Basic problems/solutions with Formula 1. Opinion not Fact.
Discussion
kambites said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
3-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
If you just want to watch close racing there's loads of spec series with highly talented drivers racing identical machines. For me, F1 is entirely about the different technical aspects of the car, the actual racing is simply a way to prove who's designed the best car... remove what little information we get on technical aspects of each car and F1 would completely lose its USP for me. I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
I try to follow Mike Sommerfield's blogs, and yet struggle to understand why 15 slots in the rear floor is better than 10 slots or why 17 slots might not be even better. How many people know, or care, were the Y250 axis is? People tend to follow the Lewis Vs Nico battle, just as they followed Hunt Vs Lauda, or Senna Vs Prost, in the past.
If all the engineering was open-source so that there could be TV presentations at the end of the season explaining why the Mercedes engine map at Baku was superior to Manor's, or why McLaren have suddenly come up with a slotted rear wing endplate then I could appreciate the enthusiasm, but there isn't. The simple answer is big teams spend a lot more money. Perhaps Mercedes could design and operate 2 cars with just 500 engineers, but they employ 1000 to deny their competition from a scarce resource.
The technical presence on TV is virtually zilch. Gary Anderson was the nearest we ever saw to a technical pundit, but just when you needed him most with the introduction of the Hybrid units, he was elbowed by the BBC.
Whilst I like to think that the technical aspect is potentially very interesting, in reality the way the sport is actually presented, it is completely irrelevant.
rdjohn said:
Of the 50, or so contributors to these threads, or the 100,000 crowd at Silverstone, or even the 500,000 with a SKY F1 package how many followers do we think are that tied into the technology side of the sport?
...
Whilst I like to think that the technical aspect is potentially very interesting, in reality the way the sport is actually presented, it is completely irrelevant.
Probably a fair point. ...
Whilst I like to think that the technical aspect is potentially very interesting, in reality the way the sport is actually presented, it is completely irrelevant.
[quote=Flooble]Hey, if we have different audio streams we could even have a V12 audio track for the people who insist that the new engines are boring.
I am guessing, respectfully, you have not actually been to a GP live?
The hybrids are SPECTACULARLY underwhelming in person, whereas the normally aspirated engines were astonishing. I have been to over thirty F1 events, and only one in the the hybrid era. I went to Barcelona in 2014 and the only memorable thing about it was how much cash I got through.
On TV, I like the hybrids, I love the torque and they are no doubt more of a challenge, which is great. But live, pathetic.
I am guessing, respectfully, you have not actually been to a GP live?
The hybrids are SPECTACULARLY underwhelming in person, whereas the normally aspirated engines were astonishing. I have been to over thirty F1 events, and only one in the the hybrid era. I went to Barcelona in 2014 and the only memorable thing about it was how much cash I got through.
On TV, I like the hybrids, I love the torque and they are no doubt more of a challenge, which is great. But live, pathetic.
paulguitar]looble said:
Hey, if we have different audio streams we could even have a V12 audio track for the people who insist that the new engines are boring.
I am guessing, respectfully, you have not actually been to a GP live?
The hybrids are SPECTACULARLY underwhelming in person, whereas the normally aspirated engines were astonishing. I have been to over thirty F1 events, and only one in the the hybrid era. I went to Barcelona in 2014 and the only memorable thing about it was how much cash I got through.
On TV, I like the hybrids, I love the torque and they are no doubt more of a challenge, which is great. But live, pathetic.
Yeah, 1986 on. Never really cared for the V12s, 10s or 8s. Sound okay initially but need earplugs up close and I don't really notice the difference. But then I am a deaf old fit.I am guessing, respectfully, you have not actually been to a GP live?
The hybrids are SPECTACULARLY underwhelming in person, whereas the normally aspirated engines were astonishing. I have been to over thirty F1 events, and only one in the the hybrid era. I went to Barcelona in 2014 and the only memorable thing about it was how much cash I got through.
On TV, I like the hybrids, I love the torque and they are no doubt more of a challenge, which is great. But live, pathetic.
