planetf1.com

I have enjoyed every year that I have watched F1 & that has been a lot of years. That's why I have watched F1 for so long. I can't pick an era cause that would be putting down some years in certain era's where I had a few disapointments but generally enjoyed the racing, if you get what I mean

Blake I can understand the purity and allure of that era but comparing that time to today, it simply wasn't a fair fight in those day for the simple fact that race car technology was at its infancy and there was a much less technical aspect to it and ANYONE could build or buy a car and contest races. Even up until the late 70's people were able to build a car to F1 specs in their barns and yards. Sure there were larger teams that had purpose built facilities to produce the best/top cars, but backyard journeymen still had a chance, regardless of how minuscule. Chapman laid down the foundation towards looking for more innovative ways of engineering race cars, but his designs were such that anyone could construct a similar car without breaking the bank and many did.

In contrast, today, only the best educated engineers and mathematicians leading and an army of expert craftsmen can produce a car that can compete so long as they have the funds to pay for it all, from the equipment to the "exotic" materials as well as electrical and software engineers and the facilities to house it all. This ain't your F1 of old, thus in my personal opinion, diminishing the great accomplishments of those old days to a slight degree, because in no way can anyone take anything away from the pioneers of modern motorsport.

In today's modern era, all of us PF1 members could pool all our money and resources and no matter how hard we try, we'd never be able to build something worthy of competing in today's F1. There are countless reasons as to why the modern era (early mid 80's to today) is vastly superior to the days of old with the exception of one. Though they lacked in the way of fitness compared to today's drivers, the guys driving back then had one thing that elevates their legend… Cojones the size of The Rock of Gibraltar, and they had two!!! LOL

IMO Blake hit the nail when he said it's all relative and subjective (I think he typed objective by mistake).

One thing I've always wondered is how little it takes to completely change the history of F1. I know it's a "what if" scenario but bear with me for a second.

Imagine FIA didn't force rules against MSC and Ferrari and they ruled Renault’s mass dampers illegal since the start. Very likely Schumacher would have won both the 05-06 titles.

Alonso would still be a very good driver but without a title to his name yet.

Let's assume the course of history didn't change much after 06 so MSC retired and Kimi took his place while Alonso moved to McLaren alongside rookie Hamilton. As it happened Kimi won in 07 and if he didn't drop his performance and did slightly better than Massa he should have very well won in 08.

Hamilton would be a great driver no doubt but also without a title.

Now let’s assume that FIA wasn’t so lenient on Brawn GP and ruled their diffuser illegal since the start. Very likely Vettel would have won in 09 and then go on and win three more in a row.

That makes no titles for Button as well.

So to recap, from 1998 to 2013, in a span of 15 years, we would have 2 titles in a row for a finn, 7 titles in a row for a german, 2 titles in a row for another finn, 4 titles in a row for another german and drivers like Alonso, Hamilton and Button would have no titles to their names.

And now the question is, would the current grid be considered that great? Would Alonso and Hamilton be considered among the greatest F1 drivers ever even if they never won a title, especially considering that a young driver won 4 in a row at the same period?

Personally I think not. Villeneuve Jr., Rubens, Coulthard, Montoya, RSC, Trulli, Heidfeld to name but a few were very good drivers IMO. Unfortunately, they happened to be in F1 when the opportunities for a title were slim to zero.

Todd wrote:Following Senna's death at Imola in the third round of the 1994 season, the FIA made a number of changes to reduce car performance. The most controversial of these was a mandated piece of wood-like material running the length of the center line of the car's floor. It is the lowest point of the chassis, and must be 10 mm thick before and after the race. The idea was to raise the minimum ride height of the cars, creating less downforce and hopefully making them less pitch sensitive. To spice up the championship, they stripped Schumacher of a race win at Spa that year because of a thin spot worn on his 'plank.' During the race, he'd spun over a curb and worn a thin spot ahead of the rear wheels. The wear was consistent with the sideways trip down the curb, as it wasn't at an end of the plank. A low ride height would have resulted in even wear or wear at one end of the plank. That wasn't the case, but his points lead was getting excessive in spite of other efforts to dock him points. I think the plank is still in the rules. I can't think of a time that anyone has actually been excluded for legitimate wear of the plank in the almost 20 years since Spa 1994. It was a concern every time a car bottomed out for years following that race, but apparently the FIA only ignores explanations about wear when they have an agenda.

That would be some accusation, if your explanation were true. But it isn't.

The plank was 10mm thick before the race start, and was not allowed to be thinner than 9mm at race end at any point.

The rear of the plank indeed showed some sideways scratches, which may have been caused by the spin at Fagnes. But, as Eurosport showed after Benetton tried to get away with that explanation, the rear of the plank was lifted up by the rear wheels going up on the kerbs, thus making it clear that Benetton were simply clouding the issue.(*) Incidently, Eurosport also showed the damage on the plank itself. (Strangely, I've never found an image of it online. Perhaps the clip might be?)

It was the front of the plank that had worn beyond the allowed margin, and that could only point to an aerodynamic set-up that optimized the front wing's position beyond what the rules allowed (reminds us of Red Bull recently, doesn't it?). I have no idea whether Benetton were trying to cheat in that case, but they claimed that Herbert was driving with the same set-up, and his plank remained legal throughout the race. So, either their claim was blowing smoke, or the team really had failed to compensate for a significant difference in the driving styles between Schumacher and Herbert. (*)But whether that was the case or not, years later Symonds explained in an interview that one of the ways to measure the plank was to weigh it and see whether more than 10% had been worn off. Nobody had ever claimed this before or since.

As the damage to the plank was an indication of rake, and since Benetton never offered a better explanation, I believe they were in a damage limitation exercise, to hold on to Schumacher's championship lead as much possible, ahead of their court case for cheating on software.
The way that turned out, showed the FIA were doing exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

Definitely not the best era in Formula 1, as the final race of that year underlined.

Fiki wrote:

Todd wrote:Following Senna's death at Imola in the third round of the 1994 season, the FIA made a number of changes to reduce car performance. The most controversial of these was a mandated piece of wood-like material running the length of the center line of the car's floor. It is the lowest point of the chassis, and must be 10 mm thick before and after the race. The idea was to raise the minimum ride height of the cars, creating less downforce and hopefully making them less pitch sensitive. To spice up the championship, they stripped Schumacher of a race win at Spa that year because of a thin spot worn on his 'plank.' During the race, he'd spun over a curb and worn a thin spot ahead of the rear wheels. The wear was consistent with the sideways trip down the curb, as it wasn't at an end of the plank. A low ride height would have resulted in even wear or wear at one end of the plank. That wasn't the case, but his points lead was getting excessive in spite of other efforts to dock him points. I think the plank is still in the rules. I can't think of a time that anyone has actually been excluded for legitimate wear of the plank in the almost 20 years since Spa 1994. It was a concern every time a car bottomed out for years following that race, but apparently the FIA only ignores explanations about wear when they have an agenda.

That would be some accusation, if your explanation were true. But it isn't.

The plank was 10mm thick before the race start, and was not allowed to be thinner than 9mm at race end at any point.

The rear of the plank indeed showed some sideways scratches, which may have been caused by the spin at Fagnes. But, as Eurosport showed after Benetton tried to get away with that explanation, the rear of the plank was lifted up by the rear wheels going up on the kerbs, thus making it clear that Benetton were simply clouding the issue.(*) Incidently, Eurosport also showed the damage on the plank itself. (Strangely, I've never found an image of it online. Perhaps the clip might be?)

It was the front of the plank that had worn beyond the allowed margin, and that could only point to an aerodynamic set-up that optimized the front wing's position beyond what the rules allowed (reminds us of Red Bull recently, doesn't it?). I have no idea whether Benetton were trying to cheat in that case, but they claimed that Herbert was driving with the same set-up, and his plank remained legal throughout the race. So, either their claim was blowing smoke, or the team really had failed to compensate for a significant difference in the driving styles between Schumacher and Herbert. (*)But whether that was the case or not, years later Symonds explained in an interview that one of the ways to measure the plank was to weigh it and see whether more than 10% had been worn off. Nobody had ever claimed this before or since.

As the damage to the plank was an indication of rake, and since Benetton never offered a better explanation, I believe they were in a damage limitation exercise, to hold on to Schumacher's championship lead as much possible, ahead of their court case for cheating on software.
The way that turned out, showed the FIA were doing exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

Definitely not the best era in Formula 1, as the final race of that year underlined.

You remember incorrectly. The worn part of the plank was some distance ahead of the rear end of the plank. Furthermore, Johnny Herbert was racing a Lotus at Spa, so your explanation seems to be one of convenience rather than evidence.

A SIX YEAR OLD thread was revived for that????

At the time the last post in this thread before yours was made, Lewis Hamilton was a 1-time WDC with 21 wins, Max Verstappen hadn't even started racing cars yet, and Fernando Alonso had taken his 32nd and final Grand Prix victory only 3 days ago instead of 2,097 days ago.

Exediron wrote:At the time the last post in this thread before yours was made, Lewis Hamilton was a 1-time WDC with 21 wins, Max Verstappen hadn't even started racing cars yet, and Fernando Alonso had taken his 32nd and final Grand Prix victory only 3 days ago instead of 2,097 days ago.

Blake wrote:A SIX YEAR OLD thread was revived for that????

Some people like to give well considered, well researched responses I suppose.

I seriously think it's the most mind boggling thing I've ever seen on the forum.

Todd wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Todd wrote:Following Senna's death at Imola in the third round of the 1994 season, the FIA made a number of changes to reduce car performance. The most controversial of these was a mandated piece of wood-like material running the length of the center line of the car's floor. It is the lowest point of the chassis, and must be 10 mm thick before and after the race. The idea was to raise the minimum ride height of the cars, creating less downforce and hopefully making them less pitch sensitive. To spice up the championship, they stripped Schumacher of a race win at Spa that year because of a thin spot worn on his 'plank.' During the race, he'd spun over a curb and worn a thin spot ahead of the rear wheels. The wear was consistent with the sideways trip down the curb, as it wasn't at an end of the plank. A low ride height would have resulted in even wear or wear at one end of the plank. That wasn't the case, but his points lead was getting excessive in spite of other efforts to dock him points. I think the plank is still in the rules. I can't think of a time that anyone has actually been excluded for legitimate wear of the plank in the almost 20 years since Spa 1994. It was a concern every time a car bottomed out for years following that race, but apparently the FIA only ignores explanations about wear when they have an agenda.

That would be some accusation, if your explanation were true. But it isn't.

The plank was 10mm thick before the race start, and was not allowed to be thinner than 9mm at race end at any point.

The rear of the plank indeed showed some sideways scratches, which may have been caused by the spin at Fagnes. But, as Eurosport showed after Benetton tried to get away with that explanation, the rear of the plank was lifted up by the rear wheels going up on the kerbs, thus making it clear that Benetton were simply clouding the issue.(*) Incidently, Eurosport also showed the damage on the plank itself. (Strangely, I've never found an image of it online. Perhaps the clip might be?)

It was the front of the plank that had worn beyond the allowed margin, and that could only point to an aerodynamic set-up that optimized the front wing's position beyond what the rules allowed (reminds us of Red Bull recently, doesn't it?). I have no idea whether Benetton were trying to cheat in that case, but they claimed that Herbert was driving with the same set-up, and his plank remained legal throughout the race. So, either their claim was blowing smoke, or the team really had failed to compensate for a significant difference in the driving styles between Schumacher and Herbert. (*)But whether that was the case or not, years later Symonds explained in an interview that one of the ways to measure the plank was to weigh it and see whether more than 10% had been worn off. Nobody had ever claimed this before or since.

As the damage to the plank was an indication of rake, and since Benetton never offered a better explanation, I believe they were in a damage limitation exercise, to hold on to Schumacher's championship lead as much possible, ahead of their court case for cheating on software.
The way that turned out, showed the FIA were doing exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

Definitely not the best era in Formula 1, as the final race of that year underlined.

You remember incorrectly. The worn part of the plank was some distance ahead of the rear end of the plank. Furthermore, Johnny Herbert was racing a Lotus at Spa, so your explanation seems to be one of convenience rather than evidence.

You are correct, the other Benetton driver was Jos Verstappen, interestingly (in view of his comments a few years ago). Herbert came in later in the season, at the Japanese GP.

But the rest of my post stands, however. Recently Autosport put a podcast on their website in which Symonds speaks about the 1994 season. I found that what he didn't mention (or was asked about by the interviewer) at least as interesting as what he did say. No wonder that season is still discussed so often.
https://www.autosport.com/podcast
Scroll down to "Schumacher: The Benetton Years, with Pat Symonds"

cant say whether it was the best era but there was a great piece about jim clark on this weeks grand tour. 1965 was immense.

Caserole of Nonsense wrote:cant say whether it was the best era but there was a great piece about jim clark on this weeks grand tour. 1965 was immense.

Yes, it was a very good documentary. I wish they'd do more

Blake wrote:A SIX YEAR OLD thread was revived for that????

I'm not sure you are missing the point that it took him 6 years to reply?

pokerman wrote:

Blake wrote:A SIX YEAR OLD thread was revived for that????

I'm not sure you are missing the point that it took him 6 years to reply?

Aha.... My bad.