Why do you watch?

[Greem]

No, it's simply holding a different opinion. Opinions aren't truths.

I find it interesting that this thread is tending, as many have over the years, towards the "What is F1?" discussion. Again.

Mr Flat, I personally think that asking here why F1 is so popular and continues to be is only lifting the corner of the blanket. New young F1 fans live in different parts of the Internet - Reddit, Discord etc. Maybe you should delve into those areas too, but please put your "not nuanced" safety gear on because, well, tribalism is rife.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

It truly is, as it is exactly what I want in a race series, I wonder how one gets to that level, without wishing to be too intrusive, but how can anyone find a series truly interesting when the likely winner is known months in advance?

The winner is not the interesting bit, the engineering and the cars is the interesting bit.

Of course the rules could be more open like the 3500cc & 3000cc rules from 1988 to 2000. But even in that case, by 1995 nearly everyone had worked out that the V10 was the best and by 1996 everyone had worked out that the V10 was the best (similarly almost all the cars from the 1966 season look extremely similar even though there were almost no chassis or bodywork regulations whatsoever at time).

Red Bull Racing will be most intrigued to know that their win in the 2024 season was known months before it started! That's news to them, else they wouldn't have pushed so hard on revolutionising their 2024 RB20 car concept and would have brought the RB19 again (which is incidentally barely fast enough to qualify in the top 10 in 2024 laptimes)...

Did you not find the RB20 overbite sidepods (radiator inlets, what radiator inlets?), and the lengths Red Bull went to hide them, interesting on the RB20 launch? If not, why not?

Kyle Engineers RB20 launch analysis

Now that's truly interesting! Launch season is a fascinating time of year, no?

Red Bull adopting an engine cover similar to the 2023 Mercedes was also fascinating! Showing that good ideas are found up and down the grid, even if the performance of the whole package isn't perfect.

The engineering of (for example) the Acura Honda IMSA car is not disinteresting (it's a very neat and tidy F1-like engine installation), but for Acura to come back to the Daytona 24 hour with an extra 20kg on their car and no chance to win the race was infuriating to watch. To see the Acura fall back again and again, time and time again, through BOP of carrying 20kg more than any other car was intolerable IMO.

It's like Acura Honda are being penalised for having a compact and efficient engine compared to the mess of wires and hoses of the giant V8 twin-turbos in the Porsche and BMW. It completely removed any interest I may have had to watch the other IMSA races this season.

To see Toyota struggle just as much with BOP weight in WEC is just as bad. The Toyota has consistently been the best car and best team in the past, yet now we are led to believe Toyota are incompetent and can barely score a top 8 finish against souped-up LMP2 cars with F2 engines like the Alpine-Mechachrome on debut? C'mon. By rights the Ferrari and Toyota LMHs should be up the front, they are the more sophisticated, superior cars to the LMDhs.

MotoGP or Formula One are much better -- if Honda do a bad job, it's Honda's fault. Same for WRC, if Toyota does a bad job, it's Toyota's fault. No ifs, no buts.

Surely Formula One is much better? Ferrari and McLaren fans may have been annoyed at their teams in the past for doing a bad job and not having a chance to win, but now they are doing a better job they DO have the chance to win. This is truly interesting, no?

The budget cap doesn't completely eliminate the "haves" and "have nots" in Formula One but it helps and is a good policy IMO, there's only 1 second covering the entire field in Q1 which is closer than spec series like Indycar or F2 anyway (or indeed BOP series like WEC or IMSA...)

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

And what is clear also, is that some people enjoy the order of F1, the obvious have and have nots, the real and true level of dominance some teams have.

You are putting words in people's mouths. You have taken what people here have said and framed them into your own negative perspective.

Richard

[flatlandsman]

I think if you read a previous post, the sentence you highlight was pretty much verbatim what one poster said! So hardly making stuff up.

V8, I will admit I take very little interest in F1 these days so the nuances about car design you mention are lost on me! I do however like racing that throws up a shock, different winners, unpredictable results and racing that highlights a drivers skill more than F1 does.

