When was F1's greatest era

When was F1's greatest era

  • 1950-1960

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1961-1973

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • 1974-1982

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • 1983-1993

    Votes: 8 19.5%
  • 1994-2005

    Votes: 17 41.5%
  • 2009-2018

    Votes: 9 22.0%

  • Total voters
    41
2,143
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Shamelessly copied from Autosport's recent poll, here is the GTP version. Let's see if the results are different.

(Note: Not sure of the omission of Hamilton's fight with Alonso and his first title but let's let that slide)
 
Whichever one you grew up with. The one that made you fall in love with Formula One will always have an extra special meaning to you.
That's probably a good generalization, but not right in my case. I followed F1 very closely starting from Monza, '61, when Phil Hill took the world championship, Von Trips collided with Clark and was killed along with fifteen spectators. But I didn't choose the '61-'73 period as greatest. Poverty and danger still afflicted the world as a whole, and racing as well. Grids were often sparse, the cars unreliable, puny and slower than sports cars. F1 really took off in the next era, '74-'82. Then the grids were bursting out with competitive cars which were getting faster and safer. IMO the best thing to ever happen to F1 was commercial sponsorship, the Cosworth engine and the Hewland transaxle. These significant developments began in the later part of the previous era. If I could, I would rejigger the best era to '69-'80, closely followed by '81-'93.
 
Last edited:
I've only followed F1 since perhaps the mid-to-late 90's, and can't say there has been any amazing period in that time. I do imagine if there was a "great" period in F1 it's definitely in the 60's or 70's etc.
 
Whichever one you grew up with. The one that made you fall in love with Formula One will always have an extra special meaning to you.
Interesting.

I, too like Dotini slightly disagree. I first started watching F1 in the late Senna era and really got into it in the Schumacher-Hakkinen-Alonso times. But I cast my vote for the latest period, even if it was missing Hamilton's rise.

Also of interest, Autosport found that the results differed by response type: i.e whether by Twitter or Email/Post
 
V10 Era, that was what got me into F1, the races where unquestionably less action packed but development was near unlimited with testing happening every day, 2003 was exceptionally good to watch though.
 
V10 era for me too, because that's what I grew up with.

On a side note, why is 2006-2008 omitted? :odd:
 
I did find that era of car to be the most interesting. F1 car aesthetic appeal fell off a cliff for me in 2009, and it's never recovered IMO.
 
Whichever one you grew up with. The one that made you fall in love with Formula One will always have an extra special meaning to you.

On a more objective note, you'd have to look at 1961-1984 for a very, very broad definition; a champion never retained his crown during this period which indicates a level of competitiveness required to compete at the top but also demonstrating that no single driver would dominate each season. Of note, 1964-1970 and 1976-1982 were both seven year streaks where nobody won the title more than once.

By comparison, taking 1961-1984 as a 23 year period where no driver retained his crown, the most recent 23 years of 1995-2018 saw the champion retain his crown 12 times. Furthermore, there have only been 5 single world champions (Hill, Villeneuve, Räikkönen, Button and Rosberg) which means that 18 of the last 23 seasons have been domination blocs to some extent.
 
1983-1993

Even though this era had some teams favouring other driver, the racing was more fair for everyone. None was so strongly politically, commercially or PR backed like Schumacher - Hamilton era. Teams had less pay drivers and no drivers was taken into F1 almost directly from prams.
No testing limits, big powerful engines, slicks tires and skilled drivers.
 
I would argue the late 80s to early 90s period was the worst period in F1 history when it came to pay drivers.
 
Last real old skool private teams McLaren and Williams might not be around in next couple of seasons. F1 powerunits are by Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda. I doubt they grant equal powerunits for customer teams. Red Bull managed to get outstanding results with hickupping Renault but I doubt they can do similar miracle with Honda this season.
 
I would argue the late 80s to early 90s period was the worst period in F1 history when it came to pay drivers.

1994 is the single worst year.

Additionally, I just posted in the trivia thread the fact that 46 drivers featured in the 1994 season and that that is before factoring in drivers like de Cesaris, Alliot, Herbert and Lehto who drove for two teams that year. Herbert even drove for three.

Seriously, this was the nadir of pay drivers; Taki Inoue, Dominica Schiattarella, Jean-Marc Gounon, Olivier Beretta, Yannick Dalmas, Hideki Noda, Aguri Suzuki, Jean-Denis Delatraz, Frank Lagorce, Andrea Montermini, Paul Belmondo, Roland Ratzenberger, Mika Salo, Philippe Alliot and Phillippe Adams all featured at one point or another.

