I am conducting a small survey.
Are there people who prefer current or recent Formula One to the sport as it was portrayed in 'Grand Prix'?
Presently, F1 is so that a powerslide is a mistake.
40 years ago a slide may have been considered a thing of beauty
No question, drifting cars (or motorbikes) are way cooler to look at but as Walther Roehrl (and he knows!!) already put straight: drifting is regrettably not the fastest way around a corner (the drifting in rally cars has more to do with "unstable stability").
Yup, I saw Grand Prix just yesterday and if you compare the races then and today, there's no mistake: Old times, better times...
There is a DVD called 'Faster', about Grand Prix motorcycling. A short way in is a segment about Australian Garry McCoy and his style of racing. I suspect some, most maybe have like him a talent for motorcrossing. We get to see him with his 500cc bike very sideways braking and leaving the corners. Just breathtaking. Smoke pouring off his tyre as he opens the taps...And he makes me think of two of the nutters who I would trade my life for in a nanosecond; Gilles & Keke. That is if Rosberg didn't smoke!
Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson.
I do think that F1 in the days of the movie was better in terms of the fact that the driver had more to do with the outcome of the race...things are so technical now that it has more to do with the car design and team...they have one specialist for the right tire and one for the left.
I suppose the good thing is that it is a lot safer today.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the safety aspect, something I address in another question on this board. But the point I'm wanting people to consider is that 40 years ago, visually F1 was so much more spectacular than today. It mattered nought how far apart or close the cars are. (Of course if there was a close battle, all the better) The reason for me as to why 'pre-wing & pre-slick tyre' F1 is so spectacular is that the spectator doesn't have to be a driver or even a fan to appreciate when the men are at their (& their cars) limit. One perfect example is approximately 13 minutes after the opening credits when "Stoddart"s BRM hurtles through St Devote 4 wheel drifting. It is only 1 second long & the film has a different appearance than what we see till then. I believe this is shot from the real 1966 Monaco Grand Prix. If not, it is definitely an actual racing driver taking St Devote at it's limits and looking glorious doing so. Further on, especially at Zandvoort, there is a lot of action which I beieve to be non fiction, OR real F1 stars of the day are out doing what they did best - 4 wheel drifting through corners & powersliding while leaving corners, sometimes leaving tyre marks from both tyres.
And nowadays. I used to devour anything & everything concerning F1. During the late 80's while flicking through expensive international F1 magazines, noticed a peculiarity at a double page spread of a car 3/4 of the way around a lap of Monaco. The photo was gorgeous, background stunning, colourful car big in the shot. But glaring at me was a sticker on the tyre. A sticker! This told me enormous amounts about the sport I love. Loved. Over the next 15 months saw the same thing - stickers still on tyres. Firstly, it told me that fans of F1 can be fooled, cheated if you will, because a car 5 or 10 seconds off pace looks EXACTLY as it does at full noise. Secondly, it tells me that because I can NOT tell from a photo whether or not the car is racing, this business is no longer a specatcle.
But it could be. For those of you who appreciate close open wheeler racing, I believe the best is found in Formula Ford. (I live in Australia & unfortunately we don't have FF Super & other off shoots of FF) There is always plenty of passing & very close racing. In Aus FF virtually no driver is of F1 standard, but still they get very close.
Now, consider F1 with no aerodynamic devices whatsoever, road registerable tyres only & a limit of, say, 2 litre engines (about 600 hp). The top 10 men of today can lap & repeatedly have a difference in their qualifying times of only one second!! The races should portray this closeness, also. Secondly, the cars are so safe now that with reduced cornering forces, the authorities could investigate racing at some of the disused circuits of the 60's; Nurburgring, Spa Francorchamps, Rouen, Clermont Ferrand, Zandvoort, Oesterreichring...
Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson.
That would be too cool but unfort. will never happen. Look how close the fans are in those days!! Never again will that happen. The cars today are technologically amazing, even beautiful but there's something lacking...a bit of crudeness in my opinion...and the drivers, geez. Besides MSchu. they look bored with winning. And u can't help but fall in love with those deadly but great old tracks. Nowadays the tracks remind me of a real nice slot car track u had as a kid. The whole idea of racing through a town/village appeals to me, it has something a dedicated track will never have. We can always dream.
P.S. I'm 29 years old, didn't start watching F1 until the late 80s.
Hullo stevesms
The fans now have to be so far away because (apart from the liability aspects) the cars generate so much energy through corners, some are talking of 4 g's, that when a car comes off it takes drastic measures by the track owners to stop the "missile".
My proposal eliminates a huge amount of the energy and when said cars would be too quick (and come off) would come to a stop in less distance and time. Also less likelihood of carnage.
However, some people may question how F1 with cars cornering at, say, 2 g's could be interesting enough to watch. And this is a valid point. I myself would prefer to watch a car do 130 mph around a corner than 110 mph. But I know I would much prefer to watch 2,3,4 or more cars racing at that slower speed if it means that they can do it as close as the bikes can do it.
ps. I think if you think todays GP cars are beautiful, please find on the internet such beauties as the Ferrari Gilles died in, the Lotus 79, the Lotus 72, the Lotus 49, the Ferrari 'sharknose'...the list goes on. But I can't include any of todays disgraces.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
It's a beautiful thing to watch, but times change. Frankly, if it's not the fastest way around the track, it has no business being in F1.
