[Multi 21] f1 is boring. manufactured for tv.

[The IC]

Could always just follow what the airforce has been doing with UAVs and replace the drivers with computers, theyve been saying for years and years that the cars could drive themselves...youd certainly get alot less complaining from the drivers about not being able to pass, team orders, poor equipment etc. etc.

[Born Racer]

You may jest The IC, but seriously that could resolve this imperfect drivers' championship set-up we have.

[Aysedasi]

Sorted then.

[Marbot]

JB and LH were ready to do battle when a Santander employee suggested that they ought to '"re-evaluate their intended course of action" because it was not the "best overall strategy for the team".

Consequently, JB and LH got bored and went home.

[The IC]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

You may jest The IC, but seriously that could resolve this imperfect drivers' championship set-up we have.

Well, it was only half in jest ...although if you remove the drivers, there's two things i think would cause problems: a) there's no personalities fans can like or dislike which is a big part of commercial sports in general, and b) the car itself would become less interesting to alot of people, since engineers would most likely design it so you cant sit in and drive it as it wouldn't be required anymore...it removes the "i wish i could drive that" factor

all this driver drama just gives F1 more publicity i guess

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

My De Lorean's stuck in 1976.

No Lux capacitor? Easy.
You can buy them off the TV.
Professor Brown is marketing them....

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by The IC

Well, it was only half in jest ...although if you remove the drivers, there's two things i think would cause problems: a) there's no personalities fans can like or dislike which is a big part of commercial sports in general, and b) the car itself would become less interesting to alot of people, since engineers would most likely design it so you cant sit in and drive it as it wouldn't be required anymore...it removes the "i wish i could drive that" factor

all this driver drama just gives F1 more publicity i guess

I think the relationship between engineering excellence and know-how and the addition of the driver's talent but the conscious unknowns that go with that (i.e. "how much do I know about exactly how much throttle I'm giving it?", "how do I know how gradually to brake here?", etc) provide a beautiful fine line between the mysterious beauty of the driving talent and the sheer calculated brilliance of engineering (even if the current regulations are to many of us too skewed away from engineering liberties) and so not having a driver in there makes it lose lots of appeal among many, potential and existing enthusiasts alike.

[Teretonga]

We could easily visualise machines driven by radio control being engineered and constructed with the drivers all driving them by remote but that might then generate the physical and real conception that all the tracks could be virtual and the whole FIA GP series take place in a studio in West London or Paris..... and televised with driver eye cams for each driver being the identifying method of television presentation.

So the new world view is that GP racing could run virtual cars on virtual tracks in a studio somewhere in Europe and people would still watch it...

[MarkG]

F1 has become less of a spectacle now, for me anyway. Single-seater racing is supposed to be fast and furious, on the limit stuff, and in the case of Grand Prix racing, all that plus strategy and mechanical sympathy. It is now single-seater endurance racing. The normal F1 politics and the first couple of laps keep everyone entertained, but other than that, things just "ain't like they used to be".

It is quite feasible I think, that with the proper promotion, sports-car racing could take over from F1 as the preferred motor-sport to watch. There are many categories, some good racing, cars that look like they're driven at the limit, and many other interesting aspects for the enthusiast and casual viewer alike. F1 needs to get itself sorted out I feel. The big advantage that F1 has in it's favour is history and "star" names, but as people gradually realise that F1 drivers aren't necessarily the best drivers in the world, things could change. Most racing enthusiasts know that a lot of the "best drivers in the world" have had to go to other non-F1 forms of racing because of budgets, and when Jo Public realises this, watch out F1.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by MarkG

It is quite feasible I think, that with the proper promotion, sports-car racing could take over from F1 as the preferred motor-sport to watch.

For some, it did that long, long ago.

[garcon]

If you go back to the 60s, Formula One was much more "single-seater endurance racing" than it is now. The races were longer (much longer in some cases) but fewer.

From the advent of commercialisation in the 70s there have been constant tweaks to broaden F1's appeal to as many fans as possible. Whether that has succeeded depends on whether you look at the numbers or listen to the complaints.

I'm not sure endurance racing has the broad appeal to steal F1's disillusioned fans. Many of them complain that F1 isn't flat out, no hold barred, wheel to wheel racing anymore - I'd have thought 20 lap sprints would appeal to them more than races that take 6 to 24 hours.

I'm not sure what to suggest to those who don't want their flat out racing corrupted by strategy and endurance. Drag racing?

I suppose it really comes down to what you think defines motor racing. Is it going as fast as you possibly can, or is it formulating a strategy to go just fast enough to win?

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by MarkG

There are many categories, some good racing, cars that look like they're driven at the limit, and many other interesting aspects for the enthusiast and casual viewer alike. F1 needs to get itself sorted out I feel. The big advantage that F1 has in it's favour is history and "star" names, but as people gradually realise that F1 drivers aren't necessarily the best drivers in the world, things could change. Most racing enthusiasts know that a lot of the "best drivers in the world" have had to go to other non-F1 forms of racing because of budgets, and when Jo Public realises this, watch out F1.

F1 drivers aren't the best drivers in the world, they are the best steerers in the world.
90% car 10% driver input.

[Paradise City]

Did I ever tell anyone about what I think of DRS?

I just HATE it. BLEUGH!

-----

They are stretching F1 out to catch as many viewers as possible and the average viewer likes cheap thrills whilst the more dedicated fan is either an unimportant demographic or can be depended upon to watch it out of habit anyway whatever happens to the sport. The latter being fools like me in words.

Endurance racing is a more authentic display although stuff like hybrid braking zones, NASCARistic practices in the Grand Am series, the series that apply success ballast..et all bug the helloutofme.

[Born Racer]

Threads merged ('F1 is no more').

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Threads merged ('F1 is no more').

OK. Sorry, didn't think about this thread.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by garcon

If you go back to the 60s, Formula One was much more "single-seater endurance racing" than it is now. The races were longer (much longer in some cases) but fewer.

I know some races of the 60's, 70's and 80's can be referred to as processional or whatever, but at least in those days you had a better idea of who the better drivers were, and which was the better designed car etc. Yes, there were also team orders in the past, but because the better drivers were more apparent, people didn't have a problem with the better driver having the best "bits". The team orders that evolved in the Scumacher years are more for smothering the No2 driver than traditional team orders. Jim Clark, Jackie Stewart, they didn't need team orders to dominate and accepted it gracefully when their team-mate did better on the odd occasion. They had inner confidence and didn't need cuddling etc (or sticking up their finger in an insecure way).
I don't like the current trend of favouring a driver from the start. Let them race and favour a driver only when it is common sense to do so. People are tired of molly-coddled drivers.

[Greem]

I'm fairly sure that each "era", for want of a better word, of F1 has the fans/enthusiasts/proponents of the previous "era(s)" frothing at the mouth over the new one. Let's have a run through some of the era-defining changes in rough chronological order:

1. The transition from big, front-engined cars to small, lightweight, rear-engined cars. The new ones were "dangerous" to start with, then they were "fast, but unreliable", then they were "too fast", and then everyone went rear engined.

2. Turbo engines. Again: "dangerous", "unreliable", "cheating", then everyone had them.

3. The stipulation that a team must only enter two cars: "unfair", "favours the works teams", then Bernie crossed everyone's palms with silver and they (and the fans) all went quiet.

4. In the UK, the switch from the BBC to ITV covering F1: "The adverts mean I will never watch F1 again", closely followed by "I love the new coverage, it's brilliant" and a growth in viewing figures. I can vouch for this one personally; the first time I watched a race with ads I was almost apopleptic. The second time, not so, and I soon used them as time to brew up/open another beer/go for a wee while listening to it on 5Live.

5. Grooved tyres...
6. Tarmac run-off areas...
7. KERS...

etc, etc, etc.

How many of the regulars on here are *still* following F1 despite several era-defining changes? How many of you hated them, then got used to them, then bemoaned their departure when the next changes came along?

I'll have a fiver on almost everyone.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Greem

I'm fairly sure that each "era", for want of a better word, of F1 has the fans/enthusiasts/proponents of the previous "era(s)" frothing at the mouth over the new one. Let's have a run through some of the era-defining changes in rough chronological order:

1. The transition from big, front-engined cars to small, lightweight, rear-engined cars. The new ones were "dangerous" to start with, then they were "fast, but unreliable", then they were "too fast", and then everyone went rear engined.

2. Turbo engines. Again: "dangerous", "unreliable", "cheating", then everyone had them.

3. The stipulation that a team must only enter two cars: "unfair", "favours the works teams", then Bernie crossed everyone's palms with silver and they (and the fans) all went quiet.

4. In the UK, the switch from the BBC to ITV covering F1: "The adverts mean I will never watch F1 again", closely followed by "I love the new coverage, it's brilliant" and a growth in viewing figures. I can vouch for this one personally; the first time I watched a race with ads I was almost apopleptic. The second time, not so, and I soon used them as time to brew up/open another beer/go for a wee while listening to it on 5Live.

5. Grooved tyres...
6. Tarmac run-off areas...
7. KERS...

etc, etc, etc.

How many of the regulars on here are *still* following F1 despite several era-defining changes? How many of you hated them, then got used to them, then bemoaned their departure when the next changes came along?

I'll have a fiver on almost everyone.

Mostly what you say, but with regard to coverage, I don't follow it live on Sky, since I don't have a Sky subscription (and will not get one, even if it all goes live to Sky). That's a step too far!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Greem

How many of the regulars on here are *still* following F1 despite several era-defining changes? How many of you hated them, then got used to them, then bemoaned their departure when the next changes came along?

I'll have a fiver on almost everyone.

I'll buy the getting used to them - I don't bemoan all that much though......

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Greem

I'm fairly sure that each "era", for want of a better word, of F1 has the fans/enthusiasts/proponents of the previous "era(s)" frothing at the mouth over the new one. Let's have a run through some of the era-defining changes in rough chronological order:

1. The transition from big, front-engined cars to small, lightweight, rear-engined cars. The new ones were "dangerous" to start with, then they were "fast, but unreliable", then they were "too fast", and then everyone went rear engined.

2. Turbo engines. Again: "dangerous", "unreliable", "cheating", then everyone had them.

3. The stipulation that a team must only enter two cars: "unfair", "favours the works teams", then Bernie crossed everyone's palms with silver and they (and the fans) all went quiet.

4. In the UK, the switch from the BBC to ITV covering F1: "The adverts mean I will never watch F1 again", closely followed by "I love the new coverage, it's brilliant" and a growth in viewing figures. I can vouch for this one personally; the first time I watched a race with ads I was almost apopleptic. The second time, not so, and I soon used them as time to brew up/open another beer/go for a wee while listening to it on 5Live.

5. Grooved tyres...
6. Tarmac run-off areas...
7. KERS...

etc, etc, etc.

How many of the regulars on here are *still* following F1 despite several era-defining changes? How many of you hated them, then got used to them, then bemoaned their departure when the next changes came along?

I'll have a fiver on almost everyone.

Seems like you have embraced all the changes and are happy, that's fair enough.

I started my interest in Grand Prix racing in 1966 when a boy. I didn't have a problem with the changes over the years, I still found it all exciting and interesting. 30 years or so after my first interest I wasn't harking back to the good old days, I was still enjoying it all, a lot.
I still enjoy F1, but not as much now that aero is king. If aero wasn't so dominant then lots of things could improve in F1. Racing would be more realistic, budgets would be less, driver's skills would come more to the fore, Eau Rouge and places would become difficult again etc etc. I would even like it such that a new team could buy a last year's Ferrari or McLaren for example and do a reasonable job without having to invest many millions in the futile chase of aero performance.

I understand that TV is king and Bernie and others are trying to improve the show, but that doesn't have to depend on aero cars. On TV, F1 cars don't really appear any quicker than most other motorsports because of the scale effect. F1 circuits are so large and expansive that F1 cars on TV don't look any quicker than say BTCC at Brands.
KERS may be worth retaining, I don't know, but certainly with mechanical grip cars rather than aero, they can do away with the gimmicks like DRS and rubbish tyres, and get back to proper racing.

[Andrew2001]

Ok, I see where this chap is coming from. He is similar to an old school mate of mine who races a semi-stripped out MR2.
This guy is similarly bitter about F1. It is interesting, that those who partake in club racing days seem to take to heart, the opinions of 'experts' or enthusiasts rather than just nod and move on.
Tell you what, I teach and compete in Aerobatic competition, and fly vintage biplanes and other old aircraft. Just because this is what I do, I do not get all twisted out of shape about the big guns (professionals with full sponsorship and the flash work cars and aeroplanes). It is how it is. Just do your thing, be happy, and get over it.

I agree, with this guy that F1 isn't what it used to be. This is technology. The excitment, the passion and the essence, is still there. Technology changes, you either move with it, or stay in the past (this from a guy with a 12yr old Nokia phone and no facebook or twitter or whatever they are called!!!).

I love reading up about the old days, seeing old videos and hearing the stories about the drama, particularly the 80s.

Same in aviation. I guess this is why I am pursuing warbird flying and fly aeroplanes like Tiger Moths and Pitts Specials most weekends.

Respect your opinion mate, just keep enjoying what you're doing I say and don't let those 'experts' get to you.
Sometimes the best response is no response at all.

[MarkG]

Well, seeing as I know myself better than you know do, I have to correct you

I don't like aero dominated F1 cars. That's it, simple.
That doesn't mean I don't like new technologies in racing cars, in fact I welcome them and am fascinated by them.
Yes, I do enjoy cars such as one sees at a Goodwood Revival, what motorsports enthusiast doesn't? I also enjoy LMP1 cars, modern rally cars etc etc etc.
I love WWII warbirds, but I also love a plane such as the F35 Lightning. So, please, don't be mislead just because I don't like aero dominated Grand Prix racing.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Greem

4. In the UK, the switch from the BBC to ITV covering F1: "The adverts mean I will never watch F1 again", closely followed by "I love the new coverage, it's brilliant" and a growth in viewing figures. I can vouch for this one personally; the first time I watched a race with ads I was almost apopleptic. The second time, not so, and I soon used them as time to brew up/open another beer/go for a wee while listening to it on 5Live.

I don't recall the brilliant thing. At all. I remember weeping for over a decade.

[Aysedasi]

Ads during GPs? Total disaster. I never got used to them or liked them, I clearly don't drink enough beer and have great bladder control. Mind you, I do like a cuppa....

[Adam43]

It wasn't the ads that made me weep. Sometimes they were blessed relief, and not for needing a wee either, but from the mind numbing coverage and tedious racing.