To be honest I think that the difference between a top engineer and a standard level one will show when the rules are more restrictive.
Printable View
To be honest I think that the difference between a top engineer and a standard level one will show when the rules are more restrictive.
It depends on what the level of a top engineer is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I suggest that the Chapmens of this world are not only superb engineers but great innovators. Give them a blank canvas and see what they come up with.
However, then you have the problem with what gets spent on such Blue Sky design.
My guess is that if you freeze engine and downforce regulations, teams will spend what they have on everything else which will allow innovation.
Well, I agree. IMO the huge amounts of money spent in F1 is what reduces the differences between an exceptional and innovative engineer and a shelf one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I simply can't fathom this whole "F1 is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport" argument, what the hell does that have to do with it? That's simply something that big headed drivers, wet behind the ears fans, engineers and marketing people can brag about. What they should be focusing on is making F1 spectacular and worthwhile for teams.
I don't care whether the cars from this year are technically better than the ones from last year or from 1995, all I care about is whether it's good racing and at present F1 runs the risk of becoming a bit of a boring series. Sure slicks and new aero rules will mix things up a bit but fundamentally it's the same (boring) formula is we've had for a long time.
Hands up who wants an exciting series to watch?
OK now hands up who wants to watch the (boring) pinnacle of motorsport where technology is king and where the drivers impact is minimalised? Well at least when someone at work says F1 is boring you can do that bearded nerd voice Richard Hammond does and say "But it's the pinnacle of motorsport! Let me show you this wishbone, look it's carbon fibre and look at the direction of the weave... this is done for such and such reason" by which time the person will either
A) tell you to **** off
B) feign interest and then admit that you're right just to shut you up
C) fall asleep
D) punch you in the face for supporting gratuitous pointlessnessicity.
Think of it like this, Mt Everest is the tallest peak in the world but it's not the most challenging, that would be K2 which is the most challenging even though it's not the tallest.
I don't care whether motorsport is the most sophisticated as long as it's exciting to watch and brings the driver to the fore rather than technology which I'm probably never going to see on my car.
P.S Ben, don't use rallying arguments in this forum, people simply don't understand the relevance and significance of what's happened in the WRC in the past and simply view rallying as something that involved going out into a forest and getting muddy while watching cars which aren't technically perfect or as advanced as F1 cars. People react rather blankly when you point out that the WRC has gone from hero to zero due to spiralling costs and increased technology since about 2003/2004. Woo yeah pinnacle!.......
Woo!
Although I agree with your arguement, F1 SHOULD be the pinnacle of Motorsport.
Best drivers
Fastest cars
Biggest thrills
and ultimatly the most entertaining form of Motorsport.
Technology is there to facilitate this, not to destroy it as it currently does.
Best drivers. Technology has done its best to remove the driver from the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Biggest thrills? F1 is less thrilling to watch than it was in the past!!!!!
Fastest cars? As in top speed? This matters very little. Of course the cars should be fast but fastest? Does it really matter that much?
Technology can make things better but more often than not it just ruins things. See the WRC for a prime example.
You obviously didn't notice that Should was in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Technology has been allowed to dumb down F1 by the people in charge. The pursuit of 1/100th of a second through technology is more important than seeing the best drivers duke it out.
There is no arguement from me. However, I think innovation is important otherwise we might just as well have a spec series.
Respect your view, but can you think of a series in which the onward march of technology has actually improved the competition while remaining sustainable in terms of costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on