Why Tilke ?

[steveaki13]

But the drivers as a whole grid are more proffesional and of a higher level.

Think back to Rossett 3 point turning at Monaco, and the number of crashes and spins in practice.

Today there seem to be far less.

[nigelred5]

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

[Sleeper]

Personally, I preferred when F1 drivers were more mature, more experienced and somewhat more proven as racing drivers than most of today's teen drivers. Drivers worked their entire carreer to reach F1. Now, half of them practically START at the pinnacle and are done and washed up by 24.

Today, drivers the age of Schummi or Rubens are considered ancient. In the 80's and 90's, F1 drivers first breaking into F1 in their late 20's and 30's were more or less normal. It would have been virtually unheard of to even consider a driver in their teens for F1. I guess that's a product of the play station age.

Two words, Mike Thakwell.

[wedge]

Passing is EXACTLY what fans want to see, and his example is precisely why I liked to play but can rarely stand watching Soccer/Footbal.l

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.

Racing was better when cars were overpowered, less controlled and tracks were longer, narrower, dictated largely by their surroundings and well, probably less safe. Now we race in tracks in the middle of nowhere,are so wide they may as well be parking lots, the power to downforce balance is totally out of whack, and the drivers are well, not so impressive in their race craft.

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

[555-04Q2]

The problem with no overtaking in F1 is the downforce the cars create and the excellent brakes. Braking 100-150 meters before a corner from 300 km/h is rediculous. Downgrade the brakes so they have to brake from 200-250 meters out and the driver behind has at least some chance. Half the overtaking issues would be solved.

[BDunnell]

The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

[nigelred5]

Closer racing, not necessarily more passing. A dogfight is just as exciting.


i agree, and in a dogfight, rarely does the same plane always maintain the advantage. I want to see passes, counter passes, fights for the lead throughout the race. etc.
what we have ve now is a combination of desperation attempts, chop blocks worthy of a texas chainsaw movie, and drivers that feel they should be handed a pass by everyone on hte race track because they are a former school crossing guard.



The more old races I see on the interweb, the more the myth is exposed.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I have watched damn near every F1 race over the last 30 years live, and the racing was better.

[wedge]

To some extent, I agree. It is probable that there has never been an era in which there has been loads of overtaking. However, I would say that looking at coverage of old races online, even the original live coverage, may be slightly misleading because the footage available is always limited. Far fewer cameras were used and much will have been missed. I'd also add that, in spite of the rose-tinted spectacles some people look through, it is genuinely impossible to imagine certain things happening these days. The dice, which I have never seen but read much about, between Stewart and Rindt in the 1969 British GP, for instance; similarly, John Watson coming from 17th and 22nd to win at Detroit and Long Beach in 1982 and '83 respectively, almost all as a result of dynamic passing moves rather than attrition ahead of him. We need to be asking ourselves why such events have been rendered a thing of the past. No-one would suggest that the circuits on which Watson scored those two incredible victories should in any sense be models for the future, but I think the point holds.

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

Aero was a still a problem even in the turbo era.

I've been an advocate of venturi floors but watching some races of the early '80s James Hunt regularly complained the cars had too much grip and appeared so in some races.

Pat Symonds and Jock Clear have said these things are all relative (the former agreed to an extent) and yet I fully agree that the sophomore Abu Dabi GP showed that there is something inherently wrong with F1

I don't have much of problem with so called hard racing/dirty driving. Motorsport would be nothing if designers and driver didn't push boundaries.

[BDunnell]

I wholeheartedly agree. There were dull races. Take for example Dijon '79 - Gilles Villenueve vs. Arnoux is raved about but the race was no different to watching paint dry.

I assume you mean 'the rest of the race'? I must say, that dice (a word you never hear nowadays) does rather render the whole thing different for me. But point very much taken. There are reasons why people recall events like that, or the Brabham versus Surtees scrap on the last lap of the 1967 Italian GP, to give another example — because they were exceptional, i.e. exceptions to the rule.