Rate the Grand Prix of Singapore

[p261brm]

True, and I do not oppose some change but it's the latest in a long line of new Far Eastern tracks, is it not? The nightime stuff is just another gimmick from Bernie and, environmentally, about as ill timed as you can get, as well as pretty pointless. [quote] John Turner

Nice one John; spot on, Bernie's bank balance and no other logical reason for it.

[Ingsy]

Originally Posted by John Turner

True, and I do not oppose some change but it's the latest in a long line of new Far Eastern tracks, is it not? The nightime stuff is just another gimmick from Bernie and, environmentally, about as ill timed as you can get, as well as pretty pointless.

I do agree that the expense of running a floodlight race does seem to completely contradict the "cost saving" and "eco-friendly" F1 messages that Max & co seem to want to get across. F1 must realise it is in a slightly uncomfortable position.

Originally Posted by John Turner

I didn't mention any tracks so I have no difficulty in agreeing with you on those two. However, it misses the point. We have lost/are losing a number of good established tracks in favour of these over-financed and underused facilities.

When you say "good established" to you mean tracks that are good and established, or tracks that are just well established? Yes, we have lost some great tracks, Suzuki being swapped for that awful Fuji springs immediately to mind.

If the new tracks were just as good as the ones that are being replaced, would you have an issue? But then the question to be asked is "why is the track being replaced?". As for the Singapore track itself, it seemed to pose a challenge for the drivers, which is a good thing in my view.

Originally Posted by John Turner

Again, generally true, but I don't think motor racing, certainly in it's current form has an infinite life, and I'm not convinced that the world wants or needs to develop a new motorsport heritage, anywhere. It is living (sadly) on borrowed time and how long that time lasts depends on how we adapt it to the changing environmental and financial issues. Opening expensive new venues isn't surely the way ahead - at least, we can say that Singapore uses part of the existing road infrastructure. Perhaps, I should have given it a 2 for that!

I understand some peoples feelings that the new tracks are only there because of the money they pay, but some of them are actually good tracks. If I had my way I'd ditch France and Hungary, as mentioned earlier, but happily keep Turkey and Singapore, for example.

Not all current tracks are great, and not all new tracks are poo.

[Greenback]

[quote=p261brm]True, and I do not oppose some change but it's the latest in a long line of new Far Eastern tracks, is it not? The nightime stuff is just another gimmick from Bernie and, environmentally, about as ill timed as you can get, as well as pretty pointless.

John Turner

Nice one John; spot on, Bernie's bank balance and no other logical reason for it.

I dont think it is just bernie who is making deals here in the far east. Several team principles have already mentioned that they need to look towards the east for sponsors because their usual sponsors from Europe and USA will be hit by the credit crunch.

[John Turner]

Possibly true, but this merely supports the contention that it is all about money again isn't it; what about the motor racing? I think that I have about exhausted my input in this matter. It is, afterall, just my opinion and I thank you for your constructive responses, rather than an instant dismissal which I had half expected!

PS - I, too, mourn the loss of Suzuka. Hopefully it is not permanent.

[strider]

Originally Posted by John Turner

PS - I, too, mourn the loss of Suzuka. Hopefully it is not permanent.

Likewise.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by John Turner

Possibly true, but this merely supports the contention that it is all about money again isn't it; what about the motor racing? I think that I have about exhausted my input in this matter. It is, afterall, just my opinion and I thank you for your constructive responses, rather than an instant dismissal which I had half expected!

PS - I, too, mourn the loss of Suzuka. Hopefully it is not permanent.

