Most curious how anyone can watch today's MotoGP and still watch F1?

I'm not offended. This has been discussed on here before. To me bike racing simply has no interest. It's like watching golf or tennis. And just for the record: I have owned several bikes and driven them all over the place. But bike racing does nothing for me.

It's apples and oranges. I also couldn't care less about any other motor racing other than F1. Whether it is Le Mans, Rally, NASCAR, IRL, you name it, I don't care. F1 and nothing else.

I'm not trying to be a snob or purist here. It's just that only F1 interests me.

 

How can anyone that watches F1 not appreciate MotoGP? That makes no sense to me...the opposite I can see as being true. MotoGP fans not liking F1 because F1 lacks passing and really the winning team is either 1 or 2 and known well in advance.

Edit: And I'm specifically talking about the last couple years between the two sports. Not all-time history.

 

Apples and oranges.

One has two wheels and the other 4. Plus a million other things that are different.

I like the color blue. Does that mean I question anybody who prefers green or yellow?

 

What exactly about F1, this year, last year, or any prior that makes you care only about that? Without knowing that, it sounds like you watch it regardless of the quality and only because of the brand name. I'm sure that's not the case as you frequently post here and know more about it than the superficial stuff.

I only enjoy racing that is competitive from both driver/rider standpoint and also engineering/technological standpoint. It doesn't matter what form that comes in for me whether it's 4 wheels, 2 wheels, boat, waverunner, plane, etc.

 

I've been following F1 from the sixties. This sport has a history and tradition longer than I have lived. It also has car manufacturers I truly care about (and that's not just Ferrari). MotoGP is a very young sport and while I had some bikes I never really cared much about the brand.

I agree that F1 has fallen off its pedestal quite a bit in recent years. Then again having followed the sport for so long I'm used to ups and downs (e.g. the "Pirate" races in the eighties when the sport almost split into two series FISA vs FOCA). I'm sure it'll get better eventually.

I'm only interested in car racing and F1 is the pinnacle of that, no matter what. I don't care about boat racing or motorcycles. Definitely not about "plane racing", which to me is completely hokey. I don't get that whole Red Bull thing there, but that's just me.

To me F1 is more than "just" passing another driver and who wins the race. It is the whole game of chess, which begins the year before when drivers and teams make decisions, which have far reaching consequences. I don't believe much in luck of getting a seat as a driver (once in a blue moon happens, but that's rare). I do believe people/drivers/engineers/team managers/suppliers work their tails off to be #1 one day and sometime it happens and I'm thrilled to see them garnering the fruits of their hard work. I don't believe for one second a driver is luckily handed the #1 seat in a car. F1 is the ultimate in competitiveness and to me (as an economist) represents the market forces of capitalism at full swing (the FIA occasionally stepping over that, but that's a different story). Supply and demand is in control who gets what seat, what engine, what engineer, what designer and I love the "foreplay" of F1 before a new season starts when all the right chess players get lined up or not. And then we watch the races because sometimes all the King's horsemen couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together. Sometimes weird things happen (Panis winning Monaco, Rosberg Sr. winning the WDC).
To put it differently: To me the greatest driver is not "just" the guy who is the fastest on the track, but the person who combines all the social skills (and many others) with it to be the most cunning/clever/street smartest/negotiator who gets the perfect seat. From some of the comments in this thread I see that MotoGP fans love the fact that machinery is equal and it comes down to who is the fastest on the track. To me that's anathema. I have always loved characters like Lauda, Prost, Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton who are a force outside the cockpit just as much as inside the cockpit because they know what they do off track (or on track by talking into the mike) has ramifications, which just might give them the crucial edge to win at all cost. Capitalism baby!


The other thing is (and that might be just a generational issue): I know ZERO about MotoGP and its bikes and drivers because I never followed it. Call me lazy, but it's nice to watch my biweekly F1 soap opera where I'm familiar with the players and their agendas. For most of the part...

 

Not really. It's a new name for an old sport.

