So who can claim F1 is (still) boring?

You couldn't have said it any better than that!!! We totally agree with you.

Let's go back to the way it used to be!!!

Carol

 

Restrictor plate racing comes to Formula One via tire limitations.

 

Three laps does not make it an exciting race. You will almost always get some passing going on in the beginning of any race, especially in a standing start format and at the first corner. By your standard, you probably get all giddy watching the post-qualifying interviews too.

 

LOL
Okay, okay I have to admit Button on Raikkonen wasn't that exciting and it was at beginning of the race. When I mentionned Ralf/Webber/Heidfeld/Fisi, I shouldn't have putten JB/KR. Also Kien and DC on RB wasn't spectacular because Rubens tyres were almost finish. And Massa made a mistake at the same corner as Fisi and Kimi passed him.
But I have to say, the Malaysian GP was more exciting than the majority of last years races.

Your reply to 308tr6, I agree with you.

 

Well...so you didn't like my opinion - that's fine, but I think there is some validity about some limits in what would otherwise be ever increasing speed and escalating costs. Safety is the obvious controlling factor, and I have watched racing long enough to know that what was happening in the 70s and 80s (yes I'm that old) wasn't exactly in the best interest of the sport. The fact is the cars need to be slowed down, because safety is a major issue. Safety technology has always lagged behind speed technology and probably always will. Haven't seen a safety trophy yet along with all the hot babes and press covers. So the efforts to limit speeds and costs even though they are "restricting" the sport seem appropriate. Maybe the alternative would be to have teams run faster tires, grenade engines, airplane wings, whatever, no holds barred but them make them pass a 250 mph crash test. Might be good for safety technology (and I have some ideas for crash test drivers).

I understand your points about leaving F1 the ultimate test of man and machine, but I think that thought process will eventually lead to the engineers driving the car around the track with a so-called driver (rider). Actually kinda cool, I may regret telling my son he spends too much time on the Xbox.- maybe he's just a future F1 driver in training.

Anyway, I just don't buy the "good ole days" stuff - but I respect your opinions and it is an interesting thread.
Cheers

 

All that has changed is the color of the car up front, the domination remains.

 

Old eyes and to quick finger. I saw tht I checked YES when I ment NO. I have never found F1 BORING. Because it aint
over til it's over. I was there when Nigel was taking his victory lap before it was over and Piquet won. Watching on TV when Mika's Mclaren quit on him 2 turns before the finish. I was there at Indy when Michael tried to set up the closest finish and ended up losing. I remember when the Ferrari team made the Keystone Cops look good in the pits
at Detroit, They were using saw horses to hold the body of the F1 car and it rolled off. There have been years of Drought for Ferrari, the 2005 car is said to be 1/2 a second faster and Michael is (was?) 1 second faster if that is true do we still loose since the 04 car is almost 1.75 seconds off the pace and that is with Michael's 1 second.
In any case F1 is never boring (yet until it is dumbed down so all the cars are the same).

 

Yes, Formula One is boring, sad to say. It's certainly a good DISPLAY of fast cars driving really fast, but it has reached the point where there is little if any racing involved. It's just too fast to "mix it up".

There's only one good thing going on. At least with the new tire rules, you don't have those ridiculous piles of "marbles" making it absolutely, totally impossible to drive an inch off the racing line. This "marbles" issue has made a farce of almost all forms of racing. If you have a track that is 30 or 40 feet wide, and only 10 feet of it is usable, you have a formula for instant boredom.

 

I agree it is still boring.

Personally I love the opinion expressed in a magazine article I once read, which (simply put) stated an awesome case for letting teams do whatever they want with the exception of downforce, downforce being the main limited factor. Without as much downforce braking zones would increase, speeds would be a bit lower, and there would be much more of the crazy sort of driving which made early GP so amazing to watch! Much more passing in the braking zones, etc...

 

It is not that I didn't like you opinion, it is more like I disagree with you on what is happening to F1. It is nothing personal, and I did not intend for my posts to become that. This is afterall, an open forum where fans like us can come and discuss, to share our opinions.
Just like any sports, there are risk factors involved. But so does everyday life, we all take a risk everytime we get in a car, when we eat or drink anything. In hockey, we give men large sticks and sent them out into a violent enviroment in masket-less helments. Then we watch them and wonders why they get into fights, and suffer serious injuries because of it. You are right, there has to be a limit, a fine line. The question is where is this line? It is the teams obligation to make their cars as safe as possible, and FIA's responsibility to set the guidelines and to enforce them. But the rules has to be intelligent, reasonable and applicable. I for one am all for the removal of the electronic aids, but at the same time, you have to let teams compete, to come out with ideas. if an engine has to last 2 races, why not make it 3, 4 or even 5 races? F1 is not one of the endurance race series, is it? The current qualifying format is a joke. Since you are a veteran at watching F1, don't tell me that watching how MS drafted behind RB at Indy in order to get P1 in the closing moment of the qualifying session (in 2000?) was not exciting to you. To me, watching a driver risk flatspotting and pre-mature tyre-wear so you can pass the driver in front of you is exciting, not this equipment management/preservation crap they are doing. And don't even get me started on the V8 engine thing for 2006....anyway, it is good that we disagree, otherwise this forum would be as "boring" as the race we watched.

 

Me thinks a lot of this has to do with ferrari performance. I can not for one minute understand how an objective person would find these 2 races less exciting than ferrari lapping the field by the halfway point.

As far as overall performance, didn't varsha and hobbs comment about the fast laps in the aussie race compared to last years qualifying times.

There have always been rule changes to try and slow the cars and save money going back to the mid-80's when you were limited to a certain amount of fuel. Yet that was the high point in my opinion.

Here is the way to make things the best possible; Take all the revenue from all places - sponsors, tv, tickets etc. and make a pool then divi it up so that all teams have an equal budget. Then take most limits away. Turbos with unlimited boost and fuel, full use of down force including side skirts and tunnels, gumball slicks etc.

Then return the tracks to the way they were in the 80's before all these chicanes ruined real racing. Track changes have done more to kill competition than most rule changes because handling costs more than top speed.

 

I went to watch the race at Malaysia last weekend and I believe there are three reasons for the lower attendance on Fri/Sat,1 the heat on the day was just incredible,2 the fact that the track is situated over 80KM away from KL city which makes 160km round trip 3 with the new qualifying set up over two days it makes sense only to turn up on race day.One thing I don't understand is how can they change only the affected tyre when a puncture happens.Wouldn't that affected the steering set up?

 

here is my reply to a similar thread elsewhere.

endurance racing has its own following and races. le mans, daytona, nurnburgring etc. i like watching that kind of racing too. but that is not formula one.

i like it when i see a race where one player is handicapped and overcomes the handicap to place or win. like schumi in spain in 96. but this is unusual and an exception which is what makes it exciting at the time.

what we have now is false. it is not real formula one. over the last few years mosley has fiddled around so much with the rules that the result is just ludicrous. his objectives were to slow the cars down and decrease the costs - neither of these goasl have been achieved, and yet we are left with second rate formula one, not FORMULA ONE.

to me formula one means the ultimate in open wheel racing and technology. so give us slicks back. give us our 12 lap qualifying shoot-out back. give us steady rules for the next 5 years to allow the lesser teams to have a shot at catching up, that way you can allow engine changes and tire changes without it affecting costs so much.
but dont give us bs handicap racing with grooved tires, reduced aero, stilted qualifying, and nursing enginies and tires and try to tell us that this is the balls-out racing that we all crave - ITS NOT.

i have been watching formula one avidly since 1972 so maybe i am just nostalgic.....

 

This is Formula One. Not IRL or Champ Cars. The tire rule and the two race engine rules do not belong in the most advanced form a motor sport on the planet. This is an expensive sport, if you can't cut, you don't participate.

I don't think the tire and engine rules are what is making the other teams more competitive. You had to assume after all of these years, McLaren, Williams, Renault, etc., would finally (although slowly) catch up to Ferrari. so even if they could change tires, and put in fresh engines for every race, the results would likely have been the same. Honda blew up two NEW engines!

The end of this last event became an endurance race, not a true sprint. These drivers are not so crazy to race hard on tires that looked like the ones on the landscapers truck outside.

Qualifying has also become boring. F1 should be a series of less restricting design regulations. Bah humbug.