That might shock a few people maybe but when you see a WRC driver or a motocross or MotoGP rider, or a top GT man hacking through a field of road cars round the Ring, does not that show you more how far away YOU are from being that good? How great these men and women are?

I do not get that kick from F1, it looks easy, of course it is not, it is probably harder than anything else, but the point here is it LOOKS easy, and that I find a little sad. I may be naive, but I think after spending the last 40 years watching F1 I do have some idea why I find it less interesting now!!

[Richard C]

i

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I think if you read a previous post, the sentence you highlight was pretty much verbatim what one poster said! So hardly making stuff up.

Feel free to actually quote the posts you are talking about to make your point. You are saying (or implying) is that in the thread you are seeing evidence that we enjoy the following...

1. Order of F1
2. The situation with "have" and "have not" teams.
3. Domination by teams

I tried to scan through this entire thread to find your "pretty much verbatim" comments and I am not finding them. Maybe it's there and I just missed it?

Lets tackle each of those, but first let me comment on the fact that there is no single perspective of an F1 fan. F1 has many dimensions such constructor aspect (competitive engineering), drivers, teams and just the pure racing side. Within this forum, you will find each person rates different aspects differently. So be careful of making broad generalizations and conclusions. With that being said, I might make a few generalizations below, but am fully aware that it is dangerous to do so.

Order of F1: I can't comment as I have no idea what you mean by this. I could speculate, but it wouldn't be helpful for me to do so.

"Have" and "Have Nots": Where in this thread can you find anyone who says this is a positive aspect of F1 that they "enjoy"? I quickly searched the thread and prior to you making the post I quoted, I think only you have mentioned "have" and "have nots" or at a minimum talked about it more than anyone else. My personal option is that I don't think anyone here "likes" the fact that there has been a historic disparity in resources between teams. Some might be ambivalent to it and say "then those teams need to fix their problems" or "Its not the responsibility of others to fix this". Others may desire a more active role of FIA/FOM to tackle the issue. No doubt there are other perspectives or variations of what I say above. But I would love you to point out anyone who thinks it's a good thing.

You may find some fans who might see their team in the "have" list and maybe are so focused on their personal like of that team that they may not support addressing the "have not" issue. But rest assured as soon as their team somehow falls into the "have not" group, they will be all for fixing the problem! Regardless, on average it has been identified as a real issue and the budget cap regulations are meant to address this problem. However it is going to take time for the "have" and "have not" issue to shrink to the point that it is a non-topic. It can't be fixed with a snap of a finger, but it is trending in the right direction.

Domination By Teams: Again, there is no single example of an F1 fan. I think it's hard to make any general comment on this. I don't think I have seen anyone active say "I love that teams can dominate for a period of time". I think what you might find is that some will like that a team has worked hard to come out on top and that they can enjoy watching them reap the rewards of their hard work. Now... how long they should continue to reap those rewards, no doubt everyone here is going to give you a different answer. Including some who will say it can be as long as it takes for the other teams to catch up (and I can appreciate that perspective). Also you will see plenty of people call out that periodic domination is not an entirely new thing to F1. Plus you will find some who have perspectives very close to you that they hate the domination that teams like Red Bull and Mercedes have had recently (and many others in the past) have had. So as a fan group, we are all over the place on this topic, but in general I don't think anyone things it's a good idea for it to go on for too long.

Another comment regarding long term domination. I can see that some might need a certain level of "immediate gratification". Such as... "I am a fan of driver X and if he can't win a race this season, then I am done with F1". Right or wrong, the rise to the top of the heap in F1 can sometimes be a slow and laborious process. For me at least, sometimes those long waits results in much more satisfying moments when the results actually happen.

For example, lets say you watch some type of competitive "mountain scrambling". But the competition is only held on small 15 meter "hills". So in the end, the challenge is not particularly difficult. Because of this, you might see many different people win event after event. But now imagine they are climbing something like Mount Everest. The competition is much harder. And it might take seasons of trying before your favorite climber or climbing teams wins. When that happens, the victory is just that much sweeter.

