I was having a think recently about the Schumacher vs. Hakkinen era spanning through the 90's and reaching it's peak at the start of the 00's. It was apparently a fantastic few years, which included some hardcore wheel to wheel fighting, and of course the well known overtake from Mika Hakkinen in Spa 2000 which has become a sensation. The question: Will I ever actually see two drivers from two different/ or same teams with similar qualities, race each other no holds barred in cars that can last the stresses of a race? Being too young to actually witness this racing, I have to sit back and see 5 minute clips on YouTube and I have to say they are some mouth watering pieces of racing. I don't see this in recent racing... why? You may say today we do have Alonso vs Vettel, yes they fight each other for race wins and titles. But without taking anything away from them or the entertainment of this racing, doesn't it seem like a more indirect battle over a season? -) Refuelling having being knocked out of the regulations, has therefore put more emphasis on tyre management, fair enough that would seem like a good idea. But in this case it plays a massive part in how much a driver can push, I know we have debated about this before, it seems to be getting more and more calamitous than it was in say 2011. The Pirelli tyres have the whole team on it's knees in some races. And it looks as if it is going to be more of a factor than it ever was in this season. -) Reliability of the car , you would think that racing would become more reliable with age, but something that winds me up is for example, the fight between two drivers is about to start as the time intermediate become ever shorter, and BAM. The engine or something else is kaput, something that happened with Hamilton a lot in 2012. Some people find this more exciting, where as I find it a wasted opportunity to see some brilliant duels. -- (Vettel and Hamilton Austin 2012/ Vettel and Hamilton Canada 2012) -- which I thoroughly enjoyed. I guess this is something which cannot really be helped though. Is the driver in a team becoming a wasted talent? --> Fernando Alonso for example won't be around for long, and I would have at-least wanted him to fight Vettel more closely than it really did happen. What can be done? 1) Tyre wear to become a tad decreased, and allowing a team to build a package that can match front runners more often, rather than focus on being able to actually finish the race respectably - damage limitation. 2) Or bring in tougher tyres and include re-fuelling again. What I am saying is that the 1 v.1 dog fight from the front row to the finish seems sort of a past memory, and is much likely to stay there, more stresses are being put on a team to provide a car which doesn't eat it's tyres, rather than on the driver in being able to race. In recent years, racing has fallen more into the bracket of (wait and allow issues to hit the driver in front). It can be seen that the sporting regulations have been fine tuned to keep F1 racing more entertaining and "watchable", but I think that they have just sadly gone the wrong way about it. --- Which brings me onto the future of dueling in F1? I went on the internet to do some research a few days ago. And creepily I found these two lads. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image One born in 1999, the other 2000 you can guess at who they are.
Hakkinen was the ****ing man. He was the first driver I supported properly in about 95/96 I think. As for the 2 photos.... if they both end up in F1 and both are as good as their respective fathers then I can't wait for that battle!
Manny, you have to remember bak then that it was Ferrari v McLaren and no other teams had a look in. These days it will be unlikely to see such 'duels' as the grid is so mixed up and close that its hard to pick out two drivers who will lock horns with each other on regular occasions. Instead, look at the quality on the grid today and compare it back to MSC/HAK period. Back then it was just those two. Everyone else was average. I think of current F1 to be more like the late 80's/early 90's when there was a multitude of great drivers in different teams duking it out. The rivalries were intense all the time, yet they'd spend each race fighting against a different person. Great stuff.
When looking back to previous eras, it is easy to think that we are now missing something by comparison. But this is usually a romanticised, 'default' view. 1: Although you mention a significant overtake, there was typically very little overtaking at all. This is also the very reason that such an isolated event stands out as 'outstanding'. (the pure logic of semantics…. 2: Races tended to be processional. 3: Refuelling exacerbated the problem of point 2 by all but eliminating the need to consider the big picture (which, in my opinion, should always be part of Grand Prix racing and never again artificially removed). This was obviously going to encourage larger gaps between cars – and therefore reduce the chance of exciting, on track battles – because even only a very slightly quicker car would, over time, tend to walk away from its rivals. 4: You suggest longer lasting tyres (I personally agree but perhaps for a slightly different reason); but actually, this seems at odds with your view about refuelling. 5: The quality of drivers at the front half of the grid has improved and the present formula is allowing more of them to demonstrate their true value as drivers, which is therefore more 'accessible' to – and more involving for – F1's audience in general (rather than the dedicated fan who will always be fascinated with what's happening, along with all its intricacies). Oddly enough, it could be argued that something closer to present day regulations would have presented far greater opportunity for your two protagonists to battle with each other, thereby creating a better spectacle. Nothing is ever perfect. However, despite the romantic notion that things were better at some point in the past, you have focussed on an era of relative drought within F1; an era which foretold the coming of what would prove to be drought so long that it almost killed itself. There were several reasons but the most significant factor for F1's recovery from the brink of boredom was to undo the disastrously misguided idea of forcing teams to refuel their cars during a Grand Prix*!- - -o0o- - - *(This actually goes against the whole idea of 'Grand Prix' and it's duration and distance – which was essentially based on the notion of one tank of fuel – although long ago, the choice was there, rather than being an absolute requirement.)
I think it is because maybe I have not sat through the racing in the past, and thus I have a romantic view of it all. Who knows it may return to period like that again, and I might not like it haha.
The Schumacher/Hakkinen era was very boring aside from a few races like Spa and Suzuka 2000, now is a much better period the grid is far more competitive and open. Although thank heavens Mika took on Schumacher and Ferrari otherwise we would of had more seasons like 2001/02 which were utter bore fests, I actually think that over a single lap Mika was better than Michael.
There were some other stand out moments from that era............ [video=youtube;aRhDQ5LVeL8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRhDQ5LVeL8[/video]
When looking back to previous eras, it is easy to think that we are now missing something by comparison. But this is usually a romanticised, 'default' view. I guess you have a point about that, it just seems so different to racing in the present day. So I am just intrigued as to what it was like. The nose to tail racing between two top drivers looks appealing, but then people who have experienced it have mentioned that it was very infrequent, but that made it exciting when it did actually occur. 1: Although you mention a significant overtake, there was typically very little overtaking at all. This is also the very reason that such an isolated event stands out as 'outstanding'. (the pure logic of semantics…. 2: Races tended to be processional. 3: Refuelling exacerbated the problem of point 2 by all but eliminating the need to consider the big picture (which, in my opinion, should always be part of Grand Prix racing and never again artificially removed). This was obviously going to encourage larger gaps between cars – and therefore reduce the chance of exciting, on track battles – because even only a very slightly quicker car would, over time, tend to walk away from its rivals. 4: You suggest longer lasting tyres (I personally agree but perhaps for a slightly different reason); but actually, this seems at odds with your view about refuelling. What I am saying is, that harder tyres combined with re-fuelling would put more emphasis on strategy (in terms of fuel) rather than on the tyres themselves. 5: The quality of drivers at the front half of the grid has improved and the present formula is allowing more of them to demonstrate their true value as drivers, which is therefore more 'accessible' to – and more involving for – F1's audience in general (rather than the dedicated fan who will always be fascinated with what's happening, along with all its intricacies). True, it has widened the audience rather than turn off the excitement when the race is just focused on the front runners. Oddly enough, it could be argued that something closer to present day regulations would have presented far greater opportunity for your two protagonists to battle with each other, thereby creating a better spectacle. Really? I think that the Pirelli tyres seem to be having a negative impact in terms of allowing a driver to enter a battle with his counterpart. Nothing is ever perfect. However, despite the romantic notion that things were better at some point in the past, you have focussed on an era of relative drought within F1; an era which foretold the coming of what would prove to be drought so long that it almost killed itself. There were several reasons but the most significant factor for F1's recovery from the brink of boredom was to undo the disastrously misguided idea of forcing teams to refuel their cars during a Grand Prix*! I suppose I can only take your word for it really, as you have witnessed racing from this era. *(This actually goes against the whole idea of 'Grand Prix' and it's duration and distance – which was essentially based on the notion of one tank of fuel – although long ago, the choice was there, rather than being an absolute requirement.)
Quite possibly, EMSC. I think this is an admirable response to what I said. It is very difficult to be pragmatic about one's own passion and I'm sure your interest in Schumacher and his general dominance may have played its part in precipitating this (very welcome) diversion from the (rather over-subscribed, in my view) 'testing thread'… Thanks!
