photo section was painful, you really need to get your tech problem fixed. Would have been a great segment if you could keep talking while we look at the picture.
You are right, we want different cars. And I wonder if Max had been next to Lewis in the heydays of an over dominant unbeatable Mercedes, if he would have won championships
Why do the teams have to design and build their own cars? In what I would call the golden age of F1, the 60s and 70s, that absolutely did not apply. In fact as an example in 1970 several teams used March 701s and Rob Walker ran a Lotus 49 followed by a 72 for Graham Hill. That did not seem to be a problem at all. I think this 'must be exactly two car teams', 'must build your own' damages F1, not helps it. Not enough variation in the team types.
because it's an engineering sport. It's a team sport with groups of between 300-1000 people competing against each other squeezing as much performance as possible out of the budget cap. Only sometimes the driver really makes the difference when there are 2 or more equal-ish cars (2017, 2021) and even more rarely the driver without the best car wins a WDC (2024, 2007). I wouldnt call the 60ies and 70ies the golden age of F1. About 60-70% of cars DNSed/DNFed each race, there were countless fatalities and overall the difference between front runners and even the midfield were ridiculous. I'd go so far as to say we are now, right now living the golden age of F1. Even last season, if you scrap Max you'd have had 7 different race winners and a completely unpredictable grid each race. Lots of overtaking, lots of close fights.
@daarom3472 well, we all have our views, formed in different ways. I have followed F1 from when Jim Clark was champion first time round, and I've worked in the motor racing industry for most of my professional life. In my opinion - and it is only opinion - the show, and that is what I think it is, that is presented now is a pale shadow of the past. The fact it is an engineering sport has little to do with the enforced rules about manufacturers and mandated two car teams. Teams came and went, some built cars, some bought them, some bought them then moved to building them. The weak dropped out, the strong succeeded, just look at Frank Williams - zero with no money eventually to hero. There was considerable variability, both in team structures and what they created, and that made it exciting. Even the mechanical failures you deride did that, because trading performance for reliability is a major part of the competition. That it was much more dangerous is absolutely true. I've been at races with fatalities. But the reasons that has improved are many, partly organisational, partly not. I'd say two huge changes there were bag tanks and the fuel behind the driver, and carbon fibre. Those two technologies made a very big difference, but they didn't change the nature of F1, other rules did that. But what I see now is an emasculated sport, regulated almost out of sight, made to conform to a straight jacket and turned into a packaged show - in that way it's a pretty good fit with Las Vegas. Yes, some of the technology is amazing, but so what? It doesn't do much for the racing, the opposite to a degree, and that is the main point to me. Anyway, that is my view, unfortunately, but others are entitled to their own. You probably wonder why I bother to follow it. Good question, these days I ask myself the same thing. I doubt I will for much longer.
@@daarom3472I wrote a long reply to this that RUclips managed to lose. Suffice it to say I have very different views to you, I think the regimentation and packaging of the current 'show' makes it a pale shadow of the past. But - we are all entitled to our views.
The point about penalties for going off / skipping bits etc is well made. I think there is no real answer to this with precise little rules - this penalty for that, that penalty for the other. The only way I can see to make the whole driving errors and offences scenario work is to have very few rules indeed, just overall guidelines, and then officials who have very wide powers to interpret those on a case by case basis. That will never work in F1 however, the officials just do not have the authority and power to mete out summary justice in that way. In lower series they do, but not F1. Hard to solve.
Depends what is mean by British press. If it means the newspapers, the tabloids etc, it is hard to argue with, basically they are very jingoistic. Anything for a headline, whip up whatever emotions they can. But if the specialist motorsport media is meant, including Sky actually, I do not see it at all. Basically the analysis I read is excellent - Peter Windsor, Andrew Benson, various online sites like the Race etc - hard to fault them. I also find the analyses from Sky to be excellent. They all call it as they see it. I also seem to recall the mainstream press went crazy for Mansell, not against him - Mansellmania it was called. Again, anything for a headline, I found it pretty unedifying.
Sky are the worst 😢😢😢 to many ex British drivers who are afraid to Criticise any British driver ever .. things like Albon gets 1 or 2 half decent results and they are saying he should be in the redbull 😢. They go on like every single British person loves every single driver 😮😮.
At 2:25:00 I think he was referring to the Cadillac ATS, because earlier in the livestream in your interview with Brian Redman he mentioned that his road car is an ATS.
Great interview with Mr. Redman, thanks Peter!
Awesome interview with Brian Redman, sports car legend!
Thank you Mr. Windsor for all that you do , from an old gray bearded Ferrari fan from Texas.
Came home from the dentist, noticed you did a livestream, and watchehed it all at once. Thanks Peter.
photo section was painful, you really need to get your tech problem fixed. Would have been a great segment if you could keep talking while we look at the picture.