Two recent F1 examples. Now this first one is a very polarizing moment, but the 2021 seasons and in particular the finale at Abu Dhabi. Love or hate the outcome of that event. It was a big season and a memorable outcome. Echo's of that reverberate to this day. I still can put myself back into that moment of the last few laps of that race. If there had been much more unpredictability and just anyone could win a race, I would not find any of that particularly exciting or memorable. The second example is a combination of the heartbreak for Lando Norris at the 2021 Russian GP and the expectation of him getting his first win since then with him finally getting it done recently. It was a recent result that I think most of F1 was able to celebrate together. At least for me, I feel like the highs are very high and the lows very low in F1 and sometimes those are spread apart by lots of time. Because of this, it makes each so much more special. I think being an F1 fan is not a sprint, but an exercise in endurance. Think of those poor Ferrari fans who are patiently waiting on their next championship!

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

V8, I will admit I take very little interest in F1 these days so the nuances about car design you mention are lost on me! I do however like racing that throws up a shock, different winners, unpredictable results and racing that highlights a drivers skill more than F1 does.

See my comments below as to my speculation as to what you like or don't like about motorsports. And how technical competition is at the core of F1. So if you don't care about that, then I am not shocked you don't care for F1.

With that being said, I do think that driver's skills are exposed in F1. Does the "best driver" (whatever that means) always win the race? Historically not always. I will say that many will agree that Max, while in what might be the best car, is likely the "best driver" on the grid right now. Not that everyone will agree with that statement, but I would say if you polled this group as to who is the best driver right now Max would win. But you can see stand-outs of both good and poor driving elsewhere in the grid. The cream mostly rises to the top eventually.

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

That might shock a few people maybe but when you see a WRC driver or a motocross or MotoGP rider, or a top GT man hacking through a field of road cars round the Ring, does not that show you more how far away YOU are from being that good? How great these men and women are?

What does this have to do with F1? I am impressed by children who win spelling bees, or those that can juggle more than three balls, or musicians as they play music, or... any number of things that I can't do. This includes rally drivers and F1 as well. But I don't watch motorsports so that I can think.. "Gee, I couldn't do that".

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I do not get that kick from F1, it looks easy, of course it is not, it is probably harder than anything else, but the point here is it LOOKS easy, and that I find a little sad. I may be naive, but I think after spending the last 40 years watching F1 I do have some idea why I find it less interesting now!!

At the end of the day, I think being a fan of motorsports is ultimately about getting some type of enjoyment out of it. You will see lively debates here at times around "What exactly is F1?" Is it a sport? Is it a business (i.e. entertainment)? Is competitive sport even required to be entertaining?

If I may be so bold to say this... I broadly think you don't care much about the technical competition of motorsports. That for you, it is nearly all about the moment to moment entertainment/gratification factor. If I am anywhere close to the mark, I can absolutely see why F1 is not for you.

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

This is not meant to be an attack..

It is simply means to be almost a survey.

What is it about F1 that attracts you?

I continue to wonder what you are looking to get from this discussion. In your first post (quoted above) you call out that you are just wanting to survey this group. I at some point say that we shouldn't be trying to change your mind (and I still think this is correct). But I also am of the opinion that I have no interest in you trying to change my mind or try to come to conclusions as to why I like it. Especially if those conclusions about me are filtered through your own negative perspective (i.e you identify negatives, so if someone likes F1, therefor they must like those negatives). What are you trying to get out of this thread other than to continue to poke those here that are fans of F1?

Richard

[flatlandsman]

I have no issue admitting being a fan who needs more gratification, motorsport is about lots of things for me, at some level it is about engineering, but usually at a lower cost level like hillclimbing or Pikes Peak or club level rallying when someone finds a novel way of finding speed etc.

I find the technology in F1 is a little overwhelming and basically a way of allowing teams to spend the money they would have already spent testing, the stupidly finicky winglets and aero etc, I guess some people find that fascinating, but not me, as it leads to less interesting racing in my view.

DRS was a game changer, as for me it removed the ability for the best to be more visible, I can still remember moves certain drivers made that stood them out. I found that happened less and less with DRS.

I am in no way trying to poke sticks at people, my point that might provoke that response is that I moved away from F1 to find that interest elsewhere. I am lucky to have always been interested in multiple things, bikes, planes, so if something loses my interest I find that enthusiasm elsewhere and drop the other thing. I will tell you I have recently bought books about older F1 periods, the turbo era, and the early 90's.

I do think that if the racing was closer, and better I would be tempted back, and maybe one day that happens.

Yes it is a bit throwaway and temporary but that is me.

AS far as the technical aspect goes, I do find that interesting, but only really exciting stuff like wings cars, or the Deltawing or the Nissan fwd LMP1, evolution of aero stuff bores me senseless I am afraid, I can appreciate its design and the like but that is not going to make me watch F1 again sorry.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If it was Indycar where all you can change is the car setup and Colton Herta qualifies 12th one week, pole the next, 18th the one after that, 4th the following -- it's very hard to decipher what is actually going on.

So you can't be bothered to learn what they can and can't do and why some teams are good at some tracks and not others. It's NOT a fully spec'd car, you should learn the regs then pontificate about them

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I think if you read a previous post, the sentence you highlight was pretty much verbatim what one poster said! So hardly making stuff up.

You completely changed the meaning by NOT being verbatim in what you said. The interest was in knowing where the cars/teams are in development and knowing the order NOT the convoluted way you tried to twist it to only wanting the best to win

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

I do think that if the racing was closer, and better I would be tempted back, and maybe one day that happens.

By way of interest, when was the racing closer than it is now?

I remember Murry getting massively excited if two cars were within 10 seconds of each other at the finish, so quite what he would have made of the last lap at San Marino this weekend I don't know, even if it was clear to everyone that it was a bridge too far for Norris.

James Hunt on the other hand was not afraid of bluntly calling a race dull and boring.

[flatlandsman]

I think there are two factors steve.

The main one being back then I did not really know any different, I only consumed racing on telly, and was always a little more enamored with stuff like rallycross and rallying than F1, even though I enjoyed it a lot. But the basic facts were I liked most things. But F1 was in your face more.

The modern world and media has opened my eyes to more aspects to racing, I can watch a club meeting at home if I want, it is not the same obviously but it can be done, that is staggering really!

I would say there were closer and more varied eras than now, more unlikely winners, the grids in lots of series are closer then ever, but is the RACING better, the racing now seems to be about what you can get away with, how much contact is feasible without a penalty,and I include series I follow closely in that like WEC and GT racing. That is a shame but seems to be the way the sport has gone, it is now not left to gentlemen it is left to stewards.

By closer I really mean it was possible to race together, for cars to perhaps be more evenly matched, I know this is unlikely, but the hybrid era has seemed to favour certain teams massively leading to utter domination of a kind rarely sen before in such numbers in F1 I hope you would agree.

And broad sorry, I would reply to you but I would get into trouble so best left alone.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

So you can't be bothered to learn what they can and can't do and why some teams are good at some tracks and not others. It's NOT a fully spec'd car, you should learn the regs then pontificate about them

that was a bit aggressive

[broadrun96]

Statement of fact, declaring something is so and actually knowing NOTHING about car setup is aggressively stupid and deserving of a matching response

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Statement of fact, declaring something is so and actually knowing NOTHING about car setup is aggressively stupid and deserving of a matching response

I don't think any slight was meant with respect to Indycar. I think that broadly when it comes to technical discussions here it is not uncommon to refer to Indycar as a top level series that is broadly "spec". I think this is just done for purposes of simplification of the discussion. I will raise my hand that I would have done (and likely have and probably will continue to do) the same. So per your suggestion I took a quick peek at the Indycar technical regulations.

