Great talent ruined by F1
Discussion
Ever noticed how F1 crushes all the good stuff from the great drivers to turn them into drones that they can control. Except for Jacque, Juan Pablo and sometimes JB all the other drives seem to be scared of making a mistake. It is as if they want all the drivers to be without emotion or character. Kimi being the ultimate in F1 androids he probably didn't even curse when his car let him down again.:furious:
There is no doubting that they are very talented to drive these cars in anger and on the limit but it seems that they are terrified to make a mistake as there team could replace them at any given moment. They work so hard to get there but forget what it is all about when they are there.
I feel slightly better fot that rant!! :byebye:
There is no doubting that they are very talented to drive these cars in anger and on the limit but it seems that they are terrified to make a mistake as there team could replace them at any given moment. They work so hard to get there but forget what it is all about when they are there.
I feel slightly better fot that rant!! :byebye:
Imo, nearly everything about F1 lack's soul at present- The rules,the drivers(most),the tracks have been chicaned to hell,even the cars (although I suspect this may be a bit of nostalgia on my part) seem a bit sterile compared to say, the turbo cars of the 80's.
Now with ITV's woeful coverage, I've started to have more interest in Moto GP. The ITV bosses should be sat down and made to watch Eurosports coverage to find out how a commercial tv station can cover motorsport.
Now with ITV's woeful coverage, I've started to have more interest in Moto GP. The ITV bosses should be sat down and made to watch Eurosports coverage to find out how a commercial tv station can cover motorsport.
I've had this opinion for quite a while. F1 is a souless, corporate, exercise. The ethos of the "sport" is that high speed billboards circulate around a track obtaining maximum exposure for their financial backers.
Anything that might jeopardise that (i.e attempting to overtake and maybe be put of the race as a result) is distinctly frowned upon.
I think that THIS is the real reason why you don't see any real overtaking in F1, It's not aerodynamics or tyres or pitstops - it's driver atitude.
Fear of failure exceeds the perceived benefit of success. And the core reason for that are the vast sums of money involved in the sport.
The concept of an actual sporting competition has been totally supressed.
Anything that might jeopardise that (i.e attempting to overtake and maybe be put of the race as a result) is distinctly frowned upon.
I think that THIS is the real reason why you don't see any real overtaking in F1, It's not aerodynamics or tyres or pitstops - it's driver atitude.
Fear of failure exceeds the perceived benefit of success. And the core reason for that are the vast sums of money involved in the sport.
The concept of an actual sporting competition has been totally supressed.
I think there are a couple of other resons for this;
Firstly, the points system at present allows for too much strategic driving with drivers thinking that a few safe points is better than risking no points. Fewer point paying positions but with points for pole, fastest race lap, etc could be the answer.
Secondly, I think too many drivers have got to F1 too quickly. Many are still kids and as such, haven't really developed any sense of independant thinking beacuse a) most 20 somthings are naturaly "sunserviant" and b) they will have had their lives to date controlled into a certain way of thinking.
Drivers like Hill, Masnell, Irvine, etc lived lives before F1 and could see the bigger picture and were crucially, racers!
The corporate control is also an issue. Look at the difference with Coulthard this year compared to when he was at McLaren - not neccessarily as a driver (although that's improved) but he's become human!
Firstly, the points system at present allows for too much strategic driving with drivers thinking that a few safe points is better than risking no points. Fewer point paying positions but with points for pole, fastest race lap, etc could be the answer.
Secondly, I think too many drivers have got to F1 too quickly. Many are still kids and as such, haven't really developed any sense of independant thinking beacuse a) most 20 somthings are naturaly "sunserviant" and b) they will have had their lives to date controlled into a certain way of thinking.
Drivers like Hill, Masnell, Irvine, etc lived lives before F1 and could see the bigger picture and were crucially, racers!
The corporate control is also an issue. Look at the difference with Coulthard this year compared to when he was at McLaren - not neccessarily as a driver (although that's improved) but he's become human!
steviebee said:Just to stir things up a bit:
Firstly, the points system at present allows for too much strategic driving with drivers thinking that a few safe points is better than risking no points. Fewer point paying positions but with points for pole, fastest race lap, etc could be the answer.
Drivers like Hill, Masnell, Irvine, etc lived lives before F1 and could see the bigger picture and were crucially, racers!
The corporate control is also an issue. Look at the difference with Coulthard this year compared to when he was at McLaren - not neccessarily as a driver (although that's improved) but he's become human!
How do you square this with McLaren's and young Raikkonen's decision at the European GP to carry on with a damaged, destabilising front tyre in order to go for the win?
At that point they had a much better shot at the Championships than they do now and if they had taken the safe option of replacing the tyre they could have pretty much guaranteed themselves 2nd place and 8 points.
It is interesting that in recent years many observors have complained that modern F1 drivers tend to drive too aggressively; this has been attributed to the fact that modern cars are so much safer in case of a shunt than earlier cars were.
I think you'll find that today's drivers are quite aggressive (apart from poor Barrichello, who's obviously been on a leash since he got to Ferrari). The big problem is that it is often physically impossible to carry your "normal" pace into and through a bend when you're directly behind another car.
To put it another way, we know that the overriding reason that F1 cars are so bloody fast in the bends is because of aerodynamics. It must follow that when the aerodynamics of a car are compromised, so is its pace, and thus so is its ability to overtake.