They started calling it MotoGP when the world championship for the top category went to 4-stroke engines. The lower categories are MotoGP2 and MotoGP3.

Before, they used to call it the World Motorcycle Championship; the top category was 500cc, and the bikes were 2-stroke. There were also 125 and 250cc categories.

MotoGP and the WMC have the same lineage as Formula 1 which was called Grand Prix years ago.

 

You have Valentino Rossi, Marc Marquez, Jorge Lorenzo, Maverick Vinales, Dani Pedrosa and Andrea Dovizioso that could win any race and it is not due to the riders being in a spec series, it is due to different tracks suiting different bikes and in MotoGP the rider really makes a difference. As it relates to personalities, there is no one in the current F1 that holds a candle to Valentino Rossi, who is also probably the greatest of all time and has had success on multiple manufacturers not just being in the very best team like Hamilton.

Someone may not like motorcycle racing, but to say it is not compelling television is simply not true. We all wish F1 was more about the driver making the difference and having more than 1 team compete for the win, MotoGP has that in spades and these guys are heroes; watch a race and see what they can due with a bike while sliding it through a corner on the limit and also realizing that it is still very dangerous, and then tell me that it is boring.

I have watched F1 since 1974, but from 2014-2016, I have found it far less interesting and have fallen asleep watching the Mercedes procession with these crap engines enough that I thought I would give MotoGP a try, and I am really glad I did.

 

Valentino Rossi is unique. He was world champion with Honda which was the best at that time, but left them for contractual reasons.

In short, Valentino wanted to control the marketing around the Rossi brand himself, and not surrender the rights to Honda. It was a smart business move, Rossi earned $millions selling his own regalia and apparels, and developed a marketing company used by other riders as well.

Rossi moved to the opposition, the Yamaha team he had regularly beaten. He built up that team and defeated his former employer, Honda, by winning more championships.

Rossi has won GPs and championships in any category he competed: MotoGP3, MotoGP2, MotoGP 800cc and 1000cc and with different makes: Aprilla Honda and Yamaha. Only the short spell at Ducati wasn't fruitful.

Rossi tried a F1 Ferrari, but didn't seem enamoured with the experience. "F1 is all about the technology", he said, "MotoGP is about the rider making a difference".
That encapsulates the fundamental difference between the 2.

 

Lorenzo has recently said that the new Ducati aero- fairing is giving him @ half a second a lap:
https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/lorenzo-says-ducati-fairing-giving-him-half-a-second-a-lap-940151/ , and the rumour is that Ducati were switching their engine mapping halfway through the race to compensate for tyre wear (the riders being informed when to switch by pit to bike text messaging - Something only Ducati can run during the race at the moment).

Added to that, the chassis' of the bikes are constantly being evolved, and anti-wheelie and traction control systems have been used in the recent times, so to imply that there is no technological help being given to the riders on MotoGP is not really true!

Yes the bikes are less driven by technology as opposed to F1 cars, and yes, the MotoGP riders can make more of a difference to their racing machine than an F1 driver can, but both disciplines rely heavily on technology in heir own way these days.

 

Agreed.

But the riders make the difference in MotoG, and the technology hasn't taken over yet.

Regularly the electronics are restricted in MotoGP to avoid excessive drivers' help, and the aero are controlled.

Also, unlike in F1, there are customers teams in MotoGP, and they also beat the factory from time to time.

A bit like expecting Massa on a Williams-Mercedes to beat Hamilton, or Grosjean on a Haas-Ferrari to defeat Vettel. That would be unheard off.

In MotoGP, satellite teams can compete against the factory teams, like Tech3 Yamaha, beating Rossi, or Carl Crushlow winning in front of Marc Marquez.

 

MotoGP is 75% rider, 25% bike.

F1 is the opposite, 25% driver, 75% car.

I watch both religiously.

 

Dan, F1 is IMO 50% car, 35% team(HQ, strategists; the people "behind" pit wall), and 15%

driver.

Yes, completely opposite when comparing and F1 driver and a MotoGP driver.