I suspect that most "spec" series, everything is not 100% exactly the same from car to car. For example at a minimum you might expect cars to have different livery and driver specific items (seats, pedals, etc.) that are a level above "adjustments". So my point is that "spec" is not a black and white thing.

Back to Indycar. I may have this wrong as I have only spent a handful of minutes looking at the regulation, and there are clearly areas in which teams can do development. However those areas are VERY limited. No doubt however some of those areas (plus setup which should also be open) will have enough impact on being first or last in the grid. Which I think is the point you are making.

Areas of development that I think likely have large impact are dampers, bearing (friction) treatments, lubricants, ducting, and bushings. I think there is some aero tweaks that can be made to the base aero config as well. That would be huge. There are other that are likely in the realm of "practicality" such as plumbing, fueling connectors, nuts and bolts and other misc. stuff. Plus there is a number of items that you may or may not source from Dallara, but if sourced elsewhere need to be same as the Dallara parts (they don't use the term homologated, but it seems the same)

So clearly, doing development in the areas that you are allowed, matters. But I expect just as much it is on race engineering (car setup), strategy, driving, team management, etc. Clearly these need to happen hand in hand, and no doubt some teams are winning the development battle within the narrow constraints provided by the regulations.

For fear of making this an Indycar centric thread, please correct me where I am wrong. I have no doubt I have gotten some detail wrong here somewhere. But I think the overall point stands.

As to this thread, I provided my comments to the OP regarding his questions. I really have no desire to continue to feed and prolong this topic as I see no value to be gained. My fear is that it becomes a session in people trolling each other if it hasn't already.

Richard

[flatlandsman]

There really is no need to be so terse and aggressive whoever you are, but that says a heck of a lot more about you than it does me, let's leave it there.

The discussion has largely been had and been very educational from my point of view.

Obviously there are those that will take my post personally and riposte as if they a re being attacked that was not my intention or desire, but it is expected.

We are all different and desire various things from our sport, some people think I have zero technical knowledge, this is not true but it does not motivate me to become fascinated with it as a way of becoming more interested in F1, the technical aspect is not varied or interesting enough to warrant that interest from me, I prefer more adventurous and broad minded technical stuff in a freer formula. Whatever that might be.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by flatlandsman

There really is no need to be so terse and aggressive whoever you are, but that says a heck of a lot more about you than it does me, let's leave it there.

May I ask which post you are commenting on? The forum has a quote capability. It avoids confusion when responding to something someone has said.

Richard

[flatlandsman]

I would imagine the person knows, you are not rude in any way, I prefer to keep a semblance of decorum!!

[Skam85]

This is such a strange thread

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Skam85

This is such a strange thread

It jumped the shark a while ago.Someone who either doesn’t understand F1 or is just poking the bear for fun in multiple threads over several months.
People trying to rationally explain why they like or love F1 and getting furious agreement from other F1 fans.
Despite the originator of the thread saying they are trying to understand why people like F1 when people give reasons they are shot down as irrelevant to “good racing” and everyone goes around the circle again.

[flatlandsman]

It is a strange thread because all the other threads on here are about teams, tv or relatively mundane run of the mill post race stuff.

I am not poking any bears, I am simply asking people who follow the sport why they follow it and the outcomes are varied. Is that such a hard, difficult and out there question?

[morninggents]

To me it's just a platform for you to continue saying why you don't like F1 and you can't understand why other people do.
I get it but I don't agree with your views.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by morninggents

To me it's just a platform for you to continue saying why you don't like F1 and you can't understand why other people do.
I get it but I don't agree with your views.

It seems to me that the last full stop in your post could just as easily be the final full stop in this thread......

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

It seems to me that the last full stop in your post could just as easily be the final full stop in this thread......

What he said

[flatlandsman]

I had basically ended the thread a few posts ago, but felt responding to criticism was worthwhile.

Will leave it there

[Aysedasi]

After today's race, 'Why do you watch?' suddenly seems a highly relevant question after all.....

[chillibowl]

Hopefully, after such a dull race, the next races will seem epic by comparison.