Hi Peter. From La Patagonia 🇦🇷. Having into account that MV drive a very sharp RB's car, which young codriver already has that type of driving?
You are right, we want different cars.
And I wonder if Max had been next to Lewis in the heydays of an over dominant unbeatable Mercedes, if he would have won championships
Why do the teams have to design and build their own cars? In what I would call the golden age of F1, the 60s and 70s, that absolutely did not apply. In fact as an example in 1970 several teams used March 701s and Rob Walker ran a Lotus 49 followed by a 72 for Graham Hill. That did not seem to be a problem at all. I think this 'must be exactly two car teams', 'must build your own' damages F1, not helps it. Not enough variation in the team types.
because it's an engineering sport. It's a team sport with groups of between 300-1000 people competing against each other squeezing as much performance as possible out of the budget cap.
Only sometimes the driver really makes the difference when there are 2 or more equal-ish cars (2017, 2021) and even more rarely the driver without the best car wins a WDC (2024, 2007).
I wouldnt call the 60ies and 70ies the golden age of F1. About 60-70% of cars DNSed/DNFed each race, there were countless fatalities and overall the difference between front runners and even the midfield were ridiculous.
I'd go so far as to say we are now, right now living the golden age of F1. Even last season, if you scrap Max you'd have had 7 different race winners and a completely unpredictable grid each race. Lots of overtaking, lots of close fights.
@daarom3472 well, we all have our views, formed in different ways.
I have followed F1 from when Jim Clark was champion first time round, and I've worked in the motor racing industry for most of my professional life. In my opinion - and it is only opinion - the show, and that is what I think it is, that is presented now is a pale shadow of the past.
The fact it is an engineering sport has little to do with the enforced rules about manufacturers and mandated two car teams. Teams came and went, some built cars, some bought them, some bought them then moved to building them. The weak dropped out, the strong succeeded, just look at Frank Williams - zero with no money eventually to hero. There was considerable variability, both in team structures and what they created, and that made it exciting. Even the mechanical failures you deride did that, because trading performance for reliability is a major part of the competition.
That it was much more dangerous is absolutely true. I've been at races with fatalities. But the reasons that has improved are many, partly organisational, partly not. I'd say two huge changes there were bag tanks and the fuel behind the driver, and carbon fibre. Those two technologies made a very big difference, but they didn't change the nature of F1, other rules did that.
But what I see now is an emasculated sport, regulated almost out of sight, made to conform to a straight jacket and turned into a packaged show - in that way it's a pretty good fit with Las Vegas. Yes, some of the technology is amazing, but so what? It doesn't do much for the racing, the opposite to a degree, and that is the main point to me.
Anyway, that is my view, unfortunately, but others are entitled to their own. You probably wonder why I bother to follow it. Good question, these days I ask myself the same thing. I doubt I will for much longer.
@@daarom3472I wrote a long reply to this that RUclips managed to lose. Suffice it to say I have very different views to you, I think the regimentation and packaging of the current 'show' makes it a pale shadow of the past. But - we are all entitled to our views.
The point about penalties for going off / skipping bits etc is well made.
I think there is no real answer to this with precise little rules - this penalty for that, that penalty for the other. The only way I can see to make the whole driving errors and offences scenario work is to have very few rules indeed, just overall guidelines, and then officials who have very wide powers to interpret those on a case by case basis.
That will never work in F1 however, the officials just do not have the authority and power to mete out summary justice in that way. In lower series they do, but not F1.
Hard to solve.
Depends what is mean by British press. If it means the newspapers, the tabloids etc, it is hard to argue with, basically they are very jingoistic. Anything for a headline, whip up whatever emotions they can.
But if the specialist motorsport media is meant, including Sky actually, I do not see it at all. Basically the analysis I read is excellent - Peter Windsor, Andrew Benson, various online sites like the Race etc - hard to fault them. I also find the analyses from Sky to be excellent. They all call it as they see it.
I also seem to recall the mainstream press went crazy for Mansell, not against him - Mansellmania it was called. Again, anything for a headline, I found it pretty unedifying.
Sky are the worst 😢😢😢 to many ex British drivers who are afraid to Criticise any British driver ever .. things like Albon gets 1 or 2 half decent results and they are saying he should be in the redbull 😢. They go on like every single British person loves every single driver 😮😮.
By the way, sorry for my English, Mr. Shakespeare's language and I don't get along very well😊
OK, brilliant but a little editing please!
I left foot brake on the rd in all my 2 pedal cars
At 2:25:00 I think he was referring to the Cadillac ATS, because earlier in the livestream in your interview with Brian Redman he mentioned that his road car is an ATS.
LoL at thinking Trump won't follow through.