F1 has become farcical hasnt it

F1 has become farcical hasnt it

Author
Discussion

bordseye

Original Poster:

1,390 posts

136 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Drumroll said:
clearly the OP knows nothing about motorsport and it's history. Tyres have always played a part in motor racing. Go back to the beginning when mechanics used to ride in the cars, they nearly all carried 2 spare wheels. Even in series with a control tyre, some teams do better than others. In part it is tied up with how they manged the tyres often a combination of engineering (tracking, camber etc) and driving style.

Most of the responses have been reasonable arguments but this one is nonsense. I've been watching F1 since the tail end of Vanwall racing, right through the likes of BRM and Lotus up to the present day. Not to mention local club circuit racing. le Mans etc. How long have you been into F1?

Current F1 is entirely false. In the early days, it was all about engineering and driver ability / courage. There was real innovation such as the move to rear engines, ground effect, and we even had a period of competition between teams with different sized engines. Tyres were free. Fuel stops allowed.

So what do we have now? A set of rules designed to be so tight that only those with a mega budget can engineer in a tiny advantage. The result is cars that cannot overtakes so we have false overtaking assistance with DRS. No competition between tyre companies and instead tyres engineered to fail safely after not much use.

How can this be the pinacle of motor sport

And dont get me started on le Mans and the farce of prototypes which arent remotely prototypes

ukaskew

5,157 posts

165 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Weird time to post this after 4 very decent races in a row. Very rare to get a run of races like that, even with a rose tinted visor.

Derek Smith

33,799 posts

192 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
I've not known a season like this one. We've had four exciting races on the trot. We should not forget Baku. It was what was grandly called a 'classic' race because it had a beginning, middle phase, and an end. And what an end. Pathos in abundance.

Five thoroughly enjoyable races in a whole season is remarkable, let along five by (a bit over) half way.

The myth of the utter dominance of Merc has been put to rest. They are in a battle.

Hungry was fabulous. Lots of action all down the field. A fluffed pit stop would cost two or three places so a real team effort. LH, despite having the fastest car, unable to overtake RB. Brake wear a problem. A call for new tyres at just the right moment. Or maybe not. If RB had called in MV on the following lap, could he have stayed ahead? We'll never know.

We had the two cars in the lead ignoring engine management and going for it for 20 laps. The last time I saw that was Mansell at Silverstone back in the Williams/Honda days. This race was what everyone says racing used to be like all the time. Such races were infrequent, so much so that a nerd can remember them all.

Was Hungry the best race of the season? The thing is that there are four other races vying for that position.

I've followed GP racing since 1966. That's a fair few weeks now. I would say that, at the moment, it is a challenger for best ever. And yet we still have lots of races to go.

Pure luxury.


NewUsername

58 posts

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
I think one point lost on the OP and one that's bypassed a few other commenters is that F1 is first and foremost a team sport about who runs the best car, the WCC is the main prize, the drivers championship is more of a peacock exercise and its NEVER been a sport where the best driver wins by default of being the best driver, its always been about the car first and foremost. Saying you want a series where the best driver can always win is a) Not ever going to be F1, b) potentially as boring as you find F1 now because the same guy will win every week lol

Vaud

32,862 posts

99 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
NewUsername said:
I think one point lost on the OP and one that's bypassed a few other commenters is that F1 is first and foremost a team sport about who runs the best car, the WCC is the main prize, the drivers championship is more of a peacock exercise and its NEVER been a sport where the best driver wins by default of being the best driver, its always been about the car first and foremost. Saying you want a series where the best driver can always win is a) Not ever going to be F1, b) potentially as boring as you find F1 now because the same guy will win every week lol
It is a team sport.
It was a drivers championship first (1950) and constructors second (1958), and the teams try to make the most of WCC but the driver is the asset and people remember which driver won at the end of the season, not which team (generally)
Agree that you need a great car to win; as the margins reduce with regulations stabilisation a driver can arguably make enough of a difference to beat a faster car through better consistency.

NewUsername

58 posts

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Vaud said:
NewUsername said:
I think one point lost on the OP and one that's bypassed a few other commenters is that F1 is first and foremost a team sport about who runs the best car, the WCC is the main prize, the drivers championship is more of a peacock exercise and its NEVER been a sport where the best driver wins by default of being the best driver, its always been about the car first and foremost. Saying you want a series where the best driver can always win is a) Not ever going to be F1, b) potentially as boring as you find F1 now because the same guy will win every week lol
It is a team sport.
It was a drivers championship first (1950) and constructors second (1958), and the teams try to make the most of WCC but the driver is the asset and people remember which driver won at the end of the season, not which team (generally)
Agree that you need a great car to win; as the margins reduce with regulations stabilisation a driver can arguably make enough of a difference to beat a faster car through better consistency.
I can only think of one or two years at the most where the team with the best car overall didn't win. People remember the driver because they have less of an understanding of the sport, back in the day the driver could change from race to race or even swap cars middle of the race. The entrants are the teams not the drivers even now. I agree, people like the drivers, follow drivers and drivers can make a difference ( max vs gasly ) but in terms of the sport being about drivers as per the OP, nope, never has been.

