The more it changes, the more it stays the same

[Kicking-back]

For anyone who's been bumping their gums about the current state of F1, Nigel Roebuck wrote this:

As a point of comparison, I checked back to last year's Fl season, and rather wish I hadn't. Not until our fifth race (Montreal) did one driver pass another for the lead. And in more than half the Grands Prix there were no lead changes at all...

The age-old argument, of course, is that Fl is art, on a separate level from everything else, and that to expect much actual racing is unrealistic, even slightly vulgar. And I know that to be inch-perfect around somewhere like Monte Carlo, shaving barriers left and right, calls for a precision that demands the word 'art'. But what you don't get at Monte Carlo, you don't get racing.

Nigel wrote that in 1989.

[Adam43]

So if you thought it was good back then you are kidding yourself!

While I do think that it was a little different in the mid '80s. I do think that the current level of 'racing' has been the same for the last 10 years. Remembering back to the good old days of 2000, 1997 or 1995 always strikes me as a little odd. It wasn't any different then, really. IMHO.

[RWC]

You take one stilted fact and try to make a point about it?

The relevant fact is that cars now can't get close enough to pass properly
In '89 (or whenever back then) they COULD pass

[Kicking-back]

It's not a stilted fact.

It's not even a fact.

All I'm saying is that fifteen years ago people were saying there's no overtaking in F1.

It's not a new phenomenon.

[Knowlesy]

There's more to it than passes for the lead though.

[Mr V]

knowlesy, your starting to sound like Max Mosley

[Knowlesy]

Yeah, but the way Nigel writes that it's as though he classes changes for the lead as the only factor that governs excitement in races!

[Mr V]

Well, of course, that isn't the only thing thats important in F1, thats for sure, but 5 races before a pass for the lead is poor.

Out of intrest, has there been a pass for the lead this season? (on the track, not in the pits?)

[Knowlesy]

Errr......

USA........errr.........

[Mr V]

USA? Rubens got close, but didn't even attempt a move. Same as Barcelona, Michaels pace dropped, so did Rubens, Michael sped up, so did Rubens.

As for the other teams, they haven't even been able to get close apart from a couple of occasions, JPM - Maylasia, when it rained and Kimi - Germany are the only ones that spring to mind. Hell, even Trulli managed to keep the lead for an entire race (but that was at Monaco).

[Knowlesy]

Michael got Rubens on the restart remember, when the SC pulled in. But not sure that really counts.........

Abysmal. 13 races, one change of lead.

I didn't think it was that kind of statistic actually!

[kurtwh73]

I just finished converting 98 and 99 seasons to dvd. Watched all the races in the process and they were very good seasons.

[kurtwh73]

After round 14 of 2000 Mika was ahead of Michael

[Glen]

Originally posted by RWC
You take one stilted fact and try to make a point about it?

The relevant fact is that cars now can't get close enough to pass properly
In '89 (or whenever back then) they COULD pass

This is where you're just totaly wrong - the reason for little passing in these two eras is exactly the same - the fast car is already in front of the slow one. The aero is itrrelevant if you can't catch up in the first place.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by kurtwh73
After round 14 of 2000 Mika was ahead of Michael

Six races before I put a 10-1 bet on him winning the championship. I was quite happy after that move at Spa. Then it didn't go as planned

Anyway. I think there is a difference with the Mika/Michael years. The chance of overtaking is not that much different as to '98 '99 or ten years ago. However, when talking 'for the lead' we much also factor in that one driver/car is vastly superior to the others. So there is no chance of overtaking at the front.

Fuel stops don't help. And I would get rid of these. Then we would know if it was hard to overtake or not.

My point is? I'm not sure I have one Perhaps there is one: if changes need are required then saying lets return to a mid '90s style then that is false. We should be asking for earlier.

[neil_davidson2]

But was the fast car the same car (or driver) every race? If I remember rightly then 88 was a year that Senna & Prost dominated and in 89 there was probably Mansell in the chase as well. So although there was little in the way of overtaking there was at least a reasonable chance that it wouldn't be the same driver/car across the line first at each outing.

[Super Tourer]

I think there were more variable's 'back then', like reliability, driver error, team mistakes, etc that made the races more unpredictable, which in turn made them possibly appear more open.

Nowadays it's a pretty slick operation, F1 is in effect too perfect - a handfull of reliability problems and jobs are on the line, heads start to roll - how many team bosses in the 80's up to the mid-90's expected their cars to finish every race?

Thinking back to the early 80's and Keke Rosberg's DFV powered Williams hustling around the more powerful Turbo Renault's and Brabham BMW's, that was a real example of a privateer effort (no works backing for FW in those days), with an effective car and driver, taking on and beating the well funded, more powerful cars and winning - something that would be impossible today.

But then, Trubo's were in the early days and unreliable, the chassis they sat in were often unwieldy and certainly not nimble and drivability in a turbo engine was a distant thought. Remember the early Honda Powered Williams - engine response like an on/off switch and chassis that handled like a wheelbarrow.

Ahhh, those were the days.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by neil_davidson2
But was the fast car the same car (or driver) every race?

er, no. No one did a comprehensively as good a job as Schumacher.

There were generally more winners in 1989 (although this was also the case in 2003). What aspect of teh rules do you want to change to 'achieve' this?

All I was saying is that it is not unexpected for there to be no overtaking at the front if one person is loads quicker than the others.

[Glen]

Take mid 90's technical regulations, but spend what they spend now and use today's technical excellence - who wins? Same person, same team.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
Ahhh, those were the days.

They were indeed.

The problem is how do you regulated that everyone must do a worse job. As it is everyone being a little bit rubbish that made it exciting. Trouble is we can't have new ideas and technology coming into force as much as in the old days. Who is going to invent the new turbo engine (or wahtever) of the 21st centrury. A new idea that takes time to work out.

Well I had my go: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=58647

[Morris 1100]

This is from the 65 Italian GP. (With thanks to Stefan Schmidt)

Lap Leader
1 - 2 Jim Clark
3 - 3 Graham Hill
4 - 4 Jim Clark
5 - 5 Jackie Stewart
6 - 7 Jim Clark
8 - 10 Jackie Stewart
11 - 11 John Surtees
12 - 12 Jackie Stewart
13 - 13 John Surtees
14 - 14 Jackie Stewart
15 - 16 John Surtees
17 - 17 Jackie Stewart
18 - 18 Jim Clark
19 - 20 Jackie Stewart
21 - 24 Jim Clark
25 - 26 Graham Hill
27 - 27 Jim Clark
28 - 28 Graham Hill
29 - 32 Jackie Stewart
33 - 35 Jim Clark
36 - 37 Jackie Stewart
38 - 38 Jim Clark
39 - 39 Jackie Stewart
40 - 40 Graham Hill
41 - 42 Jackie Stewart
43 - 43 Graham Hill
44 - 44 Jim Clark
45 - 45 Graham Hill
46 - 46 Jim Clark
47 - 49 Jackie Stewart
50 - 50 Graham Hill
51 - 51 Jim Clark
52 - 52 Jackie Stewart
53 - 54 Jim Clark
55 - 56 Graham Hill
57 - 57 Jim Clark
58 - 63 Jackie Stewart
64 - 64 Graham Hill
65 - 69 Jackie Stewart
70 - 71 Graham Hill
72 - 72 Jackie Stewart
73 - 74 Graham Hill
75 - 76 Jackie Stewart

More passing in one race than the last couple of seasons!

[neil_davidson2]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore

All I was saying is that it is not unexpected for there to be no overtaking at the front if one person is loads quicker than the others.

I wasn't disagreeing with you Adam, but since the subject of the thread is "The more it changes the more it stays the same" I was trying to make the point that what we're seeing this year isn't the same as 88/89 because although the racing may have been dull back then in terms of overtaking there was still a race for the championship. Something we don't have this year, and while I'm no fan of Schu and the Ferrari I can't fault them for their performance.

Originally posted by AdamAshmore

There were generally more winners in 1989 (although this was also the case in 2003). What aspect of teh rules do you want to change to 'achieve' this?

I'm not convinced that continual tweaking of the rules is the right way to go, as has been stated many times before it's not Ferrari's problem if the rest of the pack can't keep up. The one thing that has happened over the years is that there is far less room for teams to be creative. e.g. you must have a normally aspirated V10 for an engine, no room for anyone to experiment with number of cylinders, layout etc. So personally I'd like to see some freedom back in the rules to allow for creativity.

[Adam43]

Morris 1100, and that was at the end of the lap!

So it is 1965 that is the vintage era, not, say, 1997.

To achieve that the main thing that needs to be done is to remove the chicanes.

Originally posted by Glen
Take mid 90's technical regulations, but spend what they spend now and use today's technical excellence - who wins? Same person, same team.

Take any regs and this is the case. Given enough time and money the cars will be 'perfected' as they are now. And Mr Schumacher will be quicker and pull away from the rest.

[Glen]

Exactly Adam.

[Adam43]

I was only trying to pin it down, neil

I'm not convinced that continual tweaking of the rules is the right way to go...

...So personally I'd like to see some freedom back in the rules to allow for creativity.

I would too.

Change the rules drastically and continually. Then a least for a period after they were introduced different teams would come up with different solutions.