Ban pitstops for fuel (& tyres) and at a stroke you leave the driver no option to overtake other than on the track. Restore the points gap between 1st and 2nd back to 4 points and furthermore, award a point for pole and another point for fastest lap. I think F1 would change for the better with these simple mods....and that's without making any change to aerodynamics or tyres.
rubystone said:
Ban pitstops for fuel (& tyres) and at a stroke you leave the driver no option to overtake other than on the track. Restore the points gap between 1st and 2nd back to 4 points and furthermore, award a point for pole and another point for fastest lap. I think F1 would change for the better with these simple mods....and that's without making any change to aerodynamics or tyres.
No, one of the poor decisions this year was forcing the drivers to rely on one set of tyres...directly led to the Indi fiasco.
What you could do, though, is ban refuelling...force them all to run with a full fuel load. Then let them make tyre-stops, which will cost them ~25-30s per stop...so they have to decide how many sec/lap running one set of hard tyres will cost, or how much they'd gain from running 3 sets of ultra-soft...
Oh, except that's close to what we've always had, and wasn't it really competitive in the past?!?
I don't know what the answer is...F1 is supposed to be the tech showcase of motor racing, yet the massive rise in aerodynamics has led to massive expenditure (which previously was controlled)...so now he with the deepest pockets wins. Any efforts to restrict engines, aero pack, tyres etc. just "dumbs down" F1, and you may as well race F3 instead.
Suggestions? I guess limiting aero spending is probably the only way, but there's bound to be loopholes around that.
The Indy fiasco was a function of Michelin failing to provide an adequate tyre, be it prime or option. To my mind, the one set of tyres rule has lent interest to the final 20 laps of grands prix - Schumacher was passed by the likes of Fisi and Button at Hockenheim because his tyres were shot. Equally, Ferrari's previous dominance (up to recently) has been neutered by Bridgestone's inability to provide a tyre that operates at its optimum at the start of a race.
For those reasons, I think that the tyre rule is a good one.
Finally, I sat at Club at this year's British GP and watched drivers make a conscious decision NOT to overtake, despite the opportunity existing for them to (specifically, those cars bottled up behind Trulli). They were clearly waiting for pitstops, not willing to risk overtaking on the track.
For those reasons, I think that the tyre rule is a good one.
Finally, I sat at Club at this year's British GP and watched drivers make a conscious decision NOT to overtake, despite the opportunity existing for them to (specifically, those cars bottled up behind Trulli). They were clearly waiting for pitstops, not willing to risk overtaking on the track.
flemke said:
Firstly, the points system at present allows for too much strategic driving with drivers thinking that a few safe points is better than risking no points. Fewer point paying positions but with points for pole, fastest race lap, etc could be the answer.
Drivers like Hill, Masnell, Irvine, etc lived lives before F1 and could see the bigger picture and were crucially, racers!
The corporate control is also an issue. Look at the difference with Coulthard this year compared to when he was at McLaren - not neccessarily as a driver (although that's improved) but he's become human!
Just to stir things up a bit:
How do you square this with McLaren's and young Raikkonen's decision at the European GP to carry on with a damaged, destabilising front tyre in order to go for the win?
At that point they had a much better shot at the Championships than they do now and if they had taken the safe option of replacing the tyre they could have pretty much guaranteed themselves 2nd place and 8 points.
As I understand this particular incedent, the situation was "analysed" over a period of laps with various computer simultations being played out to identify the likely outcome scenario rather than Kimi thinking "sod it, I'm going for it!".
If this is the case, it sort of confirms my original point in that a racer's instinct is no longer at the centre of the decision making process.
Either way, I don't think you can call judgement based upon a single incident but I do see your point.
For an idea of where F1 is heading in this respect, it's worth taking a glance at some of the junior "pro" formulae.
Formula BMW for instance, the races I have seen have been dull personified. It's as if the team bosses have banned overtaking. Formula Renault is a bit better but not much.
Which is why I mourn the steady decline of Formula Ford as the ultimate feeder series. A variety of chassis, tyres and set up options was a good way sorting the good and bad.
flemke said:
Firstly, the points system at present allows for too much strategic driving with drivers thinking that a few safe points is better than risking no points. Fewer point paying positions but with points for pole, fastest race lap, etc could be the answer.
Drivers like Hill, Masnell, Irvine, etc lived lives before F1 and could see the bigger picture and were crucially, racers!
The corporate control is also an issue. Look at the difference with Coulthard this year compared to when he was at McLaren - not neccessarily as a driver (although that's improved) but he's become human!
Just to stir things up a bit:
How do you square this with McLaren's and young Raikkonen's decision at the European GP to carry on with a damaged, destabilising front tyre in order to go for the win?
At that point they had a much better shot at the Championships than they do now and if they had taken the safe option of replacing the tyre they could have pretty much guaranteed themselves 2nd place and 8 points.
As I understand this particular incedent, the situation was "analysed" over a period of laps with various computer simultations being played out to identify the likely outcome scenario rather than Kimi thinking "sod it, I'm going for it!".
If this is the case, it sort of confirms my original point in that a racer's instinct is no longer at the centre of the decision making process.
Either way, I don't think you can call judgement based upon a single incident but I do see your point.
For an idea of where F1 is heading in this respect, it's worth taking a glance at some of the junior "pro" formulae.
Formula BMW for instance, the races I have seen have been dull personified. It's as if the team bosses have banned overtaking. Formula Renault is a bit better but not much.
Which is why I mourn the steady decline of Formula Ford as the ultimate feeder series. A variety of chassis, tyres and set up options was a good way sorting the good and bad.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff