Why is F1 seen as the pinnacle of motor racing?
Discussion
I was chatting with friends over the weekend when I made a comment about F1 being the pinnacle of motor racing, let's be honest all the mags say it! I then tried to justify this statement and the more we discussed it the harder it became to back it up. So why do we think it is this way?
It can not be justified based on speed because Indy racing is just as fast and as someone pointed out, drag racing is much faster than F1, and though some may think it is not motor sport, I'm afraid that drag racing is, so speed is out of the window.
It can not be justified by the types of circuits that F1 races on because other forms of motor racing use the very same circuits and in fact their are some circuits that F1 wouldn't run on yet motor racing still takes place on, such as the stunning Bathurst down under.
It can not be justified by the drivers who participate in F1 either. Clearly there have been some fantastic drivers like the Senna and Clark over the years, but all forms of motor racing have produced some incredible drivers/personalities such as Carlos and Colin in rallying, Rossi and Sheene on bikes, Ickx and Tommi C for sport cars as just a small example of talented drivers/riders outside of F1.
It can not be solely down to the technical requirements of F1 because I would suggest that taking a step back and looking at all forms of motor sport, that the technical aspects of F1 are by no means on a different level to many other forms of top flight racing, and would it not be fair to say that Endurance racing requires a more technically demanding arena for motor sport than a quick sprint for an hour and a half?
So if we have removed the speed, the circuits, the driver and the technical requirements, what does that leave in F1 which is soo much different to other forms of motor racing that demands the title of the pinnacle of the sport??
It can not be justified based on speed because Indy racing is just as fast and as someone pointed out, drag racing is much faster than F1, and though some may think it is not motor sport, I'm afraid that drag racing is, so speed is out of the window.
It can not be justified by the types of circuits that F1 races on because other forms of motor racing use the very same circuits and in fact their are some circuits that F1 wouldn't run on yet motor racing still takes place on, such as the stunning Bathurst down under.
It can not be justified by the drivers who participate in F1 either. Clearly there have been some fantastic drivers like the Senna and Clark over the years, but all forms of motor racing have produced some incredible drivers/personalities such as Carlos and Colin in rallying, Rossi and Sheene on bikes, Ickx and Tommi C for sport cars as just a small example of talented drivers/riders outside of F1.
It can not be solely down to the technical requirements of F1 because I would suggest that taking a step back and looking at all forms of motor sport, that the technical aspects of F1 are by no means on a different level to many other forms of top flight racing, and would it not be fair to say that Endurance racing requires a more technically demanding arena for motor sport than a quick sprint for an hour and a half?
So if we have removed the speed, the circuits, the driver and the technical requirements, what does that leave in F1 which is soo much different to other forms of motor racing that demands the title of the pinnacle of the sport??
Edited by TheOriginalGT40 on Monday 25th June 11:57
g4ry13 said:
Money?
But is it?Top flight drivers in Rallying do very well for themselves, as to do those in American racing such as NASCAR. There are big name sponsors across all motor sport, though it is probably true to say that they spend a little more for their positions on an F1 car, but that still is a weak argument as to why F1 should be labelled the pinnacle of motor sport.
Fine if you want to call it the pinnacle of marketing, but that is not the question...
The heritage, the glamour.
Over the whole grid and over the history of racing definitely by far the best drivers.
The cost and pace of development of the cars.
Other types of racing cannot afford this.
Also, on real roads the cars would leave everything behind.
Nothing would get round the ring quicker, for instance.
Over the whole grid and over the history of racing definitely by far the best drivers.
The cost and pace of development of the cars.
Other types of racing cannot afford this.
Also, on real roads the cars would leave everything behind.
Nothing would get round the ring quicker, for instance.
loneranger said:
The cost and pace of development of the cars.
I'd say that's the main reason why it's seen as the pinnacle, the technology on these cars pretty much always finds it's way into your average road car.loneranger said:
Nothing would get round the ring quicker, for instance.
On this point, I think a Le Mans car could beat an F1 car around, though I don't think anyone would drive either around the ring at 10 tenths.TheOriginalGT40 said:
It can not be solely down to the technical requirements of F1 because I would suggest that taking a step back and looking at all forms of motor sport, that the technical aspects of F1 are by no means on a different level to many other forms of top flight racing, and would it not be fair to say that Endurance racing requires a more technically demanding arena for motor sport than a quick sprint for an hour and a half?
No it wouldn't - no other form of motorsport generally has access to, and/or uses their own wind tunnel on a 24 hour basis. The shorter the race, the more that every fraction of a second counts.Formula 1 is the pinnacle in engineering terms, as the pace of development is so vast and the budgets staggering.
It's also the pinnacle in terms of road racing since nothing will beat a F1 car on such a circuit.
You discount speed because of top speed? Eh? F1 cars have never been purely about top speed. They are the fastest circuit based racing cars, simple as. Indy cars go faster? On a Superspeedway maybe, but if you really insist, you could provide an aerodynamic data set for an F1 car, diff, gearbox and then step the suspension set up to run at 220 reasonably easy. You try and doing the reverse of that to an Indy car to see what times you could have one run at say Monaco and then Spa. You would be talking several seconds slower than an F1 car.
Technology? Massively higher than in any other motorsport formula. For a while Group B could argue differently, the tech going into the last of the Gp B cars was astonishing...esp the engine tech. Lancia's twin charger set up, 3 diff 4 wheel drive on the S4 was the equal of anything being done in F1 at the time.
Best drivers? To be honest, I think it would be very hard to argue otherwise. Even when Sainz was at his absolute best...and I would argue Sainz has possibly been the best there was...was he a match for Senna and Prost? Now I accept that is a very subjective argument, long gone are the days when the top drivers would regularly swap seats and we are worse of for that in my humble. Good on Rossi for trying his hand in whatever he can persuade folks to let him. The other argument against rallying...certainly in this age...is that the drivers are not competing in the fastest cars. We are all know the development of rally cars is held back because of accidents and the fear of what could happen. Lets be honest, given the choice, what we would like to see...300BHP Scoobies or 600BHP nutter scoobies? There is a reason we all hark back to flame spitting, Devil Buggering, hard ass nutter b@stard 205 T16s, RS200s, quattros and the most evil daddy of the lot...the S4. You watched those are you *knew* you were watching the absolute pinnacle of what could be achieved for a rallying car at the time and you knew the drivers were from the utter top draw. Hands up who watched Ari, Hannu, Alen, Rohle, Henri and didnt think them complete and utter heros on a level with the F1 boys? Now hardly anybody watches rallying. Why? because we all know we watching the shandy version with shandy drinking drivers.
Technology? Massively higher than in any other motorsport formula. For a while Group B could argue differently, the tech going into the last of the Gp B cars was astonishing...esp the engine tech. Lancia's twin charger set up, 3 diff 4 wheel drive on the S4 was the equal of anything being done in F1 at the time.
Best drivers? To be honest, I think it would be very hard to argue otherwise. Even when Sainz was at his absolute best...and I would argue Sainz has possibly been the best there was...was he a match for Senna and Prost? Now I accept that is a very subjective argument, long gone are the days when the top drivers would regularly swap seats and we are worse of for that in my humble. Good on Rossi for trying his hand in whatever he can persuade folks to let him. The other argument against rallying...certainly in this age...is that the drivers are not competing in the fastest cars. We are all know the development of rally cars is held back because of accidents and the fear of what could happen. Lets be honest, given the choice, what we would like to see...300BHP Scoobies or 600BHP nutter scoobies? There is a reason we all hark back to flame spitting, Devil Buggering, hard ass nutter b@stard 205 T16s, RS200s, quattros and the most evil daddy of the lot...the S4. You watched those are you *knew* you were watching the absolute pinnacle of what could be achieved for a rallying car at the time and you knew the drivers were from the utter top draw. Hands up who watched Ari, Hannu, Alen, Rohle, Henri and didnt think them complete and utter heros on a level with the F1 boys? Now hardly anybody watches rallying. Why? because we all know we watching the shandy version with shandy drinking drivers.
I build F1 cars for a living and we always joke about that statement. 
F1 gets called that mainly because the money involved in the structure. Yes there are faster motorsports out there but F1 cars are built far better (quality and design) than most other racing vehicles. I work with people that have built Le Mans, Indy and Rally cars and the general concensus is that they are fairly primitive against an F1 car design.
F1 gets called that mainly because the money involved in the structure. Yes there are faster motorsports out there but F1 cars are built far better (quality and design) than most other racing vehicles. I work with people that have built Le Mans, Indy and Rally cars and the general concensus is that they are fairly primitive against an F1 car design.
TIGA84 said:
dont know why its the pinnacle, I'd imagine the heritage and heroes contribute somewhat.
on the F1/Le Mans debate at the ring, I'd say it would be an interesting one to watch.
Could an F1 get under 6m? I really have no idea if it could stand up to the track, being so fragile.
An F1 car would totally destroy a LM car round the ring and there would be no fragility problem.on the F1/Le Mans debate at the ring, I'd say it would be an interesting one to watch.
Could an F1 get under 6m? I really have no idea if it could stand up to the track, being so fragile.
As always it is the bends and the ring has loads of them. An F1 car would brake much, much later, pull a lot more G going round then accelerate out of it much faster. The LM driver would not see where the F1 car went.
TheOriginalGT40 said:
g4ry13 said:
Money?
But is it?Top flight drivers in Rallying do very well for themselves, as to do those in American racing such as NASCAR. There are big name sponsors across all motor sport, though it is probably true to say that they spend a little more for their positions on an F1 car, but that still is a weak argument as to why F1 should be labelled the pinnacle of motor sport.
Fine if you want to call it the pinnacle of marketing, but that is not the question...
The cars are lighter than any other series, the engines have the highest specific output (not including drag racers), the lap times are the quickest, and so on.
Isn't the answer because it is designed to be? The FIA makes sure that the regulations for all formulae are such that F1 is the fastest thing on the circuits it races on. Whether an F1 car would be faster round the 'ring is an irrelevance. If the championship included it, the cars would be designed such that it would be. Similarly, if the Indy 500 became a points scoring round again the cars would be designed such as to win it, and they almost undoubtedly would.
Frik said:
It's also the pinnacle in terms of road racing since nothing will beat a F1 car on such a circuit.
I'm not going to agree or disagree with this statement, however, I'd love to see a programme/magazine arrange the ultimate 'road circuit test'.Choose a suitable circuit and then arrange for the one motor racing driver (to remove any element of performace advantage bewteen drivers) to take to the circuit in a full range of current top flight vehicles:
F1, WRC, WTCC, Le Mans, NASCAR, Indy, A1, MotoGP, WSB and then lets see once and for all what each can do...
Come on Top Gear, Fifth Gear, or EVO, Car, Autosport... someone put us out of our misery, or would the FIA and Bernie stop this, just in case something other than an F1 car was to post the fastest lap!
1. History.
2. Technical supremacy. F1 cars are the most developed cars in motorsport. No other motorsport category spends as much money, time, and man hours to develop their cars.
3. Driver selection. F1 still has one of - if not the - most rigorous driver selection in motorsport.
The WRC was driven by McRae, and the F1 car by Herbert. Clarkson himself drove a Ford Cougar road car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP-HxU4Zt8Q
2. Technical supremacy. F1 cars are the most developed cars in motorsport. No other motorsport category spends as much money, time, and man hours to develop their cars.
3. Driver selection. F1 still has one of - if not the - most rigorous driver selection in motorsport.
TheOriginalGT40 said:
Choose a suitable circuit and then arrange for the one motor racing driver (to remove any element of performace advantage bewteen drivers) to take to the circuit in a full range of current top flight vehicles:
F1, WRC, WTCC, Le Mans, NASCAR, Indy, A1, MotoGP, WSB and then lets see once and for all what each can do...
Come on Top Gear, Fifth Gear, or EVO, Car, Autosport... someone put us out of our misery, or would the FIA and Bernie stop this, just in case something other than an F1 car was to post the fastest lap!
Well, Top Gear did something similar involving a Ford Focus WRC and a Stewart-Ford F1 car.F1, WRC, WTCC, Le Mans, NASCAR, Indy, A1, MotoGP, WSB and then lets see once and for all what each can do...
Come on Top Gear, Fifth Gear, or EVO, Car, Autosport... someone put us out of our misery, or would the FIA and Bernie stop this, just in case something other than an F1 car was to post the fastest lap!
The WRC was driven by McRae, and the F1 car by Herbert. Clarkson himself drove a Ford Cougar road car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP-HxU4Zt8Q
Edited by Jungles on Monday 25th June 14:09
Jungles said:
Technical supremacy. F1 cars are the most developed cars in motorsport. No other motorsport category spends as much money, time, and man hours to develop their cars.
Your case falls apart when you look at Toyota who spend more money than any other team in F1, and therefore based on your comment above they spend more money than any other form of motor sport in the world, period!Toyota F1, the pinnacle of motor sport
F1 is the pinnicle of motor sport as it was one of the first to pioneer the use of exotic materials, and has been a technology showcase ever since.
The amount of research and development that goes into all aspects of the care is out of this world and no other racing formula can compete.
the regulations have driven the teams for further refinement of there sxisting systems rather than invesnting new ones as the budget were getting out of control, and smaller teams could not keep up with the pace of development.
For instance the Mclaren Aero/CFD team are utilising there computing power 100% of the time and 95% of the time for the windtunnel the downtime is only when changing models in the windtunnel. They are investing heavily into more computing power to do more aero analysis using CFD packages this is not just used for the Aero but is also used for structures, engine cooling, gaming theory through race weekends
The F1 team pulls various disiplines together and packages them as one. There ability to do this would scare many consultants working in the private sector!
The amount of research and development that goes into all aspects of the care is out of this world and no other racing formula can compete.
the regulations have driven the teams for further refinement of there sxisting systems rather than invesnting new ones as the budget were getting out of control, and smaller teams could not keep up with the pace of development.
For instance the Mclaren Aero/CFD team are utilising there computing power 100% of the time and 95% of the time for the windtunnel the downtime is only when changing models in the windtunnel. They are investing heavily into more computing power to do more aero analysis using CFD packages this is not just used for the Aero but is also used for structures, engine cooling, gaming theory through race weekends
The F1 team pulls various disiplines together and packages them as one. There ability to do this would scare many consultants working in the private sector!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff