Balestre disqualifying Senna from the 1989 Japanese Grand Prix for using the escape road, handing the title over to Prost, when no one before has been excluded for doing the same thing!!
Although, to be entirely accurate...nobody did what lead up to that incident before:
I've read every single race report prior to that, and nobody has ever both 1) taken out/been taken out while leading and 2) subsequently drove off the limits of the racing track and rejoined away from a point of the track which they hadn't left from. So yes, it was the first time it was actually invoked, but it hadn't occurred before, either. However, it's not as if Senna gained any actual
advantage, since he'd been stationary for about 30 seconds (a loss of time), whereas cutting the chicane would have only gained 2-3 seconds. I guess at some point, the FIA didn't want leaders barging into each other without some sort of consequence. Time has made people forget that Senna wasn't always the cleanest of overtakers; if it works it's awesome, but there's plenty of moments where he'd screwed up under pressure and made bad overtaking decisions (1985 Australia, 1987 Belgium, 1989 Brazil, 1990 Brazil, 1992 Australia) or goofed when leading (1988 Monaco, 1989 Australia).
I think 1994 hit a nadir where the sport was getting dangerous again, but it seemed that silly ideas like the underfloor plank and putting random chicanes in places were measures which made tracks even less interesting. Top it off with handing Schuey a race disqualification and subsequent two-race suspension for a temporary overtaking maneuver (getting ahead by a few meters during the formation lap?!?) was a bit much. It kind of forced the silly-and-desperate situation in the final race...seems like it was an unnecessary distraction despite greater pressing issues with driver, fan, and mechanic safety.
There's the 2005 United States GP. Plenty has been said about that; I don't think it truly killed off F1 interest because there wasn't much to begin with. There was some growing popularity in the 1970s, mainly because there was a fairly steady stream of good American drivers. It's almost always going to be a niche sport when over half the events are televised between 12am-10am on a Sunday morning. On the other hand, current research is showing that F1 is actually gaining in popularity and TV ratings in America, whereas it is declining in other places.
FOCA/FISA team boycotts of races between 1980-1982. Eventually, it had little impact on the greater sphere of the world championship, but eventually concessions were made to both sides. I suppose Carlos Reutemann could have been a champion, had the 1981 South African GP counted for points.
That said, I expect a fair bit of internal and external chaos when multi-millionaires are given free reign to create and support extremely powerful machinery coupled with the dangerous nature of the sport. The conflicts of vested interests are part-and-parcel of Grand Prix racing from its very beginnings. After, if it wasn't about selling road cars, a propaganda front for a nation, giving sponsorship the best show possible with the lubrication of funds, feeding the haves for doing well and letting the have-nots fend for themselves over teriffic sums of money, there really wouldn't be Grand Prix racing. It probably would have been a short-lived experiment, like Can-Am (the first era, 1966-1974).
I think there's too many silly and pointless rules which have nothing to do with safety of fans, mechanics, pit members, and drivers and the security of the sport to continue on. Explaining F1 to someone today is tedious, mainly because half the reasons behind the rules are patently absurd.
