Why do people follow and watch F1?
Discussion
I used to follow F1. Even though I haven't watched a race in years I still sort of follow what is happening. I suppose hard to avoid given the media coverage it still receives. I think in my case it is because I remember when it was more interesting - maybe I have a rose-tinted view and it was always s
t. I don't remember it that way. I seem to remember races being won on the track through overtaking (rather than in the pits or via technical safety cars). The drivers seemed to have more character (or were simply able to have characters). They seem to change the rules each year but it never gets more interesting to watch (actually it is usually the opposite).
If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, shouldn't it be the most exciting and most interesting?
t. I don't remember it that way. I seem to remember races being won on the track through overtaking (rather than in the pits or via technical safety cars). The drivers seemed to have more character (or were simply able to have characters). They seem to change the rules each year but it never gets more interesting to watch (actually it is usually the opposite). If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, shouldn't it be the most exciting and most interesting?
I've watched it since I was 5yo so since the late 70's and remember when it was so exciting. The 89-90 season stands out especially the Mexican GP when it started as highlights and jumped live to the race. Then again, I'm a huge Ferrari fan and I guess I watch it in the hope that they start winning again with the possibility of the constructers championship.
I am a car fan over a bike fan anyday but get more excitement watching the Moto GP over the F1. I will still watch F1 but if I miss a few races here and there, then I'm not fussed.
I am a car fan over a bike fan anyday but get more excitement watching the Moto GP over the F1. I will still watch F1 but if I miss a few races here and there, then I'm not fussed.
Edited by viggyp on Monday 26th March 14:58
kambites said:
I've been watching it for around 20 years, and I've always been more interested in the technology than the racing. If you want to see close competitive racing, F1 has never really been the answer IMO.
I never get this.Watching F1 just because of the technology?
For me it is the "technology" which is ruining the sport.
A lot depends when you're thinking back to. Sometimes the racing has been good, others not.
Racing tended to be good in the pre-aero days as cars could race very close to one-another.
In the early aero days racing wasn't so close but was still very varied due to reliability throwing regular wild cards.
Cars then went very high-tech, with ground affect and the racing was still generally close - though normally with one team doing a better than everyone else and dominating.
Then ground affect was banned and racing went quite st. Yes it was fast but due to the speeds you could take around bends due to the downforce levels - though without so many reliability curve balls.
Then they took action to reduce downforce and while speeds dropped the racing got better - though you could usually pick the WCC team after the first race.
Now they've added more downforce again, so speeds are back up but you the racing has suffered. Take yesterdays race - decided more by the exact timing of a VSC rather than by either car or driver.
Racing tended to be good in the pre-aero days as cars could race very close to one-another.
In the early aero days racing wasn't so close but was still very varied due to reliability throwing regular wild cards.
Cars then went very high-tech, with ground affect and the racing was still generally close - though normally with one team doing a better than everyone else and dominating.
Then ground affect was banned and racing went quite s
t. Yes it was fast but due to the speeds you could take around bends due to the downforce levels - though without so many reliability curve balls.Then they took action to reduce downforce and while speeds dropped the racing got better - though you could usually pick the WCC team after the first race.
Now they've added more downforce again, so speeds are back up but you the racing has suffered. Take yesterdays race - decided more by the exact timing of a VSC rather than by either car or driver.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
kambites said:
I've been watching it for around 20 years, and I've always been more interested in the technology than the racing. If you want to see close competitive racing, F1 has never really been the answer IMO.
I never get this.Watching F1 just because of the technology?
For me it is the "technology" which is ruining the sport.
I enjoy watching wheel-to-wheel racing, but for me that's never what F1 has been about - there have always been other formulae which do it far better.
kambites said:
It comes as a surprise to you that other people are interested in different things to you?
I enjoy watching wheel-to-wheel racing, but for me that's never what F1 has been about - there have always been other formulae which do it far better.
No fair play.I enjoy watching wheel-to-wheel racing, but for me that's never what F1 has been about - there have always been other formulae which do it far better.
At least you will be excited each year
I was a die hard fan for years............over 35 to be exact!
It's been in decline for the last 5 in my opinion - and now, the HALO has killed it.
The only reason I stayed interested was there were Brits at the top (and still is one)
As Brundle put it so well this weekend - "the safest seat here today should not be in the car"
They should be gladiators - there must be risk.
The HALO means it is no longer open cockpit for me(yes it can be debated as there is a hole in the top) - but not to me.
The way they've dummed it down on track, and try and make it all 'Yehaaa' with the graphics etc.
Nope - i'm out. I shall be spending my money on MotoGP where the risk has been assessed correctly.
I'm actually rather sad about it. The sport has been a huge part of my life for so many years.
I just can't waste my time anymore.
So MotoGP, BTCC and my own racing will fill my weekends.
It's been in decline for the last 5 in my opinion - and now, the HALO has killed it.
The only reason I stayed interested was there were Brits at the top (and still is one)
As Brundle put it so well this weekend - "the safest seat here today should not be in the car"
They should be gladiators - there must be risk.
The HALO means it is no longer open cockpit for me(yes it can be debated as there is a hole in the top) - but not to me.
The way they've dummed it down on track, and try and make it all 'Yehaaa' with the graphics etc.
Nope - i'm out. I shall be spending my money on MotoGP where the risk has been assessed correctly.
I'm actually rather sad about it. The sport has been a huge part of my life for so many years.
I just can't waste my time anymore.
So MotoGP, BTCC and my own racing will fill my weekends.
The Selfish Gene said:
I was a die hard fan for years............over 35 to be exact!
It's been in decline for the last 5 in my opinion - and now, the HALO has killed it.
The only reason I stayed interested was there were Brits at the top (and still is one)
As Brundle put it so well this weekend - "the safest seat here today should not be in the car"
They should be gladiators - there must be risk.
The HALO means it is no longer open cockpit for me(yes it can be debated as there is a hole in the top) - but not to me.
The way they've dummed it down on track, and try and make it all 'Yehaaa' with the graphics etc.
Nope - i'm out. I shall be spending my money on MotoGP where the risk has been assessed correctly.
I'm actually rather sad about it. The sport has been a huge part of my life for so many years.
I just can't waste my time anymore.
So MotoGP, BTCC and my own racing will fill my weekends.
Not surprised you feel this way.It's been in decline for the last 5 in my opinion - and now, the HALO has killed it.
The only reason I stayed interested was there were Brits at the top (and still is one)
As Brundle put it so well this weekend - "the safest seat here today should not be in the car"
They should be gladiators - there must be risk.
The HALO means it is no longer open cockpit for me(yes it can be debated as there is a hole in the top) - but not to me.
The way they've dummed it down on track, and try and make it all 'Yehaaa' with the graphics etc.
Nope - i'm out. I shall be spending my money on MotoGP where the risk has been assessed correctly.
I'm actually rather sad about it. The sport has been a huge part of my life for so many years.
I just can't waste my time anymore.
So MotoGP, BTCC and my own racing will fill my weekends.
Thankfully I am only watching it when on C4 as paying would be a sin.
The whole spirit of the sport is being lost.
By all means make the cars as safe as possible "halo too far" but at least keep the tracks a challenge.
Sadly this was lost years ago.
I've had a love/hate affair with F1 stretching some 40 years and my interest has peaked/waned many times but looking back it's only peaked when there's been close rivalry at the top. I remember the Schumacher-Ferrari years as a total turn off, the opposite of the Prost - Senna rivalry. Lately the Hamilton - Vettel fight has kept it going and probably will despite the halo and grid girl fiasco.
I'm an engineer but despite that the engineering element of F1 doesn't float my boat. It really ought to but I think it often get's in the way of the spectacle.