OP, here are my responses to your points:
You could argue that the drivers could observe where there's a danger of aquaplaning in the reconnaissance lap, but then the spray is also a big problem. Again, I'd rather have the main protagonists in the race to survive the 1st corner to have a more interesting race, than to be wiped out by another driver who couldn't see anything. The SC did go on for longer than necessary though.
You may not want to understand the engineering/technical aspects, but it's a big draw for many (including me). Actually, you don't need to have a deep understanding of the majority of the technical aspects you list in order to enjoy the sport, but it certainly helps. All motorsports are ‘man and machine’ affairs and where there's a machine there's an engineer. It is equally correct to say motorsport is ‘man and engineer’. It's a synergy between the two.
You show me your favourite era in F1 and I'll show you an engineer who had a bigger influence than the driver on the outcome of the races in that era. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of motorsport that somehow we ought to diminish the role of engineers and exalt the drivers to some sort of god-like status. Technology has always been king and it's especially true for F1 which is supposed to be at the ‘top’ of the motorsport ladder. The methods may have been crude in earlier eras but it's a fact of life that things evolve. If you revert, you lose. To stay relevant, you have to evolve. I remember Toto mentioning a 80/20 split? You could say that’s gone too far, but again for a non-spec series that’s about par, and I enjoy it for what it is. A spec series may be what the fan that demands drivers making more of a difference wants.
I never liked the ‘normal’ V8s too. Even some of their better recordings I’ve listened to haven’t won me over. The V10s were great but the TV sounds of the V10s were boring. The TV recordings never brought out the real complexity of the sound in those days, listening back to some of those recordings and comparing to more modern recordings.
Also, from a musician POV, I’d rather be able to appreciate those glorious V10s using the full range of my auditory appreciating equipment than muffling those sounds by an ear plug. I might have hated the V10s if I couldn’t appreciate their sounds in full without earplugs ‘live’. I appreciate these V6s because I can appreciate more of the sounds they are emitting and also due to improvement in recordings by FOM over the last couple of years.
And what’s the obsession with the cylinder swept volume of race engine? How does that give ‘soul’ to the sport? F1 had proper race engines with even less swept volume before.
I skipped one so the last point:
The biggest problem I have with F1 is equitable distribution of the finances/prize money. However, giving more money to the smaller teams doesn’t necessarily guarantee a more competitive field so I don’t know what the solution for that is.
BlimeyCharlie said:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
It's not nice to see cars not doing a standing start, however, did you hear drivers reporting back to the pits where lots of standing water were on the track? For this reason, I thought it was better for the drivers to have a couple of laps behind the SC, so they can 'learn' the danger areas at a safer speed. I'd rather have most drivers who got to the grid to actively take part in the race than get wiped out by an overzealous move at the 1st corner by some nutter. On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
You could argue that the drivers could observe where there's a danger of aquaplaning in the reconnaissance lap, but then the spray is also a big problem. Again, I'd rather have the main protagonists in the race to survive the 1st corner to have a more interesting race, than to be wiped out by another driver who couldn't see anything. The SC did go on for longer than necessary though.
BlimeyCharlie said:
2-Team Radio.
If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
Disagree. It's great to hear pit to driver (and reverse) communications, so you get a deeper insight into a problem or strategy. If anything, I'd have more radio broadcast. Drivers also tend to be less a PR robot in the car, so you hear more of what they're like. Surely, you'd like to know what your favourite driver is actually like in the car faced with a stressful situation or whatever?If teams/the FIA insist on using radio, then don't broadcast it to the public. Keep it 'in house' and let the FIA listen or whatever is deemed 'safe'.
Team to driver radio is not exciting, it just sounds like air traffic control, not Formula 1.
Let the driver (Rosberg) work out (given his car is/was stuck in 7th gear and already a 'safety' issue if you like) how to get over the problem, or retire the car. He has a brain, let him use it. Or rely only on a pit board, which is still used to this day. Keep it simple!
BlimeyCharlie said:
3-Technology.
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
I dont want to, nor should I need to, understand about moving wings/flaps, braking performance being enhanced/compromised by battery performance, tyre construction, engine modes, diff settings, mapping, fuel flow etc etc to 'enjoy' the sport.
Keep it simple! It is man and machine, a 'sport'. It is not The Gadget Show. If 'technology' is king, why is there a human waving the chequered flag at the end of the race?
You may not want to understand the engineering/technical aspects, but it's a big draw for many (including me). Actually, you don't need to have a deep understanding of the majority of the technical aspects you list in order to enjoy the sport, but it certainly helps. All motorsports are ‘man and machine’ affairs and where there's a machine there's an engineer. It is equally correct to say motorsport is ‘man and engineer’. It's a synergy between the two.
You show me your favourite era in F1 and I'll show you an engineer who had a bigger influence than the driver on the outcome of the races in that era. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of motorsport that somehow we ought to diminish the role of engineers and exalt the drivers to some sort of god-like status. Technology has always been king and it's especially true for F1 which is supposed to be at the ‘top’ of the motorsport ladder. The methods may have been crude in earlier eras but it's a fact of life that things evolve. If you revert, you lose. To stay relevant, you have to evolve. I remember Toto mentioning a 80/20 split? You could say that’s gone too far, but again for a non-spec series that’s about par, and I enjoy it for what it is. A spec series may be what the fan that demands drivers making more of a difference wants.
BlimeyCharlie said:
4-Formula 1 Marketing and Road Cars.
I've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
Um, they seem to be making obvious connections between their F1 hybrid tech and road cars?I've never seen a production Renault, Honda, Toyota or Mercedes road car with a V10, but these engines were the 'norm' for many years in Formula 1. Sounded brilliant too.
The manufacturers who made/badged these engines did this for marketing, and it worked well for them.
Mercedes (for example) used the prestige of winning a race or title with a V10-engined Formula 1 car to sell a 2.0 turbo diesel from the showroom.
Does Mercedes now sell a road car because of the 'hybrid' technology used in Formula 1? No.
Or is it because Mercedes wins/is the best? Yes.
BlimeyCharlie said:
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
Sound is subjective, but I don’t mind how it is now. They sounded dreadful in their first year of development (2014), but have gotten better. I like to think I can appreciate a good recording ( as I play the guitar)...I particularly enjoyed the sounds of the Merc PU around Monaco this year...when Lewis was driving. Sounded lumpy on idle and clean as a whistle on full chat. Very musical. I’d take this any day of the week to those loud off throttle blowing V8s. I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
I never liked the ‘normal’ V8s too. Even some of their better recordings I’ve listened to haven’t won me over. The V10s were great but the TV sounds of the V10s were boring. The TV recordings never brought out the real complexity of the sound in those days, listening back to some of those recordings and comparing to more modern recordings.
Also, from a musician POV, I’d rather be able to appreciate those glorious V10s using the full range of my auditory appreciating equipment than muffling those sounds by an ear plug. I might have hated the V10s if I couldn’t appreciate their sounds in full without earplugs ‘live’. I appreciate these V6s because I can appreciate more of the sounds they are emitting and also due to improvement in recordings by FOM over the last couple of years.
And what’s the obsession with the cylinder swept volume of race engine? How does that give ‘soul’ to the sport? F1 had proper race engines with even less swept volume before.
BlimeyCharlie said:
5-Tyres.
Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
Erm, but Pirelli think that the exposure they are getting is worth it, so what’s your beef? Road tyres ≠ race tyres in a lot of important ways so the link is tenuous.Pirelli are 'in' Formula 1 for marketing.
It is not to benefit the road car industry, unless people are crying out for tyres that explode without warning, or wear out after 5 laps, or over-heat, get too cold, don't work because the driver is going too fast, too slow, or a combination of all these 'attributes'.
That is clever marketing.
So next time I want tyres for my road car, I'll just let them wear out and explode.
I skipped one so the last point:
BlimeyCharlie said:
7-Testing (lack of).
Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
If you bring more in season testing, it is very likely that only the big teams will take advantage of it so it will result in the widening of the gulf between the sharp end and midfield...you don’t want that surely?Yes, I know there is a test this week, but why can't the sport go back to in-season testing on a regular basis? That means more interest, more spectators, more marketing, more jobs etc etc.
I'd rather have more testing instead of a bigger paddock 'facility/empire' that I'm never able to see, or a wind tunnel that again I'm never going to see. I'm not interested in a 50 metre high marketing centre, nor am I interested in wind tunnels.
The biggest problem I have with F1 is equitable distribution of the finances/prize money. However, giving more money to the smaller teams doesn’t necessarily guarantee a more competitive field so I don’t know what the solution for that is.
Edited by Dr Z on Tuesday 19th July 14:15
The Hybrids sound OK in isolation on TV, but the whining auxiliary sounds under braking and acceleration (MGU-K) is not great when you are nearby. Formula E only has those sounds, and to be blunt, they are truly awful.
However on a GP race weekend you also have GP2 and Porsche Cup engine noises that stir the soul. Hybrids just don't.
It's a fact that they are here to stay, but from a mass spectator viewpoint, I guess a lot of people would have been happy if Bernie had got his way last winter.
However on a GP race weekend you also have GP2 and Porsche Cup engine noises that stir the soul. Hybrids just don't.
It's a fact that they are here to stay, but from a mass spectator viewpoint, I guess a lot of people would have been happy if Bernie had got his way last winter.
BlimeyCharlie said:
1-Safety.
On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
The issue is they cannot see enough to start in those conditions, If one of the front cars fails on the grid it's almost certain they will get rear ended with a 100mph+ impact speed. On 'Safety' grounds, the most exciting part of the race, the traditional standing start, was deemed not something that was safe enough to tackle today. Instead, we had the tedious spectacle of the 'safety car' leading the field around for several laps at road car pace.
However, once the 'safety car' pitted, it was deemed 'safe' to then allow the race to actually commence (at full racing speeds) with cars full of fuel, on cold tyres and with cold brakes, and still having to adapt to a wet track at full speed. The cars still aquaplaned. Crazy.
We are talking about the world's best drivers, at the pinnacle of global motorsport here. Let them sort out how to start the race and 'adapt' to the conditions. Let them race! The race-the very thing people are paying to watch...
Dr Z said:
BlimeyCharlie said:
So why is the 'sport' using 1600cc engines, which sound broken, which often consume too much fuel, because of the 'road car' industry?
I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
Sound is subjective, but I don’t mind how it is now. They sounded dreadful in their first year of development (2014), but have gotten better. I like to think I can appreciate a good recording ( as I play the guitar)...I particularly enjoyed the sounds of the Merc PU around Monaco this year...when Lewis was driving. Sounded lumpy on idle and clean as a whistle on full chat. Very musical. I’d take this any day of the week to those loud off throttle blowing V8s. I've still not seen a Red Bull road car (only the prototype) or a Manor, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso or Williams on the road. These cars do not even exist.
So why not just produce V10's or V12's again, badge them as Honda, Mercedes etc etc (as we've seen since the 1950's/1960's) and get some sound, soul and a missing key ingredient back again?
Currently it is like going to an airshow which only allows gliders to participate.
Let manufacturers go back to funding/building decent engines, as that is what people want to hear. It is 'sport' with a soul, not a white goods exhibition.
I never liked the ‘normal’ V8s too. Even some of their better recordings I’ve listened to haven’t won me over. The V10s were great but the TV sounds of the V10s were boring. The TV recordings never brought out the real complexity of the sound in those days, listening back to some of those recordings and comparing to more modern recordings.
Also, from a musician POV, I’d rather be able to appreciate those glorious V10s using the full range of my auditory appreciating equipment than muffling those sounds by an ear plug. I might have hated the V10s if I couldn’t appreciate their sounds in full without earplugs ‘live’. I appreciate these V6s because I can appreciate more of the sounds they are emitting and also due to improvement in recordings by FOM over the last couple of years.
And what’s the obsession with the cylinder swept volume of race engine? How does that give ‘soul’ to the sport? F1 had proper race engines with even less swept volume before.
To make the "show" better you need longer braking zones, therefore faster cars (by whatever means- less aero + power) and worse braking, smaller discs and less pistons or alter the allowed disc/pad materials.
Currently braking from 200-50 in sub-50mtrs, no chance to get close or pass. Change it to braking from 100+mtrs at 220mph and watch them squirm.
More skill, more passing potential, more possibilities to cock-up = passing and good viewing?
Currently braking from 200-50 in sub-50mtrs, no chance to get close or pass. Change it to braking from 100+mtrs at 220mph and watch them squirm.
More skill, more passing potential, more possibilities to cock-up = passing and good viewing?
Flooble said:
I'm glad it's not just me who finds this nostalgia for V12, V10, V8 engines rather strange. When they were around I found the noise rather tiresome after a while. Mandatory earplugs unless you wanted to lose your hearing. I pondered if people simply wanted things to be "like when I was young" but then remembered that we had 1.5 litre V6 engines back in the mid 1980s, which apparently had a soul that the modern engines lack because the modern engines are, um, 1.6 litre V6s ...
You're not alone. I like the fact that the current power units are quieter - you can hear things other than just a wailing engine, such as the noise of the crowd or tyre squeal when a driver is right on/steps over the edge of grip.
For me, the biggest problem are the tyres. By far, they have the largest contribution to my disenchantment with the sport. It's a view many of the drivers have too.
I don't blame Pirelli; they were given a job to create tyres that encourage pit stops and that's exactly what they've done. If it wasn't them it would be someone else in their place. I hate the tippy toe racing and tyre management planned races that we now have because it's faster to plod along at 90% and have 1 or 2 pit stops than it is to go full throttle and end up pitting 4 or 5 times.
Mix that in with: engines that teams can't afford which creates a never ending spiral of financial difficulties down the grid, no real competition up front (and no hope for teams to catch up until there's a regulation change), penalties and retrospective actions all over the place, silly DRS and button assisted overtakes, and what you're left with is the dying sport we now have today.
I don't blame Pirelli; they were given a job to create tyres that encourage pit stops and that's exactly what they've done. If it wasn't them it would be someone else in their place. I hate the tippy toe racing and tyre management planned races that we now have because it's faster to plod along at 90% and have 1 or 2 pit stops than it is to go full throttle and end up pitting 4 or 5 times.
Mix that in with: engines that teams can't afford which creates a never ending spiral of financial difficulties down the grid, no real competition up front (and no hope for teams to catch up until there's a regulation change), penalties and retrospective actions all over the place, silly DRS and button assisted overtakes, and what you're left with is the dying sport we now have today.
PW said:
It's confirmation bias. F1 isn't mired in "problems" which need solving, it just seems that way because people only EVER want to discuss is what they don't like about the sport, and how they can fix it, rather than what they enjoy about F1. Again, and again, and again. Every thread, no matter what it is about, will always devolve into a whingefest. If all you see is wall to wall complaints, it's easy to come away thinking there is a "problem".
If all you saw was the opposite - with comment after comment, thread after thread, article after article praising the good bits of the sport, instead of moaning about how the sky is falling, everyone would probably think F1 is wonderful.
Seems to be particularly prevalent on PH - any thread about X seems to quickly be a thread about how awful X is. Best selling cars, best selling phones, best reviewed TVs/Film, top sports - despite all the plaudits & popularity, they are all a load of s
te, according to this site.
I understand what you're trying to say but I think F1 is garbage for the reasons I listed above. I wasn't manipulated by PH or any media outlet for that matter. I don't watch the sport any more because for me it isn't enjoyable, again, for the reasons I listed above. They are my personal opinions and observations on a sport I used to love.If all you saw was the opposite - with comment after comment, thread after thread, article after article praising the good bits of the sport, instead of moaning about how the sky is falling, everyone would probably think F1 is wonderful.
Seems to be particularly prevalent on PH - any thread about X seems to quickly be a thread about how awful X is. Best selling cars, best selling phones, best reviewed TVs/Film, top sports - despite all the plaudits & popularity, they are all a load of s
te, according to this site.For me personally, it's much easier to talk about what I don't like about the sport rather than what I enjoy because I enjoy very little about it and I feel the sport has been on a rather steep downward trajectory since 2010.
Dr Z said:
OP, here are my responses to your points:
And mine:Go to Mercedes-Benz World on a race day and you'll see F1 hyped for some of what it is worth. I went recently and there were the normal F1 cars, plus a static display of last year's car, with a change of front wing. The racing 'heritage' is a common theme, even in the off-season.
There was a chassis of a 300SL there a few months ago.
It's a good place to go in any case for a day out. Fun for the kids as well.
I spoke with one of the sales staff a little while ago and he was an F1 fan.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff