I watched the Goodwood Revival last week, these were priceless cars being given no mercy in each race, there was the odd shunt, mechanical failure and David v Goliath.
But they raced, overtook, the lead changed several times. Sure the cars were all museum pieces but it was really exciting.
F1 is a procession, too many stupid rules and too much money.
They should dump all the driver's aids, put in a proper clutch and gearbox, add an adjustable turbo, set a normally aspirated BHp upper limit, one tank of fuel and pitstops for tyres only.
Then we'll see who's the best driver.
Right now, it's dull, very dull.
|
Like some other contributors, I used to follow F1 closely but now don't. My mind changed a couple of years ago when I fell asleep in front of the TV shortly after the start, woke up just before the end and realised that I hadn't missed anything...
Now the only one I watch is Monaco, for nostalgic reasons as I've been there!
|
I think some of the posts have sidetracked slightly, the original question 'can F1 survive?
I believe now for probably for the first time F1 is in danger of falling on it's sword. The Jaguar withdrawal will have far reaching effects for many involved with the sport.
It needs to sort it's act out and FAST otherwise no it won't survive.
|
Michael Schmacher retiring will be the best thing to happen to F1.
Oh for the eighties again when half a dozen drivers had a chance of winning each race...
|
I find the frantic efforts of the ITV commentators( not Brundle) to make the races seem exciting rather pathetic.
"he is closing the gap to Michael Schumacher by 0.54 seconds each lap and will be able to challenge for the lead in 10 laps."
Mmm - could it be that Schumacher is easing off?
Despite the undeniably boring nature of many races, it is the pinnacle of motor racing and any attempt to turn it into a handicap race would be detrimental.
So IMO it will survive but its popularity will wane.
|
|
|
"Michael Schumacher retiring will be the best thing to happen to F1."
I would make a (small) wager that your prayers will be answered at the end of this season.
|
I recall Michael Schumacher remarking "It can't go on for ever." about three Grand Prix back.
This struck me as an uncharacteristically negative (if axiomatic)comment.
I'll be sorry to see him go. I think he's as talented as Ali and Pele and I admire his world-class & historic excellence. Merit is a fine thing. And he seems like quite a nice fella as well. Good luck to him.
|
|
|
|
Michael Schmacher retiring will be the best thing to happen to F1.
>>
He doesn't have to retire to make F1 more interesting. Nothing is more certain than that sooner or later he will become past it. Age is a terrible leveller.
--
L'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
|
|
|
for nostalgic reasons as I've been there!>>
I actually won money at the Casino - it's just across the road from the Hotel de Paris where I stayed.
|
"Micheal Schumaker retiring will be the best thing to happen to formula 1"
Nope - Someone coming along who is good enough to challange Micheal Schumaker will be the best thing to happen to formula 1.
Lets leave the dumbing down of talent to whatever looney local council wants to turn us all into losers.
|
|
|
|
Now the only one I watch is Monaco, for nostalgic reasons as I've been there!
For all its spectacle and history Monaco illustrates the main problem with F1 today - lack of overtaking opportunities.
It would be impossible for a Ferrari to overtake a Minardi if the latter took the racing line on every bend. Not certain it would get past a District Nurse in a Morris Minor either.
|
On a more positive note the last two races have been about the best two of the entire season IMO.
I still find myself just having the tele on in the background whilst i'm doing other things, though.
Superbikes, BTCC and most single production class championships such as the Seat Cupra one provide much better entertainment nowadays.
|
OK I'm a biker (but I also own cars) but World Superbike is breathtaking.
Why?
A bunch of riders all near the top of their game and whilst some bikes are better than others none is streets ahead of their rivals.
It is a wierd thing in sport when you have to cripple the best to make it more interesting but it has to happen.
Apparently the Ferraris CAN go much faster than they normally do but they only turn the power up when it looks like they are losing ground (which is hardly ever).
|
It is the nightmare scenario.
The best driver in the best AND most reliable car with a team mate who is rarely able to compete (and even more rarely allowed to).
Personally, I can't even bring myself to admire what they have achieved this year because of:
1. Schumacher's dodgy ethics (think Damon Hill, Jacques Villenueve, Benetton "Launch Control");
2. Ferrari suddenly moaning about the Michelin tyres the moment they fell behind last year;
3. Excessive use of team orders.
4. His lack of respect for those who went before. (When he had his first one-two for them, he allegedly said he wasn't sure if Ferrari had ever done that before - it's a good job the old man is dead...)
So, I too rarely watch these days (used to be every race).
|
What really killed it off for me was that infamous Schumacher/Barrichelo overtake in the Austrian GP.
Exposed how false it all is, and reduced it to the credibility of professional wrestling.
|
|
The Schumaker / Barrachelo over take was nothing more than sensible tactics to ensure Schu scored maximum points towards winning the world championship. Ferrari do not spend umpteen zillion lira on F1 racing to have their own drivers beating each other up on the track. It is up to the other teams to provide Ferrari's competition, their job is to win, and if it suits them to have one particular driver take the points that is their perogative.
|
|
You have a point there Tom, but it was only a matter of 4 points quite early in season, and the extremely obvious way that it was done was like sticking two fingers up to the F1 supporters.
|
It left a bad taste in my mouth as well. However to be fair they could have 'engineered' it - say a sticking wheelnut in the pit stop.
There has nearly always been a No 1 driver in the teams who have a chance of producing the Champion and everything is done to maximise his chances.
|
|
I would have to agree with you both that Ferrari's PR on that occassion left a bit to be desired. The way it was done was bound to be a bit controversial.
|
Thing is, Austria is nothing compared to the McLaren fiasco in Australia few seasons ago - first race of the season so absolutely no reason to have any arrangement, team orders etc.