I'm an engineer but despite that the engineering element of F1 doesn't float my boat. It really ought to but I think it often get's in the way of the spectacle.
yeah agreed - it has been in decline for ages. I forgot about the terrible massive run off on some tracks with nobody watching.
I currently only buy SKY for the F1 - so that's over 800 a year................it just isn't worth it.
I'll stop commenting on F1 posts, as I'm not a big fan of being totally negative about anything - but well as I said - I am out!
I currently only buy SKY for the F1 - so that's over 800 a year................it just isn't worth it.
I'll stop commenting on F1 posts, as I'm not a big fan of being totally negative about anything - but well as I said - I am out!
Esceptico said:
I used to follow F1. Even though I haven't watched a race in years I still sort of follow what is happening. I suppose hard to avoid given the media coverage it still receives. I think in my case it is because I remember when it was more interesting - maybe I have a rose-tinted view and it was always st. I don't remember it that way. I seem to remember races being won on the track through overtaking (rather than in the pits or via technical safety cars). The drivers seemed to have more character (or were simply able to have characters). They seem to change the rules each year but it never gets more interesting to watch (actually it is usually the opposite).
If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, shouldn't it be the most exciting and most interesting?
It’s the rose tinted specs. t. I don't remember it that way. I seem to remember races being won on the track through overtaking (rather than in the pits or via technical safety cars). The drivers seemed to have more character (or were simply able to have characters). They seem to change the rules each year but it never gets more interesting to watch (actually it is usually the opposite). If F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, shouldn't it be the most exciting and most interesting?
Races have very rarely been ding dong, wheel to wheel races...ever.
I’ve been watching since the late 80s and most seasons follow a similar pattern.
A dominant manufacturer...maybe 2 close ones if you’re lucky.
Rule changes often upset the status quo.
A handful of awful races. A load of decent races. A few edge of your seat ones.
The weather effected races usually turn into the epic, edge of your seat ones.
If you go back and watch any of the races from the past that you remember as awesome, I think you’ll be surprised at how ‘meh’ they are.
Yep
On another thread recently I picked a bunch of random races from the 'golden era' of late 80s early 90s and they were all much more widely space in terms of positions at the end than modern ones.
I get very nostalgic for those days as its what I grew up with. And your memory plays tricks that the racing was astonishing because of that. But the cold hard facts are a bit different.
On another thread recently I picked a bunch of random races from the 'golden era' of late 80s early 90s and they were all much more widely space in terms of positions at the end than modern ones.
I get very nostalgic for those days as its what I grew up with. And your memory plays tricks that the racing was astonishing because of that. But the cold hard facts are a bit different.
LordGrover said:
Yesterday's event, I can't bring myself to call it a race, was dire.
Perhaps the new owners are finding their feet, but it's not been a great start to the new era.
I miss it already.
the racing was dire - and the Lewis robbed by that ridiculous VSC. Even I can't blame the new Americas for that. It's the crazy aero really.Perhaps the new owners are finding their feet, but it's not been a great start to the new era.
I miss it already.
Vocal Minority said:
Yep
On another thread recently I picked a bunch of random races from the 'golden era' of late 80s early 90s and they were all much more widely space in terms of positions at the end than modern ones.
I get very nostalgic for those days as its what I grew up with. And your memory plays tricks that the racing was astonishing because of that. But the cold hard facts are a bit different.
Applaud the effort for that VM, how about the number of overtakes? Does that correspond with the perceived glory days of Mansell and Senna slugging it out etc? On another thread recently I picked a bunch of random races from the 'golden era' of late 80s early 90s and they were all much more widely space in terms of positions at the end than modern ones.
I get very nostalgic for those days as its what I grew up with. And your memory plays tricks that the racing was astonishing because of that. But the cold hard facts are a bit different.
I mean it seemed like we didn't really get any overtakes of note at all in the race on Sunday.
For me the glory days of F1 were the era of the FW14B and MP4/6, I'd quite happily go back to an aero spec like that now TBH. Limit the number of wing elements, ban the winglets somehow.
Lose traction control and active suspension. Use a relatively simple engine that sounds fast. Maybe even with the manual gearbox. Anything that gives a chance to make errors under pressure. Job done. Maybe it's just rose tinted specs though.
Edited by budgie smuggler on Monday 26th March 16:20
To be honest - less reliance on wings and a move towards ground effect like what indycar have done would be a big step in the right direction. The sheer reliability of cars these days vs the 80s surely shows that manufacturing has advanced to a point where the safety aspects due to breaking skirts can be avoided.
Re overtaking - I have no idea how to get the statistics on that one to be honest. However, I will say that when talking about these things, people tend to eulogise about Mansell and Senna in Catalunya, or Hakkinen and Schumacher overtaking a startled Zonta, or, Arnoux v Villeneuve.
But they present them as typical examples, when the truth of the matter is that the reason we remember them is because they were exceptional even then.
Lets put it this way, in my treasured but aging VHS of the 1995 season review there is a bit bemoaning how it is too hard to overtake...
Re overtaking - I have no idea how to get the statistics on that one to be honest. However, I will say that when talking about these things, people tend to eulogise about Mansell and Senna in Catalunya, or Hakkinen and Schumacher overtaking a startled Zonta, or, Arnoux v Villeneuve.
But they present them as typical examples, when the truth of the matter is that the reason we remember them is because they were exceptional even then.
Lets put it this way, in my treasured but aging VHS of the 1995 season review there is a bit bemoaning how it is too hard to overtake...
I watched it on Sky F1 as I had a free week pass. I was hoping it would be interesting given the second year on these regs and some more competition between leading cars. But the Merc is still way quicker than anything.
And worst of all is they still will not fix the main issue. Which is dirty air. Cars can't follow another without their tyres falling off a cliff and the engine heating. This makes actual racing impossible and all it is driving to a pre determined strategy set by the team.
I don't want to see that. They aren't racing.
Anyway, that's me done with this season.
And worst of all is they still will not fix the main issue. Which is dirty air. Cars can't follow another without their tyres falling off a cliff and the engine heating. This makes actual racing impossible and all it is driving to a pre determined strategy set by the team.
I don't want to see that. They aren't racing.
Anyway, that's me done with this season.
Vocal Minority said:
To be honest - less reliance on wings and a move towards ground effect like what indycar have done would be a big step in the right direction. The sheer reliability of cars these days vs the 80s surely shows that manufacturing has advanced to a point where the safety aspects due to breaking skirts can be avoided.
Re overtaking - I have no idea how to get the statistics on that one to be honest. However, I will say that when talking about these things, people tend to eulogise about Mansell and Senna in Catalunya, or Hakkinen and Schumacher overtaking a startled Zonta, or, Arnoux v Villeneuve.
But they present them as typical examples, when the truth of the matter is that the reason we remember them is because they were exceptional even then.
Lets put it this way, in my treasured but aging VHS of the 1995 season review there is a bit bemoaning how it is too hard to overtake...
Things mattered more then, if you were into four wheels it was top gear and f1. Although if truth be told, touring cars showed how dull F1 was. I think what F1 gave people in the 70s-90s was glamour, I mean we still had holiday programs showing countries abroad as Sunday night entertainment, shows how big the world was then. Re overtaking - I have no idea how to get the statistics on that one to be honest. However, I will say that when talking about these things, people tend to eulogise about Mansell and Senna in Catalunya, or Hakkinen and Schumacher overtaking a startled Zonta, or, Arnoux v Villeneuve.
But they present them as typical examples, when the truth of the matter is that the reason we remember them is because they were exceptional even then.
Lets put it this way, in my treasured but aging VHS of the 1995 season review there is a bit bemoaning how it is too hard to overtake...
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff