberf1

And as far as the DRS goes, I think the biggest issue is the FIA not getting it right in terms of setting the zones. Their choices in China were total overkill... but when they get it right it can be fantastic and not feel 'fake' at all.

---

let them use it whenever wherever they want and I'm fine with it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Nostalgia is different for everybody depending on your age. The early to mid 90's was an era I enjoyed the most but no doubt those watching from 2000 onwards will be able to draw differences to now and remember what they enjoyed about their preferred era.

---

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.

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?!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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

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?!"

---

Agree

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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?!"

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steveaki13

Agree

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.

---

I hated it. Really hated it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

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?!"

---

cant say I agree with this about the qualifying. The first part of qualifying is mainly focused on the back markers, who is the quickest of them and who can mix it in with the midfield. The back markers get very little attention in races even if there is no action up front (Valencia 2011) so this is their time to shine.
I wouldn't be happy if they went back to the 1 hour format, although it was entertaining when they chucked a bit of bad weather in. :p
Although I can't remember these times, they should bring back qualifying engines :D

I remember the years between Michelin's departure and Pirelli's arrival were pretty dull.