[Multi 21] f1 is boring. manufactured for tv.

[Aysedasi]

Pure fiction though.......

[Matt]

Originally Posted by chunder

...if you just saw a body with no stickers on it it would be tough for an outisder to ideintify the car just like F1.

not anymore!

[nicanary]

About time they dropped the SC from NASCAR. As in, how the hell are they Stock? It's "closed car racing", and nothing to do with the great past.

Ford and Chevy convertibles on the banking at Daytona...great days.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by nicanary

About time they dropped the SC from NASCAR. As in, how the hell are they Stock? It's "closed car racing", and nothing to do with the great past.

Ford and Chevy convertibles on the banking at Daytona...great days.

These are stockcars as well.



That, and NASCAR is a sanctioning body, which also hold races for cars like this:



Which underneath that sheetmetal body is a heavily modified street car. I also say that with confidence, considering the red 37 is the car I crew on every weekend.

Saying that NASCAR is just Sprint Cup/Nationwide/Trucks would be like saying the only thing that respresents the FiA would be F1/GP2.

[migliacars]

Is that Cole Trickle s new car?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Matt

These are stockcars as well.

Now that's more like it!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by migliacars

Is that Cole Trickle s new car?

Which one.

[nicanary]

More stock, if you see what I mean. I was trying to refer to the origins of NASCAR, but I get your point.

[nicanary]

I get your point about the many series run by NASCAR but I wanted to refer to the original intention of the founding body. The 1959 Daytona Firecracker, with cars recognisable to the public.

(Hope this photo comes out, my copy and paste function is kaputt)

[Matt]

Ohhh yes. Wayyyyy too dangerous to be having on the big tracks now though.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by chunder

These days I think the issue is I just find it boring to watch, people say there were 25 lead changes etc etc, but a lot of that is because of pitstops and strategies, at some tracks it seems very hard to pass just as in F1.

I used to think that it was boring, but then I went to a NASCAR race . . . been back for two more. F1? Don't even watch it on TV!

NASCAR doesn't, I feel, claim to be anything more than entertainment - dare I say it, a more "honest" sport than F1.

Just my opinion, I don't expect anyone in this forum to agree with me. . . doesn't make me a bad person, though!

[chillibowl]

Got to respect NASCAR for keeping a 500 mile race 500 miles. If it takes 5 hours to run then the TV broadcaster just needs to deal with it.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

I used to think that it was boring, but then I went to a NASCAR race . . . been back for two more. F1? Don't even watch it on TV!

NASCAR doesn't, I feel, claim to be anything more than entertainment - dare I say it, a more "honest" sport than F1.

Just my opinion, I don't expect anyone in this forum to agree with me. . . doesn't make me a bad person, though!

Yup. F1 has managed competition, but they call it "parity", achieved through rules that over-specify the car, and they pretend it's still all-out auto racing.

I couldn't stand Jean-Marie Balestre, and never imagined a day when he would look good to me, but Bernie has managed that feat and then some.

NASCAR started with humble grocery-getters and built a racing series. Now they are purpose built racing machines with next to nothing in common with the grocery-getters. F1 started with bleeding edge automotive technology and evolved to spec machines which lack lots of technology found on higher end road cars. The two series have more or less met in the middle and the distinction between them is really based on their heritage, not what they are now.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Yup. F1 has managed competition, but they call it "parity", achieved through rules that over-specify the car, and they pretend it's still all-out auto racing.

I couldn't stand Jean-Marie Balestre, and never imagined a day when he would look good to me, but Bernie has managed that feat and then some.

NASCAR started with humble grocery-getters and built a racing series. Now they are purpose built racing machines with next to nothing in common with the grocery-getters. F1 started with bleeding edge automotive technology and evolved to spec machines which lack lots of technology found on higher end road cars. The two series have more or less met in the middle and the distinction between them is really based on their heritage, not what they are now.

Yup.

Practically the only difference is a carbon fibre chassis, non production based engine and body and hideously expensive ceramic brakes.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by miatanut

F1 started with bleeding edge automotive technology

No. No it didn't. There were plenty of road cars even then that had far more technology than F1 cars had. Much of which could be found on, for example, a Citroen DS. If you look back through to even WW1, you will still find things missing on 'F1' cars that the machines of that era had then. DOHC, V12, V10, etc, were all acronyms that applied equally well for vehicles over a century ago.

The first racing engines to have DOHC and four valve heads - 1912 (Fiat, Peugeot, Alfa Romeo, etc).

Nothing new under the Sun, as they say.

[Born Racer]

I sometimes watch a bit of NASCAR (I have dipped in and out of it, but particularly watched it when there were late-night highlights on Channel 5 here in the UK).

My interest is partly not sustained because of the 'futility' of watching the first half or so. It has such a build-up to its crescendo that a lot of the passing and re-passing early on seems irrelevant when you know there will be safety cars that will randomise everything.

The last ten or so laps are more pure (and often then someone gets angry and tries a retaliation attack, which is like the BTCC for me; a circus and not racing).

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by Matt

What about the F1 drivers that have gone and tried other things and failed miserably at it?

"Yes, Yes"...but not all drivers have the same skill sets...Not all drivers are 'All rounders'...like Jim Clark was!

But we've all seen mediocre drivers in F1 improve the more races they get under their belt, until they reach their own potential e.g. Webber v Vettel.

A driver used to driving cars developed in a Wind Tunnel for HIGH levels of Downforce e.g. F1 and LMP's arn't going to adapt back to driving by the 'seat of the pants' again as they did before they moved on to High Down force. That explains why it takes certain winning drivers e.g. Coulthard time to adapt to say DTM...where as a young driver from say GT's or Touring Cars will excell at DTM...e.g. Paffett, Green, De Resta etc.

"Yes, Yes"...there will be certain exceptions, as there are to any rule...but in reality some drivers become specialised and find their niche and earn their living at the class or formula they peak in!...Some never peak!

Back to the Thread Topic...Great thread, by it's originator...You Devil's Advocate!

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Marbot

No. No it didn't. There were plenty of road cars even then that had far more technology than F1 cars had. Much of which could be found on, for example, a Citroen DS. If you look back through to even WW1, you will still find things missing on 'F1' cars that the machines of that era had then. DOHC, V12, V10, etc, were all acronyms that applied equally well for vehicles over a century ago.

The first racing engines to have DOHC and four valve heads - 1912 (Fiat, Peugeot, Alfa Romeo, etc).

Nothing new under the Sun, as they say.

Somehow I missed the road car with active suspension before the first F1 car. Or the semiautomatic gearbox (no your pre-slect planatary gear suggestion is nor relevant that a Turbohydramatic). Or the first sodium cooled valves. Or the first ground effect. Or pneumatic valves.

The truth is, there has been tons of stuff that has been experimented with in racing, some of it in Grand Prix racing, which then became main stream after racing worked the bugs out to the point it could be useful for road cars.

Now, it's the other way around.

True, I shouldn't have used the term "F1". F1 had a couple decades of innovation before it stagnated, but Grand Prix before that had many decades of leading development. Bernie has his fingerprints on about 1/3 of the history of F1, beginning with throwing Murray under the bus on the fan car.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Ten years ago, when Ferrari were running away with things with regards to rules and how they should be enforced?.....oh, I dunno?

And you're right, these last ten years have been rubbish.

In the last ten years Formula 1 gradually changed from a sport to a game, a lottery purely for entertainment.

And yes, Ferrari dominated the entire series in 2002. But throughout the Formula 1 history teams dominated temporarily. And ironically, rules to make the sport more entertaining did not prevent Red Bull dominating the series in 2011.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In the last ten years Formula 1 gradually changed from a sport to a game, a lottery purely for entertainment.

Well, I guess that you're entitled to your opinion. You could always watch something else instead.

Originally Posted by Pingguest

And yes, Ferrari dominated the entire series in 2002. But throughout the Formula 1 history teams dominated temporarily. And ironically, rules to make the sport more entertaining did not prevent Red Bull dominating the series in 2011.

I would hardly call it dominance, not even in 2011. It's hardly like 1988, for example.

[codename_47]

As a fan since the early nineties I have to say 2012 has been the single greatest F1 season, if not the greatest season in the history.

What I look for when I come to the sport is the on-track product and for too long we allowed refueling to blight the sport, for some reason we talked it up and deluded ourselves that someone overtaking the driver in front not using his skill on the racetrack but meanwhile biding his time until his rival pitted was actually worth celebrating.
Well, it wasn't

In 2012 the excitement has been on the track and yet those who like a bit of strategy have been well catered for as well.
Tactics and strategy now support the on track product rather than replace it, which is the way it should be.

I think there are always those who will seek to find things to attack in the sport.
Personally I think 2012 was a perfect a season as you can get when it comes to close racing, variation in winners, championship battle, you name it.
It may be looked back upon in ten or twenty years time as a golden season, people will remark about how great it was with just a small asterix over the fact the cars looked a bit ugly due to the horrible stepped noses. (Personally the only thing that slightly tarnished the year for me. )

DRS gets a majority of the ire atm but it's just the latest in a long line of targets (KERS was originally in the firing line like this in 2009 but it seems to have quietly been forgotten about now, moaning wise) and that's mainly because it paid the price of not being fully worked out on its debut in 2011.
I admit they took a while to get it right in those races (Turkey being a particular low point where it was too much of a help there)
But this year I think it has greatly contributed to the overtaking and I think even the high number of passes away from the DRS zones are thanks to it allowing the cars to regain the time dirty air loses them in corners when they reach the straights.

No, 2012 was a great year for Formula 1, racing on track as it should be and not just everyone waiting around until the pitstops then backing off in the last stint.

Refueling, don't come back now!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by codename_47

As a fan since the early nineties I have to say 2012 has been the single greatest F1 season, if not the greatest season in the history.

What I look for when I come to the sport is the on-track product and for too long we allowed refueling to blight the sport, for some reason we talked it up and deluded ourselves that someone overtaking the driver in front not using his skill on the racetrack but meanwhile biding his time until his rival pitted was actually worth celebrating.
Well, it wasn't

In 2012 the excitement has been on the track and yet those who like a bit of strategy have been well catered for as well.
Tactics and strategy now support the on track product rather than replace it, which is the way it should be.

I think there are always those who will seek to find things to attack in the sport.
Personally I think 2012 was a perfect a season as you can get when it comes to close racing, variation in winners, championship battle, you name it.
It may be looked back upon in ten or twenty years time as a golden season, people will remark about how great it was with just a small asterix over the fact the cars looked a bit ugly due to the horrible stepped noses. (Personally the only thing that slightly tarnished the year for me. )

DRS gets a majority of the ire atm but it's just the latest in a long line of targets (KERS was originally in the firing line like this in 2009 but it seems to have quietly been forgotten about now, moaning wise) and that's mainly because it paid the price of not being fully worked out on its debut in 2011.
I admit they took a while to get it right in those races (Turkey being a particular low point where it was too much of a help there)
But this year I think it has greatly contributed to the overtaking and I think even the high number of passes away from the DRS zones are thanks to it allowing the cars to regain the time dirty air loses them in corners when they reach the straights.

No, 2012 was a great year for Formula 1, racing on track as it should be and not just everyone waiting around until the pitstops then backing off in the last stint.

Refueling, don't come back now!

Good post.

And I think that just from a safety POV, refueling is unlikely to make a comeback any time soon.

[Scooter185]

The super quick pit stops are pretty awesome, and go well with the sprint format of F1, but part of the reason I enjoy endurance racing is because of how they have to pull off more complicated pit stops even if they take 2 minutes. Of course stops like that mesh well with the race format.

[IceMan_PJN]

Originally Posted by migliacars

f1 is boring.
manufactured for tv.
the people who watch it have no idea about real motorsport.
i used to really enjoy it.

it really helps me to sleep though. i think i fell asleep in all of the races.

there is much better motorsport about.

I'm not going to waste much time here arguing with an ignorant troll, and I'm coming in after many pages of banter, but I guess I could point out that over 600 million people consider themselves F1 fans at the moment; far more than any other motorsport.

"Manufactured for TV" would be "success ballast," "competition cautions," and inverted grids seen in many other motorsports.

[Adam43]

Attack the post not the poster is the rule here.