The Current State of Formula 1

[Irisado]

I'm starting this thread to reply to a wider set of points made by Vintly in another thread to stop that discussion from going off topic.

• F1 exists - it could quite easily become a much more diluted version of itself if it had split up, with a couple or more different spin-offs vying for fans' attention - like the various boxing federations, or even darts.

That's true, it could have, and I agree that it's just as well that it has not.  That would be worse than the current situation, but I still don't think that Formula 1 is in that good a shape.  It relies on artificial devices to 'spice up the show', and those in charge fail to recognise that they need to deal with serious shortcomings of the quality of racing that are currently on show.

[quote• It IS the pinnacle of motorsports - in most peoples' eyes. At least for now - and even if this is being endangered by certain policies, it still has the cutting edge for now.[/quote]

No argument over its status.

• 19+ races a season. Even if you don't like all the tracks, it's better than the old days, plain and simple.

I'd rather have quality over quantity.  Sixteen or seventeen good circuits trump nineteen races of varying track quality.

• TV coverage. Ok the lack of free-to-air coverage is an issue, and the anti-Sky brigade have a valid argument. BUT, it is there if you're willing to pay. We live in a golden age of media-tech, it ain't cheap but my god it's good.

Television coverage in terms of which cars are focused on during the race and picking up all the retirements is much better than it used to be.  I don't approve of pay per view television for a whole range of sports, not just Formula 1, but that's probably not a subject to discuss here.

• ALONSO AND KIMI ARE IN THE SAME CAR!!! Now that's is something to be thankful for, surely.

That remains to be seen.  If they take points off each other and Vettel wins the title as a result, I'm not sure how thankful I'll be :p.

• This forum.

Yes, no doubt about that .

Formula 1 for me was just much more exciting in the 1990s and early 2000s prior to the Schumacher dominance of 2002 and 2004.  It picked up a bit in 2005/6, but has become increasingly predictable and processional ever since, regardless of the attempts to increase overtaking.  A lot of the blame for that has to go on the cars being too reliable, leading to predictable results, but blame was also be apportioned to the failure to make it easier for the cars to overtake without using artificial aids, and for circuits being too easy for the drivers to make mistakes on without damaging their cars.

In summary, for me, everything has become too sterile, predictable, and reliable.  If a driver goes off, he'll recover unscathed on most tracks, barely losing any time.  If a car breaks down, it's a minor miracle, and if anyone manages a genuine overtake without DRS assistance, it's a surprise.  None of this is conducive to an exciting, on the edge of the seat experience in my view.  I'm sure the rest of you will have different views, so by all means express them.

[Ian]

But we love going off topic Irisado.   

[Monty]

It is interesting that even on this forum, with contributions from all of us who are undoubtable true enthusiasts, we do not agree on very much! If we were given ultimate democratic power to run F1 we would be totally incapable of agreeing on a single format!
So the obvious step is that we elect a leader - so that will be me (just call me Monty Eccleston). Then a format is guaranteed but hardly anyone will be happy!
F1 has had difficulties through the years and if we are honest there were problems irrespective of which period you select as 'the golden years'.
My annoyance is that though turbulent times other series have been successful but the F1 dictators seem to ignore the tried and tested solutions and go their own way with ridiculous rule changes. We could all list disastrous decisions. The top of my list would be:- chocolate tyres, changes to the points system, safe (read boring) Tilkje tracks and although perhaps the jury is still out - introduction of V6 turbo engines.

[Scott]

• F1 exists - it could quite easily become a much more diluted version of itself if it had split up, with a couple or more different spin-offs vying for fans' attention - like the various boxing federations, or even darts.

• It IS the pinnacle of motorsports - in most peoples' eyes. At least for now - and even if this is being endangered by certain policies, it still has the cutting edge for now.

That's true, it could have, and I agree that it's just as well that it has not.  That would be worse than the current situation, but I still don't think that Formula 1 is in that good a shape.  It relies on artificial devices to 'spice up the show', and those in charge fail to recognise that they need to deal with serious shortcomings of the quality of racing that are currently on show.

Just look at what happened to American OW racing.  CART tried to become F1, but couldn't match the spectacle and didn't have the money to go overseas often enough.  Then while they were on the ropes, IRL comes along and splits the fans leading to dilution of both.

• 19+ races a season. Even if you don't like all the tracks, it's better than the old days, plain and simple.

I'd rather have quality over quantity.  Sixteen or seventeen good circuits trump nineteen races of varying track quality.

I'd like 20-25 races.  I can't stand the long off - season and especially the ridiculously long summer breaks.

• TV coverage. Ok the lack of free-to-air coverage is an issue, and the anti-Sky brigade have a valid argument. BUT, it is there if you're willing to pay. We live in a golden age of media-tech, it ain't cheap but my god it's good.

Television coverage in terms of which cars are focused on during the race and picking up all the retirements is much better than it used to be.  I don't approve of pay per view television for a whole range of sports, not just Formula 1, but that's probably not a subject to discuss here.

I whole heartedly agree, TV coverage is MUCH better than during the Ferrari domination years.  The directors ignore Vettel from lap 2 until giving him a last lap hurrah.  Otherwise they concentrate on the racing.  Can't not love that.

• ALONSO AND KIMI ARE IN THE SAME CAR!!! Now that's is something to be thankful for, surely.


That remains to be seen.  If they take points off each other and Vettel wins the title as a result, I'm not sure how thankful I'll be :p.

I don't care.  We will all enjoy the show of the Ferrari race among themselves.  That's another way to encourage RBR and Vettel to race for the racing instead of for complete domination.  Make them irrelevant to the fans and the TV coverage.  The sponsors won't put up with that very long.

• This forum.

Yes, no doubt about that

It sure changed how I enjoy F1.  In Canada waking up at 5:30am to watch races alone or with a cat on the couch.  Now I can discuss it between races with people who care about more than just hockey.

Formula 1 for me was just much more exciting in the 1990s and early 2000s prior to the Schumacher dominance of 2002 and 2004.  It picked up a bit in 2005/6, but has become increasingly predictable and processional ever since, regardless of the attempts to increase overtaking.  A lot of the blame for that has to go on the cars being too reliable, leading to predictable results, but blame was also be apportioned to the failure to make it easier for the cars to overtake without using artificial aids, and for circuits being too easy for the drivers to make mistakes on without damaging their cars.

In summary, for me, everything has become too sterile, predictable, and reliable.  If a driver goes off, he'll recover unscathed on most tracks, barely losing any time.  If a car breaks down, it's a minor miracle, and if anyone manages a genuine overtake without DRS assistance, it's a surprise.  None of this is conducive to an exciting, on the edge of the seat experience in my view.  I'm sure the rest of you will have different views, so by all means express them.

We can only hope that the new engines blow up regularly, and sometime soon they re-visit how the air comes off the back of the cars, so they can lose the DRS (but I still insist it is better than not having it as long as the cars put out A380 backwash).  Bring back refuelling and reduce the number of team members allowed to go near the car during pit stops, to get them back up to the 4-6 second range.

[Monty]

Bring back refuelling

No,no,no
Stop all pit stops. At least as spectators we know if a car is on the track (whether in first or last) they are where they are! Racing should be about what happens on the track.

[Scott]

I don't think it's so hard to keep track of those who have stopped or not.  I like pit stops because it allows something else to go wrong, and mix up an otherwise processional race.

[cosworth151]

I agree with Scott on the pit stops. It's one of the very few opportunities for the unexpected in the current state of the sport.

• It IS the pinnacle of motorsports - in most peoples' eyes. At least for now - and even if this is being endangered by certain policies, it still has the cutting edge for now.

I'm not that sure any more, especially with the arrival of the minivans this coming season. I can watch Le Mans and see a far wider range of technologies in LMP1. F1 has become far too much of a spec series in with regard to engines. Set displacement limits, say 3 liters for naturally aspirated gas engines, 1.5 for supercharged gas, 25cc for turbos, set equivalent limits for diesels, turbines and what ever else. Then let the designers run wild. Ferrari V12's, Cosworth V8's, Porsche flat 6's and so on.

[Monty]

I agree with Scott on the pit stops

But it isn't 'racing'. I want to see motor 'racing'!     

[cosworth151]

I would argue that it is just as much a part of racing as cutting an apex. It adds complexity and yet another layer of strategy. That's why this is Formula 1 and not Formula Vee.

[Monty]

Oxford dictionary definition of race - Contest of speed between..... (in our case) vehicles:
Let's consider other types of races which involve start to finish contests of speed:- athletics, horse racing, boats (various types), bikes (peddle and motorised) and of course most cars & karts except for endurance events.
Pit stops have nothing to do with F1 racing. They are, in effect, nothing more than a roll of the dice and make a mockery of all of the engineering involved in building cars befitting the phrase 'pinnacle of motor sport'.
Here endeth the lecture.

[cosworth151]

Endurance racing, IndyCar even the NASCAR Truck Series can handle pit stops. Surely F1 can handle it.

[Monty]

Pit stops in enurance racing are essential and the others, well they are, how can I put it....... American! Let's face it you don't even know how to play football. 

Before anyone starts to  and  I am only joking 

[F1fanaticBD]

Let's face it you don't even know how to play football. 

 

I think the meaning of Football should be changed to most popular game of your continent, regardless how you play it, how it differs from other continent. If its the most popular game its called Football, I believe that will suit everyone 

[Sorry for a non-related post  ]

[cosworth151]

In our football, somebody really has to hit you, hard, before you fall down & act hurt. 

[Ian]

At least in our football only the keeper can throw the ball, apart from a throw in when the ball goes out of play. Rugby is the best ball game, and it's played by MEN, and women you wouldn't want to tangle with.