Originally Posted by BDunnell
I agree with you up to a point, as one has to ask why we become interested in any sport. The answer, surely, is because of the element of close competition which makes it exciting. Whether the sport is darts, bowls, snooker, football, cricket, athletics, F1 or anything else, we want to see a contest. This is what renders sport something we want to watch. Were it not the case, were the technology (for example) the interesting part, F1 would consist of qualifying and nothing more. Why bother racing in that case? No, sport has to be something people want to watch. This is not some modern phenomenon connected with wanting to see 'a show' — rather, it is the reason people have been excited by sport since time immemorial. If sport ceases to be exciting, it loses its raison d'etre.
Where our views diverge is that I simply don't like the means by which the increased amount of overtaking in F1 this season has been achieved. Far rather to take a step back and make the wings smaller, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with slowing motorsport down a bit — far from it. In sportscar racing, it had to happen because the speeds being attained were becoming ridiculous. I don't consider those cars to be any less exciting to watch as a result. Motorsport is not all about outright speed. Some might consider the simplification of F1 aerodynamics to be an unduly retrograde step, but they are probably the sort of people who are interested in golf because of the club technology. F1 innovation used to be interesting to the casual viewer when it involved cars with six wheels, or fan cars. Nowadays, with the technology being hidden, that is no longer the case. I think a 'back to basics' approach combined with less prescriptive legislation in certain (but not all) areas would be best.
Well, it has been done before, by Mercedes and Connaught. But, as far as I'm concerned, F1 ceases to be F1 and becomes DTM or sportscar racing if it's anything other than an open-wheeled formula.