I Have To Say It

I can't stand the roundy-round. Might as well watch grass grow. Or golf.

(we'll probably both receive abuse now)

 

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's had that thought!

I've watched a few oval races on TV and it always seems to be 499 laps of jockeying for position in preparation for a one lap proper race to the flag.

All of the "loads of overtaking on ovals" tends to be the same two or three drivers swapping places over and over again in preparation to get the best track position for the one lap race at the end.

Don't get Me wrong, I can see that there is a skill to driving on ovals, and with the speeds and risks involved if it goes wrong, drivers need big cojones, but oval racing? : No thanks! - I just don't get it!

 

Ovals were OK to watch when there was a diversity of cars on the track, with different characteristics, some reliability issues to manage, the odd 4-wheel drive, or the turbines, etc... I am thinking about the 60s and 70s, when there were a lot of different chassis, engines, etc..

But with a specs series, the cars are so close that it's very difficult to follow, I find. And with all the technology involved, the sticky tyres, the aeros, etc... I still think there are a lot of cars kissing the wall, lots of incidents.

I also don't think the cars need to be so fast for the race to be spectacular. Speed on ovals doesn't depend only from power, but from aero, and I think they have gone too far there.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

Brazil wasn't boring. There was plenty of fantastic driving from Max. What is boring - and never mentioned, is the television coverage. It is one director's coverage that gets sent out to numerous news feeds throughout the world. The grade differential is lost by the helicopter, but that allows for shots of superimposed advertising on blank grass areas. The long shots to the pits allow for visibility of advertising on the pedestrian walkway. The curves allow for us to see the advertising on the walls. The radio conversations sound like a 9 year old's walkie talkie. and the ibar at the bottom of the TV covers the main scene from the camera.

 

I personally found Brazil boring, but definitely agree that the coverage sucks for the reasons you mention. I'd love more track level footage in particular.

 

FYI - 2016 Indycar has 5 ovals and 10 street/road courses.

I'm not a big oval fan myself, but most (if not all) F1 drivers would love to win the Indy 500.

 

You guys obviously haven't watched f1 for very long - that or you have some serious rose tinted glasses. There has almost always been one dominant team and even less (by a lot) passing than there is now. The big difference is that there were a ton more reliability issues in the past that allowed more winners, especially at the front of the grid. I don't see how cars blowing up all the time is a better situation, but I guess for some that's more exciting. Even at the very start of this engine formula there was more reliability than the average early 2000's and prior races.

 

spec racing is always boring.......stopped watching F1 months ago.
gone are the days when I changed my personal schedule to accommodate F1's tv schedule.
bor..................................ing.

 

its not about enjoying seeing cars 'blowing up'.....its about seeing the teams pushing their cars/technology to the max.....sometimes it works....sometime not.

 

LOL

 

Excellent point. But reliability issues in the past not only allowed for more winners, but others who did not start at the front of the grid to earn valuable championship points as well. In the old days there were many races when due to reliability issues only 6 cars finished. One example I clearly remember (I was on a pit crew, my brother was team manager) is 1979 Monaco. Only 6 cars finished. Jochen Maas, who was 7 laps down, could have stopped his Arrows in front of the royal box on the last lap, jumped out of the car to have a chat and share a beer with Prince Rainer and Princess Grace, then get back in the car to finish the race and still have collected his championship point!

 

Could not agree more?

 

The question is whether that's actually better. I enjoy the cars finishing and the race being settled mostly on the performance of the cars and drivers, not on whose car actually made it to the end.

 

Honestly, I don't care at all about a level playing field or what the FIA considers competitive racing. I would like them to lift all barriers and let teams spend whatever the hell they want. Why? Because then they have the money and ability to test all kinds of new technology. All the current rules do is restrict r&d and that sucks. Some of the coolest features on consumer cars today were developed by racing teams. So basically, all the FIA is doing is stunting the growth of r&d for all cars and still haven't accomplished competitive racing, so it's a loss all the way around. What's the point?

 

+1

Fer sure, we're not in any kind of 'halycon days', but it's a *long* way from the worst it's ever been. At least if you remove the rose tinteds.

Cheers,
Ian

 

F1 died when Senna died!

It's been boring as s**t since then...yes even when Schumy was dominating.

As Forghieri said long ago: "the sport is being suffocated by the regulations".

At this point, the most exciting moment is spotting who is meandering the pits and grid before the race.

 

So half of you are saying they should go back to less complicated engines because these are too expensive and half are saying we should just let them spend whatever they want?

If you don't think this hybrid tech and turbo tech they're developing in f1 is going to be applied to regular cars, you're crazy. It's the only reason Honda came back.

 

If I could change only one rule in order to make F1 more competitive/exciting, it would be to eliminate front wings.

 

Thank you.

So many people are blaming the engine and "complicated" rules (floks, they're not that complicated). So many are blaming the lack of development opportunities with these engines. So many forget (or never watched) racing prior to 2014...when there was NO engine development. I.e., the previous V8s were frozen in 2007 (oh...except Renault's engine sucked so bad they were given extra development time). The lack of passing was so bad they had to come up with gimmicks...DRS, KERS deployment, etc. Yet so many are blinded that they forget all this and blame the new engine rules.

I wish all the whiners would at least consolidate the actual cause and effect of their grumblings, as opposed to blaming anything and anybody that isn't a V12 or close. Why is there no passing? It's not the engines. Why is Mercedes light years ahead of the others? It's not because there is no development. Why is the sport expensive for the minnows? Because they are competing with Red Bull's budget of 200+ million GBP...not because the power units cost 20 million.

 

Ehhhh -why? Why not make the tires wider and add more mechanical grip. If you take out all the front aero, the things are not going to turn (or stop) at all.

 

Not really sure what you are talking about. There are a ton of well thought out posts here on what should be changed with a lot of good ideas. Many of which are on the radar for 2017.

 

I can't answer for other people, but I am a capitalist and an artist. I don't like limits on creativity. Limiting money and testing is limiting creativity. That's my personal bend. IMMV

 

F1 should stop trying to be "relevant" and make an effort to provide decent competition where it matters: not in the design office, but on the track. Since when F1 cars have to be like "regular cars"? Should they have airbags too?

We don't need the present complexity and silly rules to have 1000hp cars.
F1 needs to go back to basic, allow engineering diversity and have simple rules.

As for Honda coming back, big deal !!!
F1 don't need manufacturers, but private teams and independent engine builders.
We "lost" Toyota, BMW, Ford (Jaguar) and Honda - for a while- and we didn't miss them!