However, go back a number of years and you often got the situation where team-mates had to give up their cars to allow the team leader to finish a race. It's nothing new and doesn't really detract that much.
Personally, I think the main problem is simply aero. Not presence or absence of wings, simply that wings are too sensitive in their current form. One car can't follow another through a corner which prevents drivers building moves over a number of corners. I have no idea what the answer is though - leave that to the technical men.
|
Perhaps the answer is a complete ban or at least a severe restriction on the use of wings. Although I am loathe to stifle technical development - the limits on racing bicyle innovation imposed by the UCI means that cycle design is stuck in the dark ages and cycle use is declining - high tech wings which are only really effective at speeds unattainable on the roads would be no loss.
It would go a long way to making overtaking easier as Steve says, and that is what makes racing worth watching.
|
I'm not sure changing any one part will have a drastic effect. Reducing the effectiveness of wings will stop people blocking and will create passing on the track rather than in the pits, but you'll still get the same 2 or 3 teams at the front with one head and shoulders above.
Personally I'd like to see things less 'ideal'. Make engines great big lumps - 3.0 V4 for example - so they are harder to get right. Make the wheelbase and track non-ideal so the balance is tricky to get. That sort of thing. Make teams roll the dice a bit.
|
I'm not sure changing any one part will have a drastic effect. Reducing the effectiveness of wings will stop people blocking and will create passing on the track rather than in the pits, but you'll still get the same 2 or 3 teams at the front with one head and shoulders above. Personally I'd like to see things less 'ideal'. Make engines great big lumps - 3.0 V4 for example - so they are harder to get right. Make the wheelbase and track non-ideal so the balance is tricky to get. That sort of thing. Make teams roll the dice a bit.
Steve,
All these changes, particularly if we had skinny tyres, would make the racing more exciting.
However surely the thing that sets F1 apart is that it is the pinnacle of car racing. If it is emasculated it is reduced to just another class of racing alongside Formula 3 etc.
C
|
I've been watching F1 for about 30 years and I agree Ferrari and Schuey are too dominant but I disagree on people constanly slagging them off. It's not Ferrari and Schuey that are the problem, it's the other big teams - Williams and Maclaren in particular that fail to produce a credible challenge.
Williams have wasted several years with two very over-rated drivers, Maclaren waste a decent seat on that idiot Coulthard and Mercedes let them down continually with unreliable engines.
The sanitisation of the tracks doesn't help much either - skipping the Belgian GP in 2003 was a complete mystery to me. Many races don't allow tobacco advertising and go ahead and yet Belgium was penalised.
Go figure.
|
However surely the thing that sets F1 apart is that it is the pinnacle of car racing.
Yes, it should be the pinnacle of *racing* - it isn't and won't be unless drastic changes are made.
Look at it this way, you can have one of two things. You can either have the most technologically advanced cars or you can have cars that promote good, close racing. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. A 'perfect' car will allow the minimum lap time to be achieved every time and under all conditions. It will make the best use of airflow over the wings which will mean leaving disturbed air for anything following. It will allow maximum use of grip and traction without exceeding physical limits. It will do everything to prevent racing taking place.
However, you look at NASCAR, CART, the BTCC etc and you see fairly rustic lumps that allow the drivers to race and excite the spectators.
Now, we can either have F1 as a high-tech sport where you might as well pack up after the qualifying or even run it as a time trial, or you can have it so that the racing becomes more important than the cars.
|
>> However surely the thing that sets F1 apart is that it >> is the pinnacle of car racing. Yes, it should be the pinnacle of *racing* - it isn't and won't be unless drastic changes are made. Look at it this way, you can have one of two things. You can either have the most technologically advanced cars or you can have cars that promote good, close racing. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive. A 'perfect' car will allow the minimum lap time to be achieved every time and under all conditions. It will make the best use of airflow over the wings which will mean leaving disturbed air for anything following. It will allow maximum use of grip and traction without exceeding physical limits. It will do everything to prevent racing taking place. However, you look at NASCAR, CART, the BTCC etc and you see fairly rustic lumps that allow the drivers to race and excite the spectators. Now, we can either have F1 as a high-tech sport where you might as well pack up after the qualifying or even run it as a time trial, or you can have it so that the racing becomes more important than the cars.
Steve,
You are absolutely correct!
However we have exciting racing in the categories you mention. So what is achieved by lowering the specification of F1 cars so they are clones of F3, F3000, CART etc? Why not let the F1 drivers race those cars instead.
In the BTCC they handicapped the cars by 'ballasting' the successful cars from the previous race. It has been suggested that to produce exciting F1 racing the cars should start on the grid in the reverse order to their finishing position in the previous race. However I don't think handicapping is the answer.
The only real way is to produce tracks that give lots of overtaking opportunities and that would mean the end of historic venues like Monaco. Even F3 cars cannot overtake there unless there is a mistake by the leading driver.
C
|
what is achieved by lowering the specification of F1 cars so they are clones of F3, F3000, CART etc?
The simple answer is that with the current levels of F1 technology you are never going to get racing no matter what handicap system you use. Much more overtaking happens through pit strategy than on the track which while it is interesting to try and follow this strategy to some, it's more akin to cricket than motorsport.
Personally, I think the system in CART may be better in that only a few companies actually build the cars and it's more down to setup and driver ability as to who does the best. The money has got so daft that few companies can keep up these days - I really wonder why Jordan and Minardi even bother trying.
Even if you kept things as they are in that respect, there is no reason not to aim for cars more condusive to racing than setting fastest laps. More power than grip, less efficient brakes etc will all contribute to making life harder for the drivers and things more exciting for the spectators.
The tracks cannot totally be blamed either - places like Silverstone have been modified to try and promote overtaking yet there is still less than in years gone by.
|
|
|
|