That said, I think that is the reason why so many other series are gaining popularity nowadays. Hell, even the good ol' boys from Nascar put their cars into a slide. I couldn't believe it until I saw it personally.... 43 maniacs sliding though a turn at over 160mph..... thing of beauty.
I like the old cars, but I like the new ones too.
Absolutely, F1 was far more interesting back then. Lots of reasons:
- There was far more parity between the teams. Looking at the years 66 to 69 or so, there were 4 or 5 different makes that might win on a given weekend. Now it's: will Ferrari or Renault win this time?
- The improvements in braking have made the braking zones so short that there is less passing. I know there have been rule changes to improve things and it's getting better, but not like the old days.
- The cars stick so well that it's hard to see when one driver is doing a better or worse job than another. I agree that "if it's not the fastest way around the track, it has no business being in F1" (the same goes for any other form of racing), but it's just less interesting to watch the cars move now.
- The cars are so fast now that they need huge runoff areas, and thus all the new tracks look similar and BORING. I've even heard that there is a rule for new tracks that they can't have varying-radius curves; can anyone confirm this? I raced for 18 years, and I found that curves that tighten up at the exit or have other irregular features make for a great challenge. I can't understand why anyone would outlaw them.
- This one is sheer bias, but the cars were prettier then and more distinctive from each other. And not covered with annoying sponsor logos.
- The technology wasn't so removed from what we drove on the street, or what we amateur racers were driving, as it is now. So a spectator could relate much better to the cars. They had a steering wheel, a gearshift lever, and three pedals just like I had. You could see the engine stuck in the back, with maybe some thought given to streamlining, and obviously some bits and pieces stuck on as afterthoughts. Oops, it's running hot. Let's cut the nose open a bit more.
- Bias again, but the drivers seemed to have a lot more personality back then. Clark, Hill, Surtees, Brabham, Gurney, Hulme, Stewart, Amon ... the list goes on and on. I'm 54 now, so I was just starting to follow F1 closely when Grand Prix came out, and those guys were my heroes. Now you have a bunch of nerds: Schumacher, Coulthard, Raikonnen ...
Well, u pretty much summarized my feelings....if we're lucky we will have 3 teams this year : Ferrari, Renault, and maybe BMW or Mclaren. And people wonder why Nascar has taken over....I'm not a Nascar fan but they have parity, plenty of entries, drivers with personality....open wheel in the US is run by morons who don't see the obvious.
shareHullo a-crittenden; I think the point I'd like to stress here with this question/propsal is that if Bernie or Max (or which ever gig it is that controls the "business") was to step 'outside' for a short while and listen to some F1 fans who have left the fray, they may find that a few inexpensive ideas implemented would/could double or triple the fan base.
People don't watch F1 now for the racing. Do you know why? I bet you do! It is because there isn't any. And I am not taking the piss here. As I've mentioned before, the cars can not race closely, (even though the practice times say they should) due to the simple physics behind aerodynamics and the lack of traction while standing on ball bearings.
People must watch for the occassional spectacular crash.
Hell - the media who broadcast the events don't even watch the racing. They are too busy filming the damn pit stops!!
I feel some sympathy for the men who drive now. Not only do they battle the other drivers, but they also have a battle with the cars low pressure systems developed behind whenever the car moves forward. The faster they go the bigger the low pressure system. No air - no downforce for whoever is following, often trying to pass.
I watch the action that Valentino, Casey and other mad boys do on their bikes. They can, and do, race closely.
Because they have no aerodynamic devices to impede close racing.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
To the OP, yes, F1 was better in year's past. The sixties were arguably its glory days, although you have your fans of Piquet and Senna.
This film captures that. It has its slow and off the point parts. This is not a perfect film, at least for the head. But with surround sound and in DVD, turn it up and enjoy it. You'll see that the sounds of those normally aspirated V8's and 12's sound so much better than today's whining bees type sound.
Yes, the sounds are magnificent. And certainly then & even maybe as little as 15 or 20 years ago, on TV I could tell most drivers by either their helmet design or the number on their car. So it was easy and probably fairly natural to choose a hero or a dud. I am unsure if the cars even run numbers now!
I remember Piquet at the 1986 Australian GP having a half spin. When he came to a full stop his car was facing the immovable concrete wall with a gap so small I can not for the life of me work out how he did what he did: 1st gear, full throttle, full steering lock, dropped clutch. A beautiful pirouette of 180 degrees and a very sideways re-entry into the race, losing maybe 7 or 8 seconds. But the gap between the nose of his car & the wall seemed to be 10 to 15 feet. It is on youtube.
Senna - 1984 Monaco!! Utter, sheer genius. Scared the 'b-jeebers ' out of Professor Prost.
Also check out the movie Le Mans. I've so far only to hear the cars on VHS so DVD will make it big fun.
"...and if the bible has taught us anything (and it hasn't)..." Homer
[deleted]