5, 4, 3, 2, 1........Mrs. Thatcher Is Go!!!!

Has anyone noticed how formula one seemed much better in the 80s? I only came around in the late 80's, but from old season reviews, the racing was proper back then. Let's bring it back to the 80's (The Eurythmics are waiting outside)

Yes, I think history shows F1 is at its best under Conservative governments.

What was the first race of the Thatcher era?

Dijon '79.

I rest my case.

80's ? Come on, it was in another century...

It's easy to say those things... You know, I cannot tell for sure. I have only seen pre-90s racing on reviews and videos, not full races. So it's fair to say that any dull races there might have been were not on those reviews.

I think once John Surtees made a point of saying that not everything before the 90s was a lot better than it is, that in the 60s there had been boring races as well.

On closer inspection, I think you will find that the good old days, weren't. And I'm not just talking about F1 either.

At the risk of getting nostalgic, racing in the 50's, 60's 70's and even the 80's was less predictable than it is now and therefore more exciting.. The reason for this is obvious to me. Technology, once the element that made F1 so intriquing has surpassed what motorsport was meant to be and is all about. It is time to draw the line, in fact IMO way overdue, and if the '08 rules are enforced as proposed, F1 is on the right track in righting what is wrong. I just wonder, why wait until '08. Lets do it in '06!

i've seen races from the 70 80 90 .. not all were great .. not even Dijon 79 is all that great . apart from 2 laps :D

a very hard thing to get into isnt it.

Im sorry to say not even japan this year stirred my blood , i dunno why it was just great racinjg but it didnt cut it for me.

possibly in 5 to 10 years i will look back and say "wow what a great race" but for now Im sorry but I so long for my Mansell's , Prost';s , Senna's and bergers.

these guys to me were just FORMULA 1 to the max , I long to see them race again (Wishing GP masters really takes off)

F1 became boring to me in about 1998 and I havent lloked at it the same way since , its probablyt wrong of me and I feel bad for feeling that way but im hoping that the future is bright for the worlds best series and brings many bright stars along with bright moments.

(That was all ****** wasnt it ?)

Someone once posted some interesting figures on another forum showing the average number of overtakes in a race for each season. I can't remember the figures at all now cos it was a couple of years ago now, but I remember it made astonoshing reading. For example it was something like: 1983: 60. 1993: 25. 2003: 6. THOSE AREN'T THE ACTUAL FIGURES! Does anyone have these statistics? It just shows there was a lot more overtaking in the past.

I have been a bit disillusioned with F1 over the last few seasons. I haven't been so bothered if I miss a GP. The days of Mansell, Piquet, Senna, Prost etc. were the best IMO. I like getting the old 1986, 87, 89, 90 etc season review videos out to watch more often than 2002, 03, 04 etc.

AMEN , me too , I just watched the 89 review which was an awesome season :)

Glad Im not alone in this world

mid 80's to early 90's rocked!! mansell, prost, senna and co were absolute legends!!

i'm only 16 so i didn't see any of the 80's or before but from what i've seen on season reviews it was so much better in the 70's 80's and early 90's than it is now.
the drivers were so much more in direct control of the car, there were the turbo years and ground effect and all the cars looked different.not just in F1 but in all major motorsport like group b and can-am it just seems more spectacular and more exciting back then.

i think all motorsport hits a peak of development when cars become too fast to race and rules have to be put in place to stop people killing themselves and others and after it hits its peak its just never the same again no matter how hard the teams and organisers try.

and before i forget dijon '79 ruled

Dijon '79 was boring, except for the last few laps.
I have the whole race on DVD and I always have to skip it to the last 5 laps or so, or I'd fall asleep...

To be honest the racing may have been close this year, but I didn't get excited once I am affraid, however I enjoyed the Grand Prix masters race more than all the current F1 races and seasons put together. Maybe because the cars didn't have all the crap and technology they have now so it's more on the edge and there was some big names that most of the them I hadn't seen race or was to young to remember but what I'm saying is, if the cars are much more basic, don't have all this crap with the hundreds of winglet parts just look at a current F1 car compared to one of say '99, and you can see what I mean, the FIA set these rules to try and bring back over taking by taking away downforce yet the teams draw a good portion back by creating new areodynamic parts which kill any chance of racing in dry conditions usually I'm saying this because most wet races have overtaking......

i'm only 16 so i didn't see any of the 80's or before but from what i've seen on season reviews it was so much better in the 70's 80's and early 90's than it is now.
the drivers were so much more in direct control of the car, there were the turbo years and ground effect and all the cars looked different.not just in F1 but in all major motorsport like group b and can-am it just seems more spectacular and more exciting back then.

i think all motorsport hits a peak of development when cars become too fast to race and rules have to be put in place to stop people killing themselves and others and after it hits its peak its just never the same again no matter how hard the teams and organisers try.

and before i forget dijon '79 ruled

Thanks mate, thats exactly what i wanted to hear, especially from a guy who's my age. Strip the cars of all non essential electronic overlords and let the racers race, not the corporations.

Out of the mouth of babes! Right on gentlemen!

Was F1 so bad this year as some people make out? I found it entertaining enough.

F1 of the 80's was superb too!

Nintendo, I'm 36 and not only did I live the 1980s to the max... I raced to the max back then too. F1 was fantastic under Maggie. We had it all - technical evolution in turbos at the beginning of the decade... the fabulous Mansellmania which got Britain behind motorsport like never before and the scintillating Prost v Senna epic. There were a lot more great names in terms of teams back then too - Brabham and Lotus were formidable as well as McLaren, Williams and Ferrari. It had a good mix of privateers as well as manufacturers and the last part of the decade threw in tons of variety too.

The 1980s was a fabulous decade. I'm now off to dust down my Miami Vice suit, spash on some Kouros, grab glass of something with an umbrella in it and blast some Go West ! Life went downhill from 01.01.1990 !

No it wasn't Knowlesy, and for some to say they didn't get excited for a single moment is puzzling to me.

Yes, I think history shows F1 is at its best under Conservative governments.

What was the first race of the Thatcher era?

Dijon '79.

I rest my case.

Yes, but the last race under the Conservatives was San Marino 1997, not the most spectacular race, whereas the first race under Labour was the rather wet 1997 Monaco grand prix.

However, I wish I was old enough to remember the 80s :(

Was F1 so bad this year as some people make out? I found it entertaining enough.


no it wasn't,it was the best in a few years any way you look at it.imola and suzuka were great and there were a few that were better than anything 04 had to offer

Personally I feel it all went downhill after the FIA's knee-jerk reaction to the '94 Imola weekend. Over the following couple of seasons we started getting the first of the aero revisions and safety revisions - like the plank in '94, car and cockpit changes in '95 and '96, the thinner cars and grooved tyres in '98 etc. leading right up to today's daft aerodynamic issues.

I was watching the '95 video a while back - there's a feature on there about the lack of overtaking in F1 compared to previous seasons. So it seems like it's been a worry forever. Although I think 2005 had it's well-deserved moments, I'm another of these who wud take 80's and early 90's F1 anyday over the modern generation...

You know, it's fair enough when you did see the races back then to say if it was better or worse, but 16 year olds who have only seen reviews? Come on. How can you say for sure those older years were better than now?
I'm 20 and I only started following F1 since 1993, I can't bloody say whether F1 was better or worse in the 80s" simply because I wasn't there to see and I can't judge by a season review.

Look, 1957, Nürburgring is remembered because it was an outstanding race, but the fact that all the other races in that year are overlooked doesn't mean they were all boring. Or on the other hand, the fact that Fangio drove the race of his life at Nürburging 57 doesn't mean all the races that year were thrillers.
And I think this can be applied in each year of racing and every championship.

Well if you define exciting by overtaking on the track for the victory, I belive that yes, the 80s were more exciting.

And the other thing too, is that there were lots more underfunded back makers on the track, which meant more half-baked overtaking moves -> Crashes.

You know, it's fair enough when you did see the races back then to say if it was better or worse, but 16 year olds who have only seen reviews? Come on. How can you say for sure those older years were better than now?
I'm 20 and I only started following F1 since 1993, I can't bloody say whether F1 was better or worse in the 80s" simply because I wasn't there to see and I can't judge by a season review.


you have a good point but i never said it was definitely better or worse back then,all i know is what i've seen from reviews and documentaries and what i've seen is for the most part better than your average race today and thats not just F1

you have a good point but i never said it was definitely better or worse back then,all i know is what i've seen from reviews and documentaries and what i've seen is for the most part better than your average race today and thats not just F1

My point is that a season review will always show the best of a season. These days, we get to see absolutely every detail of the whole weekend, so perhaps that's why it's boring. There have been exciting races this year - however, we have seen each and every lap of this season so it's bound to be boring at some point. No race is thrilling from start to end (unless you watched a CART race at Michigan in the late 90s...)

Nah, the racing was better back then. I saw races end-to-end live on TV and also live in the flesh trackside in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. They were better and there are plenty of reasons why. But as I said before, there are lots of things the FIA could do to make racing better from here on forward. We know the drivers of today are probably as good if not better than their 1980s peers, we just wanna see some action out of them. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who thinks its teeth-grinding to see Kimi follow Trulli for 60 laps with no chance whatsover of getting by.

The thing is in the '80s when it was great the FIA didn't do anything to influence it. Now, because we think it is pants, we think that the FIA should intervene. So the reason that it is bad is more that times change rather than the FIA doning something wrong. Yet they are the ones to sort it out? That is why it is difficult. And also why we are as much to blame as the FIA.

70's, 80's, 90's and now 2k's... seriously, that's the most everlasting interest in my life.

Man, that's something ! :)

The thing is in the '80s when it was great the FIA didn't do anything to influence it.

*COUGH*Balestre/Prost*COUGH* ;)

The problem lies in the electronic aids. Simple as that. Make it driver skill, and impose a minimum and maximum bhp scale.

If it was as easy as it is said...

If it was as easy as it is said...

True, it would be nearly impossiblr. But in an ideal world...

The thing is in the '80s when it was great the FIA didn't do anything to influence it. Now, because we think it is pants, we think that the FIA should intervene. So the reason that it is bad is more that times change rather than the FIA doning something wrong. Yet they are the ones to sort it out? That is why it is difficult. And also why we are as much to blame as the FIA.

The FIA have been twiddling the knobs all along. Even back in the 1980s they were at it. From a macro perspective, two things have converged to create the situation we have today. First, the cost of competing in F1 has become prohibitive for all but a small number of [currently interested] blue chip multinationals. Second, the focus of development has been pointed down a narrow avenue of aero.
The result is a relatively small number of cars starting each race, with very few capable of completing an overtaking manouvre... and that leads to some of the audience [like us] feeling we've not been entertained.

Why have we've got to this situation ? Over the years, the FIA have imposed some preculsions and restrictions that have had an adverse effect to their original intention. For example forcing teams to construct their own chassis, distributing TV money according to previous seasons finishing order and demanding a $48M bond before you can sit a car on the grid has made it extremely difficult for a new team to get going and for an existing team to stay going. Another example, by incrementally removing mechanical adhesion as the primary source of performance [by imposing groved tyres, long lasting tyres and now eliminating tyre competition], all development has been forced into aero and aero dependency. Today, a good lap can be affected by a cross-wind, the configuration of car ahead or the position of a barge board. Drivers cannot get close to the car in front because their own vehicle looses a large element of performance... overtaking's often all but impossible.

The solutions to the problems we have now are fairly straightforward, but preventing the current situation from happening all over again requires strategic changes to the way the FIA works. Its essentially an old boys club based in Paris which has fallen the wrong side of coping over the last 20 years [c.f. when they didn't know whether teams were using banned software and electronics because they had nobody capable of understanding the complexity of the devices] and needs to be totally overhauled from a technical and commercial perspective in order to raise its game to the demands of an entertainment-hungry audience of billions in 2006.

This is not in response to any specific post, merely a general comment.

Of course, there were no drivers aids, or other fancy technology, during those periods.

I seem to recall F1 being in crisis, truly on the brink of collapse in the early 1990s. The 1980's I only have moments of memories, so have had to do the filling in restrospectively in terms of details, but from what I have gathered there was a fair bit of *****ing about lack of overtaking back then.

I guess to cite a current source would be the Gilles interview in F1 Racing, in the edition I received a couple of days ago (lag for NAm), where the issue is talked about. He responds to complaints that are used today, and, I think, he provided some valid rebuttal. I cannot recall of the top of my head, but when I get home, should I remember to do so, which is no certainty, I will highlight the particular things to which I refer.

I'm not saying the situation is perfect at present, I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that case. What I am saying is over time fewer and fewer things stick in the mind, so, increasingly, only the really good (or really bad) moments stick. It produces warped representations of reality.

Of course, what can I say about it all? I was born in 1981, and thus only start to get decent memories of it all from the early 1990s (bits and bobs stick around from the 80s). Thus, I have a very limited base and have to rely on books, or what have you, for all but recent past. Well, I have some tapes and the like from days gone by, but a long way to go on that front.

Clearly getting hold of (complete as possible) footage is the best way to judge. This is something I am doing piece by piece.

Despite my blatantly limited knowledge base, I feel pretty confident in saying that stuff in the past wasn't as whizz-bang-super-duper-always-amazing as it made out to be.

Put it this way, there are very specific examples from the passed that get talked about. If it was always like that then they wouldn't stand out.

Anyway, I am going to stop rambling.

I hope it wasn't too bad.

Despite my blatantly limited knowledge base, I feel pretty confident in saying that stuff in the past wasn't as whizz-bang-super-duper-always-amazing as it made out to be.

1980s F1 had things wrong with it then, but I believe that there were less of them than today... and they were easier to sort out. The basic ingredients were better back then, more top teams, more variety across the grid and a lower barrier to entry for someone starting out. On the bad side, reliability was often awful and safety was nothing close to what it is today.

But yet some people see the poor reliability as a bonus. The cost factor as barrier to entry is potentially problematic, but, ultimately, as long as corporations sell their team on when they pull out then the situation will keep afloat.

Were there really that many more Top Teams? If you think about the 1980s, well, hrrrm...

1980

1st Williams-Ford; 120pts
2nd Ligier-Ford; 66pts
3rd Brabham-Ford; 55pts
4th Renault; 38pts

1981

1st Williams-Ford; 95pts
2nd Brabham-Ford; 61pts
3rd Renault; 54pts
4th Ligier-Matra; 44pts

1982

1st Ferrari; 74pts
2nd Mclaren-Ford; 69pts
3rd Renault; 62pts
4th Williams-Ford; 58pts

1983

1st Ferrari; 89pts
2nd Renault; 79pts
3rd Brabham-BMW; 72pts
4th Williams-Ford; 36pts

1984

1st Mclaren-TAG; 143.5pts
2nd Ferrari; 57.5pts
3rd Lotus-Renault; 47pts
4th Brabham-BMW; 38pts

1985

1st Mclaren-TAG; 90pts
2nd Ferrari; 82pts
3rd Williams-Honda; 71pts
4th Lotus-Renault; 71pts

1986

1st Williams-Honda; 141pts
2nd Mclaren-TAG; 96pts
3rd Lotus-Renault; 58pts
4th Ferrari; 37pts

1987

1st Williams-Honda; 137pts
2nd Mclaren-TAG; 76pts
3rd Lotus-Honda; 64pts
4th Ferrari; 53pts

1988

1st Mclaren-Honda; 199pts
2nd Ferrari; 65pts
3rd Benetton-Ford; 39pts
4th Lotus-Honda; 23pts

1989

1st Mclaren-Honda; 141pts
2nd Williams-Renault; 77pts
3rd Ferrari; 59pts
4th Benetton-Ford; 39pts

Now, it has taken me a while to type all that out: it is entirely possible I have made errors, as I copy and pasted the format from a pevious year and then changed the details. If this is so, please point them out!

Anyway, whilst table results of course do not tell you everything.... in the context of top teams, or whatever, I think it pretty clearly demonstrates that the true top has not changed that much. In terms of just those years, it is the same names over, and over, and over again sharing the top positions. We see the same today, with room for the odd new thing to occur.

In the 1980s, in terms of number of titles, we see:

Mclaren: 4; Williams 4; Ferrari 2

In the 1990s, in terms of number of titles, we see:

Williams: 5; Mclaren 3; Ferrari 1; Benetton 1

The 2000s are suitably fresh, :-).

Hrrrmm, I may be losing track of myself here. I will post this and see where it leaves things.

Well first off, a big Up there for all the typing. The top 4 of each constructors championship obviously doesn't tell the whole story... but even if you compare the 1980s to 2000s you have Ferrari 4, Renault 1 and we're only half way through this decade.

Its not just that though. There were plenty of teams in the 1980s capable of taking a championship and all capable of regularly delivering strong results - Brabham, Lotus, Williams, McLaren, Ferrari. Many others won races too and still more were capable of getting into the top 6. What's more it was possible with relatively modest resources to compete as a privateer and do well [Ken Tyrrell].

Today we need :
More cars capable of winning.
More overtaking.
More teams/variety on the grid.
An easier, less expensive way to enter the fray.

We had all that in the 1980s.

Dont you think when it comes down to it its lack of technology that makes F1 boring nowadays. In the old days engineers were free to have open minds and come up with radical and dangerous ideas to make the cars faster and faster, the guys driving were heroes who drove any object put in front of them and pushed it to its limits until the inherent unreliability of quickly concieved and tested ideas broke in preferably a spectacularly exciting self destruction and the hero walking away shouting and swearing at the piece of super quick junk that nearly killed him.

I remember when road cars were like that too. :laugh:

It depends what you use the technology for.Do you use it to make the car go faster or easier to drive or what.

If the engineers wanted to they could quite easily cut the lap time in half if they add access to all technology.As to whether the car could be driven by a human being is another matter.

Dont you think when it comes down to it its lack of technology that makes F1 boring nowadays. In the old days engineers were free to have open minds and come up with radical and dangerous ideas to make the cars faster and faster, the guys driving were heroes who drove any object put in front of them and pushed it to its limits until the inherent unreliability of quickly concieved and tested ideas broke in preferably a spectacularly exciting self destruction and the hero walking away shouting and swearing at the piece of super quick junk that nearly killed him.

Its more the lack of knowledge [note I don't mean lack of expertise] at that particular time rather than the lack of technology. If you look at the F1 cars of the mid 1970s for example, you have a wide variety of different designs as engineers tried to optimize their machine without enough information on how it would behave. If they knew what we do today about aero and had the resources available in terms of simulation, CFD etc... then maybe the cars would be more uniform, more efficient, more reliable [more boring :-)].

The Formula 1 of nowadays isn't as much exciting as the Formula 1 the 1980's. I think the "real Formula 1" died after the 1991 season. And occasionally, Max Mosley took office in November 1991.

I think Formula 1 went into the wrong direction. The mechanical grip is too much reduced and the aerodynamics totally relies on the wings. The engines have become less powerful. Meanwhile the car is controlled by very sophisticated and expensive electronic devices which take away a lot from the drivers. And races are not won on the track, but in the pit lane.

Why not going back to the spirit of the 1980's? This would mean:
- making the aerodynamics rely on the undertray and less on the wings, by reintroducing large tunnels/venture-underwing and minimizing the wing;
- improving the mechanical grip by reintroducing the wide slicks;
- increasing the engine power by allowing teams to use whatever configuration they like;
- banning all driver aids, such as the tyre blankets, semi-automatic gearboxes, traction control and drive-by-wire, by introducing a standard but fully adjustable ECU;
- forcing drivers to pass on the track by banning refuelling and allow them to use no more than a specific amount of fuel per race;
- reintroducing the free-for-all-qualifying format without limitations for tyres, engines and laps;
- allowing teams to buy and sell whatever they like.

Hello,

I have just got to 50 and have been watching Formula One (and ALL Motorsport) since the sixties. IMO Formula One is not as good as it used to be. I have always liked Formula One because of the "Technology" but I think the "Technology" has taken over from the racing, which is what it's all supposed to be about. I have seen some great races in my time (and some boring ones) but in the last 5 or 10 years I think the racing has dried up as it is now so difficult to overtake. Yet F1 nowadays has such a high profile and following to the detriment of everything else. Reduce the size of the front and rear wings and get rid of all those additional aerodynamic aids, winglets, bargeboards etc.

I can remember Brian Henton enthusing about when he ran the first Toleman test F1 car which was basically an F2 car with a turbo F1 engine. He thought it was great. More power than the chassis could really handle. We need a grid full of cars like that.

Nick

The thing is, racing will get more boring unless something is done to alter the technical / sporting regulations. As things currently stand, we are knocking down classic tracks with long straights, and replacing them with short straight / slow corner go kart circuits.

As F1 progresses and the cars get more and more aero the racing is bound to suffer, why is anyone surprised at this?

Its only logical to suggest that if things don't change, the cars in 2008 will be even harder to follow and overtake with, due to the progress and development in aerodynamics. 2005 was worse than 2004, 2000 was worse than 1998, 1995 was worse than 1990 and so on. Actually the one anomoly amongst all these dates is 2001, I theorise that the loss of 4 rear wing elements, and the introduction in softer tyres for the first time since 1998 made for a "better" year of racing, with more overtaking than in the immediate previous years.

Though hopefully we will get some great new back - to - basics regs in 2008.

One of the factors that helped so many teams be competitive back in the 70s and part of the eighties was that most used the same engine, the legendary Cosworth DFV.
With the turbo era, more diversity in engines came.

Right now though, aerodynamics are so much better than having the same engine as another car doesn't guarantee you'll be up to par with it. (See Ferrari and Sauber, or Toyota and Jordan)

One of the factors that helped so many teams be competitive back in the 70s and part of the eighties was that most used the same engine, the legendary Cosworth DFV.
With the turbo era, more diversity in engines came.

And it's probably fair to point out that '81 and '82 season's unbelievable competitiveness came about because of the BMW, Renault turbo's unreliability handing wins to Cosworth 'run all dayers' and the disruption Ferrari suffered as a result of appalling accidents and tragic involving drivers?

However even without that the top teams were still a damn site closer to each other on performance, as Davyboy and others have said - upto 7 or so outfits capable of winning races with most of them having WDC's and or race winners/obvious coming men driving for them.

Perhaps it's the void of a totally competitive dominant team and/or driver which makes for competitiveness. See 1999, when Michael was injured. Jordan won a race, Stewart won a race and many different drivers got onto the podium...

Similarly in 1997: Williams did have the best car, but errors on either the team or the drivers' side together with tyre war made you see Benetton winning its last race or Prost and Arrows scoring podiums.

For the last 10 years, all years except 1999 and 2003 only featured two (or one) championship challengers. But who can we blame for that? Ferrari can't be blamed for being much better for 5 straight years. Tyres have also been a factor.