Is F1 Real Racing Anymore?

[steveaki13]

Hollywood is about entertainment, sport is about competition.

This. Sport shouldnt have to be entertaining.

The competition should provide that whether there is passing or not.

[dj_bytedisaster]

The limits on engines, tyres, etc are to bring down costs in order to have a full grid. You're not just transporting everything from one tiny European country to another these days.

The cost problem wouldn't exist if the F1 money was distributed in a halfway fair manner. We have an old saying in Germany: "The devil always $hits on the biggest pile." and nowhere is it more true than in F1. If Ferrari ends up tenth in the constructors championship and Lotus wins, Ferrari will still get more money than Lotus. As long as there's such disparity, as long as the big teams get most of the money and the smaller ones are fed mere crumbs, there'll always be money problems.
The sponsor problems didn't exist when Marlboro & Co were still allowed to advertise. But hypocritical politicians ended that. Cigarettes and booze are legal sell-able products and our state gladly takes the exorbitant tobacco tax they're raising, yet a legally sell-able product cannot be advertized anymore.

Also, there's the aspect of safety. There will never be another tyre war because it's too dangerous. The current tyres not only create more entertaining races but force drivers to take corners much slower than they otherwise would.

That's the biggest load of baloney I've heard in a while. To quote the great philosopher Jeremias Clarcksonius from Britannia Magna: Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you. Tire wars were never dangerous. We had one race (US 2005) in which Michelin had to withdraw their teams, because the French brought a tyre that was developed without having any data about the track surface. Tire competition makes the tyres generally better and safer, not the other way round. And this years Pirelli's do as much for safety as a gun to your head does for emotional contentment. Nothing. On the contrary, this years tyres would lose a rigidity contest to a paper bag.

[faster69]

The cost problem wouldn't exist if the F1 money was distributed in a halfway fair manner. We have an old saying in Germany: "The devil always $hits on the biggest pile." and nowhere is it more true than in F1. If Ferrari ends up tenth in the constructors championship and Lotus wins, Ferrari will still get more money than Lotus. As long as there's such disparity, as long as the big teams get most of the money and the smaller ones are fed mere crumbs, there'll always be money problems.
The sponsor problems didn't exist when Marlboro & Co were still allowed to advertise. But hypocritical politicians ended that. Cigarettes and booze are legal sell-able products and our state gladly takes the exorbitant tobacco tax they're raising, yet a legally sell-able product cannot be advertized anymore.

I'm not sure how the money is divided but that doesn't sound right. The bulk of that "prize money" comes from finishing top 3 in the constructors.

Ferrari are given extra money for simply being part of the championship, but they're the only team. Red Bull has beaten Lotus fair and square. Only one championship for Ferrari since 2004. Alonso must be on thin ice if he can't win the championship this with what is clearly the best car up until this point.

F1 has always been the strongest survive and shouldn't change. Look at what Red Bull has achieved. Look at Brawn in 2009. Lotus have to earn their way to the top.

Taxing cigarettes is fine. The tax builds revenue and creates a disincentive for someone to smoke.

That's the biggest load of baloney I've heard in a while. To quote the great philosopher Jeremias Clarcksonius from Britannia Magna: Speed doesn't kill. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you. Tire wars were never dangerous. We had one race (US 2005) in which Michelin had to withdraw their teams, because the French brought a tyre that was developed without having any data about the track surface. Tire competition makes the tyres generally better and safer, not the other way round. And this years Pirelli's do as much for safety as a gun to your head does for emotional contentment. Nothing. On the contrary, this years tyres would lose a rigidity contest to a paper bag.

No, it's about safety as much as spicing up the action. Like forcing teams to use one set of tyres the entire race in 2005. It was to try and end Ferrari's dominance by throwing up a new variable and to slow the cars down therefore making it safer.

A tyre war makes F1 more dangerous since they're create tyres that allow cars to carry much greater speed into and through the corners.

This year's tyres are safe (barring a couple delaminations which would be unacceptable if caused by the tyre design). Driving on heavily grained tyres while relatively slippery and difficult to drive on the limit, isn't dangerous. It just means you're forced to drive slower. Your logic is flawed.

[SGWilko]

But DRS doesn't fix this issue, does it? In a race without DRS, a faster car should not have issues overtaking when it's close enough on main straights due to drafting.

Well yes, but the faster car has to be at least 2 secs per lap faster to be able to make up for the inability (and the raison detre for DRS) to stay close enough in the corners.

[rjbetty]

Ok I've just skimmed through this lot quickly. I haven't been watching the races but I gather there was quite a stir caused by the recent Barcelona race.

I have to admit I was secretly very excited about the new tyres for this year. I thought this was going to be great and very interesting to see what would happen. But having seen some of what's gone on, and having considered other points of view on here, even I am thinking it's getting a bit silly, and I am someone who can tolerate quite a lot of "entertainment".

Malaysia was a bit of a watershed. I did follow that on Radio 5 Live, and relished the prospect of an unprecedented(?) race where 3 and 4 stops were the norm in a dry race. But as they made their 3rd and 4th stops and the order didn't change, I was really struck by how little difference the extra stops were making, and how much more boring and mundane it was than I ever expected. There wasn't much exciting about this at all. It wasn't really adding anything, and it just seemed a bit silly.

Then though I haven't followed any races since, I heard about Spain, and when I heard that drivers were being told basically whatever you do, don't race, even I thought "This is wrong".

As for DRS I can tolerate it grudgingly I suppose, but I think I'm growing a bit fed up of that too. Even in the bad old days of 2002 I remember everyone talking about how there needs to be more overtaking. Even then I have to say I felt it shouldn't just be overtaking for the sake of it. It felt like people just wanted to see cars driving past each other like on the M25. I have to say the thought of that seemed very unsatisfying to me. I actually think there is some value in a driver skillfully holding faster cars behind them: It is not for no reason that Jarama '81 is considered a classic. What I don't like though is a real life version of the AI cars from the Codemasters F1 games, just driving round following each other (with perfect reliability too).

I would like to see DRS banned (it was worth a try), but keep KERS and the other energy systems that are coming along. I admit I'm interested in this area; it's relevant and useful, and I'm impressed that F1 has now managed to hone bulky KERS batteries down into neat efficient little units (except, conveniently, for Mark Webber's).

[Koz]

The limits on engines, tyres, etc are to bring down costs in order to have a full grid. You're not just transporting everything from one tiny European country to another these days.

Also, there's the aspect of safety. There will never be another tyre war because it's too dangerous. The current tyres not only create more entertaining races but force drivers to take corners much slower than they otherwise would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-pIDHmTJto

Yay for tyre safety!

[Whyzars]

A tyre war makes F1 more dangerous since they're create tyres that allow cars to carry much greater speed into and through the corners.

A tyre war is exactly what F1 needs as it will force the tyre manufacturers to produce tyres that optimise the vehicles they are attached to.


Tyres are a necessary evil and ideally, teams would manufacture their own tyres.

The governing body may be hijacking the design process by expecting that the car will eventually suit the tyres. This is a ridiculous position to take.

End this now.

[schmenke]

Limit the amount of fuel for a race, but make it severe; say half of current average volumes. Everything else, unrestricted, including tyres.