F1 is not a sport
Discussion
It’s never actually been all that different. It’s an engineering competition, with some advertising thrown in, but the most critical component is still the nut that holds the steering wheel. The trinkets have changed with the times, but the idea really hasn’t. “Race on Sunday, sell on Monday” isn’t a new thing at all.
sparta6 said:
Athletics has been a can of worms for years.
Ben Johnson ?
Oh quite... But my point here was that there is a strong suspicion developing that no athletes will win a medal at the Olympics if they are not selected by Nike, due to the advances made by Nike, and the way the rules have been set with the IAAF in the last few weeks, giving no time for other suppliers to make competitive shoes.Ben Johnson ?
Teddy Lop said:
How has grosjean and his moaning escaped being condemend to formula e mediocrity already, that's the real question. Hey it's a spec series frenchie knock yourself out!
I agree. Whatever talent he has (and it is there somewhere) has been totally hampered by his emotional fragility and inability to focus. I wouldn't take much notice of his opinion which is perhaps tainted by bitterness now.
It's always someone's else fault.
808 Estate said:
F1 is more of a sport than that horse dancing b
ks they show at the olympics.
If it needs a committee to decide who won, then its art.
It it is decided on time/distance or a quantifiable measure then its sport.
I prefer my definition, if the opposing parties compete at the same time it’s a sport otherwise it’s a game.ks they show at the olympics.If it needs a committee to decide who won, then its art.
It it is decided on time/distance or a quantifiable measure then its sport.
Sport involves direct competition, anything turn based is not sport.
Evangelion said:
So what about the bobslelgh, luge, skiing or skijumping? And don't forget F1 qualifying was turn based quite recently.
Realistically, the sporting ability of the drivers of the top teams is why they are driving the top machines and why those teams, in turn can support the largest budgets. Some of the lack of meritocracy does surround drivers who do pay for their seats - but if they were good enough they would still get the best drives.Olas said:
F1 is an advertising platform for Ferrari, and an opportunity for other manufactureres to develop technologues that will 'trickle down'
remember the KERS battery pack and regenrative braking?
today most new cars are hybrids with derivations of that same technology.
going further back, remember when thye stopped using carburettors and went to electronic injection? a few years later every car sold had the same.
look at the downsized turbocharged F1 engines of today and think about where consumer ICE is headed...
its an overblown R&D centre, with lots of media attention.
I think you'll find that most innovation in passenger cars owes fremember the KERS battery pack and regenrative braking?
today most new cars are hybrids with derivations of that same technology.
going further back, remember when thye stopped using carburettors and went to electronic injection? a few years later every car sold had the same.
look at the downsized turbocharged F1 engines of today and think about where consumer ICE is headed...
its an overblown R&D centre, with lots of media attention.
k-all to F1.AW111 said:
I think you'll find that most innovation in passenger cars owes fk-all to F1.
Development is not the same as innovation. Refining and porting innovation to make it usable in cars does trickle down. Take ABS yes it was developed for planes.. A significant amount of developing, testing, and refining happened for F1 which was way more applicable to what we saw in the first road cars. k-all to F1.I reckon...
F1 is a very heavily commercialised sport! So heavily commercialised it's perhaps now closer to a corporate rat race than a sport for sports sake - although, a corporate rat race is a sport in its own right I suppose.
Its always been about trying to prove you're the best at the end of the day. Whatever definition that best fits, there are winners and losers and drama, so for me it's the equivalent of 'sport', even if it stretches that definition a little these days.
F1 is a very heavily commercialised sport! So heavily commercialised it's perhaps now closer to a corporate rat race than a sport for sports sake - although, a corporate rat race is a sport in its own right I suppose.
Its always been about trying to prove you're the best at the end of the day. Whatever definition that best fits, there are winners and losers and drama, so for me it's the equivalent of 'sport', even if it stretches that definition a little these days.
TheDeuce said:
I reckon...
F1 is a very heavily commercialised sport! So heavily commercialised it's perhaps now closer to a corporate rat race than a sport for sports sake - although, a corporate rat race is a sport in its own right I suppose.
Couldn't agree more. To some extent there has always been an element of this in motor racing (not just F1).F1 is a very heavily commercialised sport! So heavily commercialised it's perhaps now closer to a corporate rat race than a sport for sports sake - although, a corporate rat race is a sport in its own right I suppose.
To me, it is more like the kind of technical race you see in times of war - instant ideas, rapid development and prototyping, testing followed by acceptance or rejection and rapid obsolescence as the opposition find something better.
When you look at how (say) amendments were made to aircraft like the Spitfire in World War 2, it's very similar to the way F1 teams adjust and amend their technology during a season.
Eric Mc said:
When you look at how (say) amendments were made to aircraft like the Spitfire in World War 2, it's very similar to the way F1 teams adjust and amend their technology during a season.
For me that's a very large part of what makes F1 so fascinating. There's loads of places in modern business where organisations feed off each other in this way but in most situations it's over a timescale or years; in F1 the whole process is sped up an order of magnitude. kambites said:
Eric Mc said:
When you look at how (say) amendments were made to aircraft like the Spitfire in World War 2, it's very similar to the way F1 teams adjust and amend their technology during a season.
For me that's a very large part of what makes F1 so fascinating. There's loads of places in modern business where organisations feed off each other in this way but in most situations it's over a timescale or years; in F1 the whole process is sped up an order of magnitude. kambites said:
808 Estate said:
If it needs a committee to decide who won, then its art.
I don't think I'd call boxing "art". 
A panel of judges are sometimes called upon but even then they do not decide
Who won - Fury Wilder needed a committee to decide it was a draw. No winner was chosen so
Your committee argument doesn’t really stand up.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff