Was F1 considered boring when Ascari, Fangio and then Clark dominated their eras?

[Yoong Montoya]

Given how many F1 fans are considering the 2004 season as a tedious one so far due to Schumi and Ferrari's dominance, I would like to ask fans here if they thought the same when Ascari dominated in 1952 and 1953, Fangio in 1954 and 1955 and Clark in 1963. In all of these seasons, the above drivers destroyed the rest of the field and barring problems or errors would win every race, just like Schumi is doing now.

So were the races back then predictable processions like the races this season? If not, why? Were the drivers more heroic? Did the danger factor add excitement more back then? Or did the cars allow the drivers to show their talent more? Fill me in please.

[Adam43]

For different people it is different things.

Maybe it is that it is Michael doing the winning. Maybe because it should be a show, not a sport, and be more like all other television they watch - be dramatic and quick fire.

The sport has changed, it has become more professional. There were those who said Stewart was dull because he won and went about it more professionally than the others. Others didn't like the Mercedes because they dominated, etc, etc...

It is a little bit of everything. I grew up on the '80s when, I think, there were a higher percentage of exciting races than now (although there were dull ones).

It is also fashionable to knock it when in my opinion it isn't much different from all the other top levels of motorsport. It is normally the cars that people tend to want to start negative threads rather than positive ones!

That is not to say I wouldn't change anything, far from it.

Where the races back then predictable processions? Yes, undoubtedly they were, but it didn't seem to matter. Why the change? Well I think attitudes have changed, before people used to watch the sport, whereas now they expect and believe it owes them excitement. Does it? I don't know.

Were the drivers more heroic? Possibly. It used to be racing and wine, now racing and mineral water (not very heroic?). However who do we blame for the change? Well I guess it is the Mosses, the Clarks, the Stewarts, the Andrettis, the Prosts, the Sennas who all made the step to being ahead of the others in terms of professionalism. To beat them you had to be more extreme than the last, to take what they had further. The point I am trying to make is that heroic seems to be inversely proportional to professional in the general terms. Which kind of influences the next point too.

Danger factor? It isn't my cup of tea, but I guess that has an influence. Nowadays it is built up in an artificial way. Another aspect that can't be changed back.

Did the cars allow the drivers to show their talents more. Yes and a little no. Yes, maybe the driver could make more of a difference, but it was still in the minority of cases. However this aspect is where I would change modern aspects of GP racing, allow the driver to have more control. However there will always be the Ferrari, Mercedes, Lotus, Williams, McLaren, or whatever that wins all but one race a year! One aspect that superficially is a good thing is the current reliability. It is outstanding at the moment, but naturally means freak results don't occur. Oh and why did I say a 'little no', well over the last ten years the best driver has won a lot no matter how good the car he was in was! And the reason why he has such a good car is not independent of him being in the team.

I'd also go back to longer races, on more challenging circuits, with old qualifying and you could argue all of those would make it even more dull!

There you go, some of my ramblings on it. In conclusion, I have a pair of rose tinted glasses and I were them a lot when the glare gets too much and I would change modern F1 to give more control back to the driver, but I feel a lot of the negative aspects are blown out of proportion when compared to the old days.

(IMHO)

[TimD]

Hmm - interesting thoughts. Bearing in mind I'm 36 and thus missed the fifties decisively, I can only relate what I've been told by family members who were there and involved.

First of all, the leading motorsport events and drivers were unspeakably exotic to the 1950s audience. In a world where only the privileged went abroad for a holiday at all, the arrival of the works teams in the country was a big event even before the racing actually happened. Coverage of European GPs in the fifties was a paragraph in the newspaper, a page or three in Autosport, Autocar and Motor Sport and then a five minute newsreel with Raymond Baxter or John Bolster giving the story of the race. All of this conspired to make the event special even before the flag fell.

As a case in point, my grandfather, from whom I learned about Nuvolari, Caracciola, Fangio and Ascari was a lifelong race enthusiast, a professional man and yet managed just two trips to Le Mans, one to the Nurburgring and another to Monza in his entire adult life.

Regarding the dominance of teams, this was certainly true, but you didn't necessarily know who was going to be the winning driver. Team orders were not always called into play and so Alfa Romeo might be a shoe-in for a win, but it might be Farina, Fangio or Fagioli who brought it home. They might even give a car to a local man, such as Reg Parnell, to give the crowd a chance to see a home driver in a front-line car. Ferrari might prove to be a winning car for Ascari or perhaps Hawthorn.

Finally, it is unusual to see a modern F1 car doing anything but cornering on rails. Watch a fleet of fifties Grand Prix cars and if the sight of a driver wrestling with the steering might come across as a cliche, do watch it one day and see how the driver of a Maserati 250F will make the car slide elegantly through a corner. That really is the fastest way through and it is utterly alien to a modern machine. And of course each type is different in its handling. A Ferrari 625 is a squirty little thing compared to a lazy, powersliding Lancia D50. It's rare to see an Alfa 158 nowadays really being exercised, despite Willie Green's best efforts. But an Alfetta in a drift is one of the sublime sights in motor racing. Just watching and cherishing those sights gives a pretty good idea, I'd suggest, of why the interest was sustained when Ascari was casting all aside.

[Mekola]

Originally posted by TimD
First of all, the leading motorsport events and drivers were unspeakably exotic to the 1950s audience. In a world where only the privileged went abroad for a holiday at all, the arrival of the works teams in the country was a big event even before the racing actually happened. Coverage of European GPs in the fifties was a paragraph in the newspaper, a page or three in Autosport, Autocar and Motor Sport and then a five minute newsreel with Raymond Baxter or John Bolster giving the story of the race. All of this conspired to make the event special even before the flag fell.

As a case in point, my grandfather, from whom I learned about Nuvolari, Caracciola, Fangio and Ascari was a lifelong race enthusiast, a professional man and yet managed just two trips to Le Mans, one to the Nurburgring and another to Monza in his entire adult life.

How ironic. In Argentina, the late 40s was the time when motorsport became very popular. The Temporadas of monopostos were raced on the streets of most important cities, and the Turismo Carretera races were racing on the country roads, like rally. Newspapers, sport magazines and radio bring huge coverage to main motorsport events.
In that time many local drivers became popular, but three were the most recognized: Juan Manuel Fangio and the brothers Oscar and Juan Gálvez. These three drivers were the title favourites in the Turismo Carretera these days, Fangio racing with Chevrolet coupés and the Gálvezs with Ford ones, but since Fangio went to Europe, Gálvez brothers have no opposition until early 60s, winning all 1947-61 TC championships with the exception of the 1959 one.
That gave to Argentinian fans not one, but TWO huge dominances during the 50s: Fangio winning in the Grand Prixs circuits and the Gálvez brothers winning in the Turismo Carretera dusty road races.
At last, Turismo Carretera fans of that time had only worried about how of the Gálvez brothers, Oscar or Juan, will win the title...

[ensign14]

It was different because when a driver was at nine-tenths he looked right on the edge.

Today when a driver is at nine-tenths he looks like he is stroking it.

The cars have got too good for the drivers. Ban computers and we may get back somewhere.

[ianselva]

I think the difference is that in previous eras you could see the driver and watch in awe as he made the car do what he wanted, whereas now it looks so easy, that every man thinks " I could do that ".
Also the cars were never so reliable, so that even if a particular car got to the front and started to draw away it was never certain from that point on that it would win.
Personally, although I know how difficult it is to get that close to the limit in F1,it never appears impressive , yet when I watch the Moto GP, Superbikes, or World Rally I am overecome with admiration.

[hodsonaj]

This is an interesting question and has caused me to ponder a lot all morning. Let me start by saying that I came upon this earth in 1950 so I was brought up on a diet of Moss Fangio Hawthorne Collins and so on. As said above life then was very different. My parents only had one holiday abroad in those days and that would have been 1953 or 54. The intention was to get to Monza for the Italian GP. In fact the money ran out (currency restrictions and all that) in France so they never made it.
Motor racing was very different. Listen to Tony Brooks talk about how they dealt with the dangers inherent in each track. We only saw our heroes a few times in a year, not every weekend on the telly as now and if we did get to see them it would be at Goodwood driving all sorts of machinery. My Mum now in her 80th year still berates me for being somewhere else in the Paddock at Goodwood when she walked past Mike Hawthorne!!
I don't think it mattered that we knew who would win, the thing was to see the great and the good in action. In 1955 Dad and a mate left work in West Cornwall at 2pm on the Friday and drove to Liverpool to see the Grand Prix on Saturday. Everyone knew Mercedes would win but that was not the point. I live an hour from Silverstone but it does not cross my mind to go to the GP.
F1 I find sad and lacking charisma, sanitised events put on simply for the benefit of sponsors. MotoGP or Superbikes I sit rivetted because here is good old fashioned racing.
I'll put the soapbox, and the memories, away now
Tony Hodson

[Mark Barton]

I'm very interested to read that others also find Bike Racing and Rallying far more exciting than modern F1 - I'm very much in the same camp. I tend to agree with ianselva that being able to see the driver working at the wheel gave the spectators the chance to see that this was something out of the ordinary - actually, I think I'd go one step further: I think the fact that you could see the driver at all added to the sense of involvement. In modern F1 you can't see much more than the top third of a drivers helmet unless you're looking at onboard footage.

The other thing that's been hinted at is the thing that modern Bike racing, Rallying, and old Formula racing have in common - it's exciting to see things going sideways . I've long thought that Rally drivers are a breed apart. Leaving aside the incredible technique involved, I think the mental strength required to deliberately chuck a car into a slide pointing left, in order to go round a right hand bend is just astounding. We can all drive cars when all the wheels are gripping the road, but seeing someone master a car that is basically out of control, and make it look elegant at the same time is as Tim said, really something to see.

All this seems slightly at odds with my love of Le Mans, and my enthusiasm at the recent re-appearance of "proper" endurance racing with the LMES. No sideways action there, or not deliberately, anyway! I guess I appreciate the challenge that the teams and drivers are up against in any race lasting more than three hours, where the chances of mechanical failure are higher, and therefore that there's no foregone conclusion as to who'll win.

I hold out some small hope for F1 with some of the proposed new rule changes handing some control back to the driver, but unless they take the wings off and start going sideways again, they'd better make the races longer! Sadly neither will happen, largely due to lack of will or enthusiasm for the former, and TV scheduling for the latter, but a man can dream...

Like others have said, I was also born too late to see what must have been the best years of racing - the 30's, 50's and 60's. Thank God for video and for Goodwood

[gfm]

Very interesting question - and answers.
I don't think the dominations in those days were considererd 'boring'. It maybe today 'boring' for many 'fans', but simply because perspectives have changed, completely and utterly. I don't even think you'd (thought to) have asked this question back then.
I'm afraid I've said this before but I don't ever think 'motor racing' will ever be the same as it was 'post-war' for 40 years or so. Technology, entertainment, financial opportunity, tyres, every last detail and above the public perception and expectation is all quite different.
In fact (most forms of) 'racing' today is fantastic I think. It's just that the context, what else is going on in the world in competition with it, has completely changed.
Yes, I'm too an addict now of MotoGP - has something to do with 260 bhp going through a contact patch no bigger than my footprint. So maybe F1 should indeed be 1000 bhp, NO aerodynamics, no electrical aides whatsoever ('part from sparks). You still can't fall off an F1 though.
Is that progress though? Would we regard it as such?

[Mark Barton]

Originally posted by gfm
So maybe F1 should indeed be 1000 bhp, NO aerodynamics, no electrical aides whatsoever ('part from sparks). You still can't fall off an F1 though.
Is that progress though? Would we regard it as such?

I would, but then I'm biased...

It does seem perverse though, that many of the recent rule changes have been geared towards reducing speed generally, and cornering speeds in particular, but aerodynamic downforce is largely overlooked, or the rules surrounding it tweaked at best.

It could be argued for instance, that ABS, traction and stability control, semi- or fully automatic sequential gearboxes, paddle shift, and many other of the things I would like to see out of motor sport are in mainstream motoring on the public roads, and that to force manufacturers to leave them out of the highest levels of the sport is backward. Motor racing started as a showcase for cars rather than drivers, after all, and was often justified because it improved the breed, and advanced the technology in use on the road, and the safety of road cars. As I said, I wouldn't want to see any of those things allowed but you could make a case.

The case for the disproportionate amount of aerodynamic downforce generated by F1 cars, as well as others, seems to me to be rather weaker. They are so far removed from the levels of downforce generated by even the most radical (pun intended!) of road-legal cars, and make such a fundamental difference as to almost single-handedly define the sport. I think this tends distance the technique of driving them from the driving techniques that the viewing public are familiar with and can relate to. The less the viewing public can appreciate the driving skill of the drivers, the more they need the sort of commercial "entertainment" that the sport has gradually become.

I don't think that people would complain as much about Schumacher running away with it year after year if they had a better opportunity to appreciate just how talented he undoubtedly is. No-one stopped watching football when ManU were winning everything, did they? But provided the spectacle continues to consist of a bunch of brightly coloured rollerskates following one-another round and round in circles like some kind of overblown Scalextric set, rather then providing the public with a demonstration of skills that they can relate to, I think Max and Bernie have their work cut out...

Nothing against Scalextric btw

[Adam43]

gfm, I like the post. Especially the word 'context'.

[Fuzzyfelt]

Remember that the drivers of the 'classic' era had just lived through a world war.
These were men who's lives had hung in the balance through events and chance and they then chose to risk their lives in pursuit of their dreams and goals.
It's not the same choice that today's drivers make.

[Eric Falce]

I can remember when it came over the radio that Ascari had been killed,my father beng Italian followed motor racing very closely.
The main differance as far as I can work out is that there was always a driver who could compete alongside,Ascari/Gonzales/Fangio-
Moss/Hawthorn/Brooks/Collins- Brabham/Moss- Clark/Hill/Stewart- Stewart/Rindt.
There was always someone to challenge,but the spetacale was so different,the teams closer matched and more on driver ability plus always the unexpected.
At the moment there is no one to challenge Shui or Ferrari,it is total dominance,I think that is the differance

[Mark Barton]

Originally posted by Fuzzyfelt
Remember that the drivers of the 'classic' era had just lived through a world war.
These were men who's lives had hung in the balance through events and chance and they then chose to risk their lives in pursuit of their dreams and goals.
It's not the same choice that today's drivers make.

Good point, all sorts of attitudes were different then - I didn't mean to suggest that the sport needs to be more dangerous to be more entertaining, just less removed from what the rest of us can relate to as driving.

[Eric Falce]

Plus one other thing,modern grand prix racing is more like scaletrix racing than anything else

[JohnSSC]

This is by far the most interesting thread I have read in a long while! Excellent question - excellent postings!

My 2 cents worth? I think that there is a dynamic tension missing from F1 today. I have been following since the '70's and so remember the more "dangerous" days. It is not the danger that is missing though that changes the tension - I believe it is the reliability of the cars.

Way back when there were all manner of mechanical gremlins to be dealt with: this or that team had particular idiosyncratic mechanical woes: weak gearboxes, weak engines, dodgy suspension bits, etc. One wondered if one's favorite team would solve the gremlins and keep the thing together for the entire race distance. A big lead meant nothing as more often than not something - a puncture, oil leak, clutch problem - would endanger the car's chances of finishing.

Now, we see fastest laps at near-pole speeds turned in the last few laps of the race. Even Minardi's finish regularly barring driver-error/over exuberance.

It seems to be a given that the field will, for the most part, finish. Further, the field will be circulating at pretty much the same rate of speed the entire race distance. We can therefore extrapolate ahead of time the finishing order simply by knowing the relative performance difference between teams.

Spending $280 million/year has pretty much (but not completely!) ruled out the element of chance.

Could you imagine though the look on Ascari's face if he could see a modern paddock, complete with trees!

Thank you all for making this an extremely interesting thread!

[Knowlesy]

I would guess that even the dullest of races back in those days would be interesting because of the posture of the cars through corners - ie drifting. Always keeps you on the edge when a car is on that knife edge of either going off in a big way or keeping it on the black stuff.

Nowadays, traction control and tyre technology reduces this aspect somewhat, but we have the added excitement of corner speed, which is great in itself.

I'd prefer a balance between the two. Nowadays is too on rails, the fifties were very slidey and graceful but not quite quick enough (although still fast).

It probably comes down to that old "different eras" argument again.

[Mark Barton]

Originally posted by JohnSSC

Further, the field will be circulating at pretty much the same rate of speed the entire race distance.

This made me think...

How often have we heard the rule-makers saying that the changes they make are designed to make the racing closer, and therefore more entertaining. Sounds good, but I'm not so sure it is. The closer the performance of the cars, the more processional the racing has become. It could be good but (where did I put my soap box ) it all comes back to aerodynamic downforce.

Aerodynamic downforce relies on still, or at least "clean" air in order to be effective. Currently when a car starts to close in on the one ahead, the airflow coming off the car in front has been so disrupted by the wings that the downforce generated by the chasing car is seriously reduced. In a straight line, if the following car gets close enough, this reduction in downforce will increase potential top speed and gives the chasing car the chance to pass under braking into the next turn. All well and good, but in order for this to happen you need one of two things: a car that has a sufficiently higher top speed in a straight line to be able to get close enough to slipspteam and a long enough straight to do it, or a better run out of the corner preceeding the straight.

Here's the problem - in order to get that better run out of the corner, the following car needs to be able to corner at least as fast as the car in front, which it can't to in the disrupted air it finds itself in by running close because of a lack of downforce, and therefore grip. So closer performance throughout the field results in the chasing car dropping back in the corners, and not being fast enough relative to the car in front to pass it in a stright line.

Take the wings off though, and cornering speed becomes entirely subject to mechanical grip, or road-holding. Slipstreaming will still be a factor, always has been, but races are won and lost in the corners. If cornering speed is subject to mechanical grip only then driving skill takes over, and closely matched cars will provide the sort of entertaining racing we see in bikes.

Originally posted by JohnSSC
A big lead meant nothing as more often than not something - a puncture, oil leak, clutch problem - would endanger the car's chances of finishing.

Aah, the Le Mans factor Add in to the equation that the races used to be long enough to stand a chance of recovering from a problem and still going on to win, or at least finish well (Jim Clark, Monza 1967 anyone? http://www.gpracing.net192.com/races/reports/159.cfm - maybe not the best example, but the first that springs to mind...), and we've got us a formula!

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
I believe it is the reliability of the cars.

I'll go with that too, at least in part.

Watching a race these days, knowing there there is an almost infinitessimal chance of that red Ferrari suffering a reliability problem removes an important factor from the racing equation, IMO.

[krt917]

Good thread. I think that there are two main elements which contribute to people's complaints of F1 today. Both have been implied, but here's my take:

1. People's expectations have changed. In the past, motor racing was a sport that people came to watch if they wanted too. Now, many see it as an entertainment and if it does not entertain them - some have issues with Schuey winning, for example - then they demand changes. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but the emphasis has changed.

2. The above on its own would not be enough to upset F1 enthusiasts. There are problems with F1 as a racing series. My problem is not that Schuey wins the races, it's that he can do it without having to pass people on the track and that the work the drivers are doing is not obvious to the naked eye. An old GP car, with all it's sliding around can be interesting when there are no other cars around. That's not so much the case for the current cars. Of course, the solution is to cut downforce and to ban electronics, but we've talked about that before....

Other factors, such as the incredible reliability also play a part, but I think that expectations and the car technology are the main reasons for modern F1 being seen as 'boring'.

[luke]

No the 50s & 60s domination wasn't boring because their team mates where alowed to win. You never saw Graham Hill let team mate Jim Clark through so he could win.
Before anyone argues with my view I have some good evidence. On Itv when the grand prix was on Ross Brawn was being interviewed and was asked that once Michael has sown up the title then we will be able to let Barrichello win.
Thats why it's not as exciting because only one driver is allowed to win. in the 90s with Irvine helping Schumacher win that didn't make it boring because there was close competion . If Senna had let Prost win all the races in 1988 then it would have been very boring because they were dominating it's whats happening now un fortunately.

[luke]

Also to add that to make it clearer.

If Barrichello was allowed to win then we would have a good battle between the best car that had happened in 1988 but now only one car is allowed to win. Thats why it's boring at most of the races.

[krt917]

I agree that the way Ferrari work hasn't helped, but I think:
a) RB wouldn't be able to beat Schuey that often anyway. I think the whole 'letting MS' win is blown out of proportion, though I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
b) The other teams need to get closer - when they are, Ferrari will have to have whoever is quickest on the day heading their charge (likely to be Schuey).

I don't mind domination by one team, or even one driver that much (though close competition is always better), but I do mind about the lack of overtaking and the gizmos.

[Eric Falce]

It isnt the lack of overtaking,its the lack of being able to see the true ability of the driver at the head of the pack.Shue'i is far and away the top driver for generations(much as I hate to admit it),but unless you see the inboard camera you cannot see the way he is working to achieve that.Leading up to Ferraris dominance,when Shui'i was realy having to work for his money,you could see the lock to lock work he put in.Now,it seems effortless for him to get into the position at the front and stay there,the oldies were exsposed so you could see there true skills and work,thats the differance.
Why not lets try doing away with all the down force aids and see what happens then,as Damon Hill said about driving one of the old cars'It was bloody difficult to drive without the aid of downforce'.

[flagwaver]

I think you may have something there, seeing the driver. in the 50's, 60's and early seventies you could see the driver trying. You knew that he was in total control of the car. The pit wall was made up of clipboards and stopwatches not cosy chairs and computers.