Unfortunately John, like me, you are perhaps under the misguided impression that F1 is a sport and everything is done for the good of that sport and those who watch and compete in it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by John Turner

... generally true, but I don't think motor racing, certainly in it's current form has an infinite life, and I'm not convinced that the world wants or needs to develop a new motorsport heritage, anywhere. It is living (sadly) on borrowed time and how long that time lasts depends on how we adapt it to the changing environmental and financial issues...

well said imo. in fact its almost a little sad that F1 is not using this "move east" to help create this sort of awareness. for sure people will challenge a move from more traditional venues, but whats wrong with creating a new tradition. particularly one which meshes with the current climate of environmental and financial concerns.

sadly they have chosen to apply the same models over and over and that is a real problem for the sport as it moves forward.

i must admit though, that i did like the spectacle. the results however artifical, put a smile on my face so i gave it a 7.

it is also fair to note, that despite the excellent effort by the promoters, the rule problems and processional nature of F1 still could not be covered up. once the light go out its still the same old F1 (which is still pretty darn good for my entertainment dollars)

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Novice

Circuit is too dangerous.

LOL. I guess all oval track drivers have more balls than Formula 1 drivers now, eh?

[Neil22]

I gave it a 7, probably would have gone higher if I didn't have my heart broke by the Ferrari pit crew, AGAIN!!!!

[blue nose]

A fantastic cure for insomnia. Bring back Suzuka a non gimick track.

[Chiefy]

As a first attempt it couldn't have gone much better. I'll give it a nine. Obviously the result was skewed by Piquet's accident, but Alonso and Rosberg would've been there or thereabouts anyway...

Get rid of the anorexic section before the bridge and it can be this good every year.

[p261brm]

Originally Posted by Speedworx

My god you guys are kidding me with your scores!

Best race of the season

10!

just seen this post, sorry comrade Race??? where? Oh yeah got it, a red uniformed pit crew chasing their car and fuel hose up the pit lane, agree 10

[RotorFan]

Some people are very hard to please. I thought it was great. Seeing the cars at night with the sparks, flames, glowing brake discs was spectacular. And the bumpiness of the track made it more interesting. I hope they don't smooth it out next year.

I'm almost glad that Kimi smashed into the wall. Thats what should happen if you screw up. I'm sure the GPDA won't be having that next year.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RotorFan

Some people are very hard to please.

This is the F1 forum after all, where no one is ever happy about anything.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Matt

This is the F1 forum after all, where no one is ever happy about anything.

You've got that right...

[Marbot]

I only have to put up with James Allen for three more races-What's not to be happy about.

[Flaming_Wuzzle]

Originally Posted by blue nose

Bring back Suzuka a non gimick track.

They are, next year. Fuji and Suzuka share the Japanese GP starting in 2009, so it'll be Suzuka '09, Fuji '10, etc.

Back to the topic...I'd give it a 7 or 8. Not incredibly exciting, but the circuit's not too bad and I like seeing the cars under lights for once. It's much better than Valencia in any case.

Though I still have yet to see the end of the race, my DVR cut off the last bit of the race and everything after that, so I'm going to try to catch Speed's replay of it on Wednesday.

[Clive]

gave it a five for novelty value being under lights. as a circuit it left a lot to be desired, and is just typical of government money being thrown at F1, I mean the PD, at the probable expense, as in loss, of the traditional and historic european circuits who wont give in to the extortionate demands of the PD.

[Dutton]

Those traditional and historic European circuits were not traditional or historic once upon a time. Criticising something that is new for not having tradition and history strikes me as remarkably unreasonable.

Where criticisim can come in is if new venues are handed their spot simply because some mega-rich entity is willing to hand the money over, as opposed to the event being genuinely viable in its own right. That is not too great, especially when it is at the expense of venues which attract genuine interest. In the same way I would criticise maintaining an old venue without the ability to attract genuine interest when there is a new one that would attract genuine interest.

The issue shouldn't be so much about tradition and history, given something can only achieve that status if it is given a chance, but rather about genuine viability.

F1's major issue is that a certain short guy only cares about thing, and that isn't the genuine viability of race venues.

[willb]

i only rated it at a five. It reminds me of some computer games that are all visual effects, but they lack substance and depth of play.