Mark-C

3,035 posts

149 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
CanAm said:
MissChief said:
Lots of stuff.......
It might have escaped your attention that in the race in question, Hungary 2019, only four cars finished on the lead lap and many were lapped twice.
Which used to happen all the time back in the "good old days" ...

If you think excitement can only come from a whole bunch of cars finishing within seconds of each other on the last lap then watch some Oval racing. It's not better or worse just different.

And I suggest, given your username, you don't look at too many Can-Am race results from the 70s either - drivers winning the championship with more than double their nearest rival, one car dominating the reults and multi lap gaps down the field. Didn't stop it being one of the best series of motor racing ever (IMHO)

Coatesy351

689 posts

76 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Muzzer79 said:
People certainly have short memories and forget the snooze-fest races in the past.

I've watched F1 since the late 80's and it most certainly wasn't all Senna fighting through the pack in the wet or Mansell around the outside of Stowe.

There were a lot of dull races in dull places with not much happening.

Tired of Mercedes' domination? In 1988 Mclaren won every race apart from one......
But at least the in team competition was close.
World championship average winning margin 1980-89 was 7.4 points 2009-18 average 56 points.

Vaud

32,862 posts

99 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Coatesy351 said:
But at least the in team competition was close.
World championship average winning margin 1980-89 was 7.4 points 2009-18 average 56 points.
But that was a different points scheme?

CanAm

4,564 posts

216 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Mark-C said:
Which used to happen all the time back in the "good old days" ...

If you think excitement can only come from a whole bunch of cars finishing within seconds of each other on the last lap then watch some Oval racing. It's not better or worse just different.

And I suggest, given your username, you don't look at too many Can-Am race results from the 70s either - drivers winning the championship with more than double their nearest rival, one car dominating the reults and multi lap gaps down the field. Didn't stop it being one of the best series of motor racing ever (IMHO)
You are reading far too much into what you think I like or dislike from one flippant comment and my username. I merely thought it ironic that MissChief should quote such results from the past directly after such a finish in the latest race.

And I am well aware of the results and one-sidedness of the Can-Am Series (1966-74 only); but weren't the cars fantastic!?

Coatesy351

689 posts

76 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
Vaud said:
Coatesy351 said:
But at least the in team competition was close.
World championship average winning margin 1980-89 was 7.4 points 2009-18 average 56 points.
But that was a different points scheme?
A quick look at the biggest and smallest winning margins of the 80s with the current points would have made it 69 points instead of 20 (1985) and 1.5 points instead of .5 (1984)

heebeegeetee

26,735 posts

192 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
Current F1 is entirely false. In the early days, it was all about engineering and driver ability / courage. There was real innovation such as the move to rear engines, ground effect, and we even had a period of competition between teams with different sized engines. Tyres were free. Fuel stops allowed.

So what do we have now? A set of rules designed to be so tight that only those with a mega budget can engineer in a tiny advantage. The result is cars that cannot overtakes so we have false overtaking assistance with DRS. No competition between tyre companies and instead tyres engineered to fail safely after not much use.

How can this be the pinacle of motor sport

And dont get me started on le Mans and the farce of prototypes which arent remotely prototypes
I do think you're massively missing a point. In the early days, the cars were not fast, not fast at all by today's standards. I have no doubt that if the engineers were given free reign today, the cars would be massively faster than they are now, and far too fast for the circuits as they are now. The sport would need other circuits, which are not readily available (and possibly not available at all) and spectators would need to sit in a different county.

I take your point about tyres, but I can also remember when one brand of tyre would be better than the rest, so that rendered those teams and drivers with no chance of winning.

I'm sure nothing would be easier for the tyre companies to create a tyre to last the distance, indeed I have no doubt that the very notion of a 'pit stop' is entirely false, completely unnecessary, and has probably been so for decades.

If you want to blame something then blame technology, but you can't stop it so there's no point in complaining about it.

The drivers though, remain the same, and I am just loving this season. Whatever the rules, they want to race!

I think F1 has done a good job of remaining a spectacle, whilst allowing cars that look good and are still bloody quick, whereas thanks to technology, rallying ceased to be a spectator sport over 30 years ago.

I'm loving this season, I think it's as good as any other in the history of the sport, and I've got a huge interest on the history of the sport.

The spectator attendance at Goodwood is huge, at the vast majority of the rest of the circuits for the rest of the year spectator attendance is near non-existent, because the cars corner on rails and are not a spectacle any more, so if tyres wearing out prematurely is what takes to keep F1 alive then that's fine by me. I mean, I can't help thinking that strictly speaking, to meet the OP's standards, Formula E is the real Formula One.

Vaud

32,862 posts

99 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
I have no doubt that if the engineers were given free reign today, the cars would be massively faster than they are now, and far too fast for the circuits as they are now.
And possibly too fast for the drivers (g forces, etc)

StevieBee

7,825 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
bordseye said:
So what do we have now? A set of rules designed to be so tight that only those with a mega budget can engineer in a tiny advantage.
Budget isn't a red herring but it is an amber one.

Red Bull are currently spanking Ferrari's bum and keeping Mercedes very much in check with a budget around half of theirs. Toyota spent close on £1billion on F1 and achieved pretty much nothing and you could pour the same into Williams and I doubt it would make that much of a difference to their fortunes, certainly in the short to medium term.

I understand your point about innovation - that we've lost the days where something major could be done to shake the tree a bit. But is it not the case that those periods of previous innovation led us to the optimum Formulae - one where it's now a case of refinement than outright revolution? Other than going full electric or hydrogen, it's difficult to see what can be done beyond creating an entirely new Formula - which is what was done with Formula E.

chunder27

2,309 posts

152 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
I tell you what is farcical, the amount the sport is bleeding out of you people that attend.

I was given a 2019 British GP programme the other day and was utterly astounded to find the cost. 15 quid!

For nothing more than a doctors surgery flick magazine, crammed full of adverts and features of no more than 700 words.

Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me sick to the stomach it really does.

And if you buy into it, in any way, you are largely responsible for what happens next, same as paying for SKY.

I find that bordering on inhumane to be honest to expect people to pay that sort of money for a programme when the tickets you purchased were likely well over 150 pounds.

No joke, you need your had looking at it if you actually purchased one with paper money!

NewUsername

58 posts

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
chunder27 said:
I tell you what is farcical, the amount the sport is bleeding out of you people that attend.

I was given a 2019 British GP programme the other day and was utterly astounded to find the cost. 15 quid!

For nothing more than a doctors surgery flick magazine, crammed full of adverts and features of no more than 700 words.

Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me sick to the stomach it really does.

And if you buy into it, in any way, you are largely responsible for what happens next, same as paying for SKY.

I find that bordering on inhumane to be honest to expect people to pay that sort of money for a programme when the tickets you purchased were likely well over 150 pounds.

No joke, you need your had looking at it if you actually purchased one with paper money!
No different to glossy programme prices from any other large event in my experience, yes they're pricey, but they're still the cheapest souvenir going.



GB4 JEV FFS

876 posts

11 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
HardtopManual said:
DanielSan said:
Why the fk has this been given 2 pages of replies?
When it ticks into 3, we can blame this post.
I'm still on page one.

Jazzy Jag

1,840 posts

35 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
GB4 JEV FFS said:
HardtopManual said:
DanielSan said:
Why the fk has this been given 2 pages of replies?
When it ticks into 3, we can blame this post.
I'm still on page one.
you need to read faster of stop trivial things from distracting you from keeping up with PH.

wink

StevieBee

7,825 posts

199 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
NewUsername said:
chunder27 said:
I tell you what is farcical, the amount the sport is bleeding out of you people that attend.

I was given a 2019 British GP programme the other day and was utterly astounded to find the cost. 15 quid!

For nothing more than a doctors surgery flick magazine, crammed full of adverts and features of no more than 700 words.

Sorry, but that sort of thing makes me sick to the stomach it really does.

And if you buy into it, in any way, you are largely responsible for what happens next, same as paying for SKY.

I find that bordering on inhumane to be honest to expect people to pay that sort of money for a programme when the tickets you purchased were likely well over 150 pounds.

No joke, you need your had looking at it if you actually purchased one with paper money!
No different to glossy programme prices from any other large event in my experience, yes they're pricey, but they're still the cheapest souvenir going.
The LeMans programme is €10. You get three publications, a poster and IIRC a sticker. The main programme is my primary downstairs loo reading material and has been since we got back. If it were on the shelf at WHSmiths, I'd not hesitate to buy it.

Derek Smith

33,799 posts

192 months

Tuesday 6th August
quotequote all
StevieBee said:
The LeMans programme is €10. You get three publications, a poster and IIRC a sticker. The main programme is my primary downstairs loo reading material and has been since we got back. If it were on the shelf at WHSmiths, I'd not hesitate to buy it.
Have you considered more roughage in your diet? That way, you could liberate you programme to more normal reading locations. (Disinfectant should be considered also.)