And that is being lenient to drivers like Ukyo Katayama, Christian Fittipaldi, Eric Bernard, David Brabham, Olivier Panis, JJ Lehto, Pierluigi Martini, Erik Comas, Bertrand Gachot and Michele Alboreto who could meet the definition of pay drivers to varying levels of extent.
 
Personally, 2005-2008 (Excluding Indy 2005 obvs) was the best to me. The racing was exciting, you had variables and you had the ability for non-front running teams to get good results.
 
I'll always remember '81-'93 as the years when the winning was dominated by just four drivers, Piquet, Prost, Senna and Mansell. Later on, the domination just got worse. By comparison, the 70's were a kaleidoscope of novelty, variety and diversity in both cars and drivers. Very competitive back then.
 
Last edited:
I started watching full time in 2008 so naturally from then onwards that means a lot to me (though te be honest 2014 and 2015 were completely forgettable, and 2009 felt utterly chaotic and discombobulated). I love the 90s cars the most but the main issue I have with the 20th century era is the horrendously bad reliability and the enormous amount of pay driers that did only one or two races in unbelievably slow cars that were luck to qualify. There are some drivers that I'm amazed had the willingness to carry on racing after doing a whole season and maybe only finishing two or three races. Teams like Virgin and HRT had slow cars, but they could still qualify within 107% without any problems, the reliability was as good as the other teams and they would field driver pairs that would last a whole season rather than people switching around constantly.
 
...the main issue I have with the 20th century era is the horrendously bad reliability...
Too true. This was especially frustrating for fans of the sport prior to the introduction of the Cosworth V-8 engine and Hewland transaxle.
 
This was the original article (might be behind a paywall). The years are personal preference, picked by the various Autosport staff, probably with an editor encouraging them not to overlap.
 
I'll always remember '81-'93 as the years when the winning was dominated by just four drivers, Piquet, Prost, Senna and Mansell. Later on, the domination just got worse. By comparison, the 70's were a kaleidoscope of novelty, variety and diversity in both cars and drivers. Very competitive back then.
You need to make the earlier year a bit later. 1982 had 11 different winners of 16 races.

I would vote for 1983 to 1987, but I can't, so I won't.
 
You need to make the earlier year a bit later. 1982 had 11 different winners of 16 races.

I would vote for 1983 to 1987, but I can't, so I won't.

Yeah, 1982 was awesome! I attended Long Beach, arriving early, helping to unload the McLaren team cars for the downtown display. In practice, Laffite's Ligier-Matra made the most awesome sound I'd ever heard, Mario Andretti made a cameo appearance substituting for the errant Reutemann, the wing(s) on Villeneuve's Ferrari flapped like a gooney bird on takeoff, Nigel virtually assaulted me in the paddock, demanding to sign my program, and I had a heart-to-heart talk with the Toleman mechanics about their 31st quickest car having 6 inches of daylight under it at the Linden Leap. DeCrasheris made the most astounding single (pole) lap I've ever seen in qualifying, his wheels flashing off sparks against the barriers at every corner I saw. Carlo Chiti brooded in his long black coat, flat cap and shades. Lauda won with Rosberg scoring a comfortable 2nd.



Carlo Chiti, c1967
 
Last edited:
The results of the poll (I think this is acceptable use since I omitted the actual article text on the left):

qaw3fqT.jpg

ta4lagb.jpg
 
Objectively, are there any criteria for what makes one race better than another, for what distinguishes good or great racing?

One could suggest that the number of lead changes might be a factor. Also the number of different drivers who led. The closeness of the finish might be a property of good racing. If the series allows for different manufacturers for chassis and engine, these could also be factors. What else?

On the other hand, can more subjective factors be equally important in distinguishing a good race from less good race? Could we list some of these? Perhaps there are elements such as style or appearance of the cars and circuit, personality of the drivers, emotion, luck, accidents, quality of the coverage, or other things - list them - could make a difference?
 
The cars in earlier decades looked like they were going fast - they had a body language in the way they moved about, and slid and squirmed on the limit, that made the sport look more spectacular. F1 cars today look slower than they ever have even though they are of course faster than they have ever been.

Schumachers era finally killed my love of F1 and it has never recovered. I have not sat down and watched an entire race in at least a decade.

And modern F1 cars are ugly. Plain ugly. My eyes bled last time I watched an F1 race... ;-)
 
Back