Is overtaking on the track important?

[Kicking-back]

I suspect most of those who say overtaking is not essential are Schumacher/Ferrari supporters.

[Tweed]

You saw on the TV at Silverstone how exciteable the fans at the start/finish line got when Raikkonen had a run at the outside of Sato, despite everyone knowing it wasn't a serious move and was never on. That's how desperate we've become. Circuit commentators and TV commentators were SCREAMING about it.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Kicking-back
I suspect most of those who say overtaking is not essential are Schumacher/Ferrari supporters.

I do hope not. And I hope those who are complaining about the lack of overtaking are not doing it to try to dilute their achievements or only saying it because they are bored of Michael winning.

Whatever this is about the sport, not about teams. We are talking F1 here, it doesn't matter who is (or isn't) doing the overtaking. It is the actual overtaking we are discussing. It is far more important than any of the other stuff.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Tweed
You saw on the TV at Silverstone how exciteable the fans at the start/finish line got when Raikkonen had a run at the outside of Sato, despite everyone knowing it wasn't a serious move and was never on. That's how desperate we've become. Circuit commentators and TV commentators were SCREAMING about it.

It was an important situation. That move, even though it was very unlikely he would get by there, eventually lead to the pressure that caused Sato's error. Either way it was side by side. Then the beauty is seeing if it comes off or if it compromises either of them out of Copse. At the very least it is putting down a marker.

I think the reaction would have been similar in any arena or era. Perhaps the commentator might be of higher standard though

[Kicking-back]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore


Whatever this is about the sport, not about teams. We are talking F1 here, it doesn't matter who is (or isn't) doing the overtaking. It is the actual overtaking we are discussing. It is far more important than any of the other stuff.

I agree, but I fear my observation may be accurate

[Tye]

It is very important, and for me, is what racing is all about. It is just downright sad that the sport has reached a level where people are satisfied with the way in which teams/drivers claw their way to success.

Kicking-back:

I suspect most of those who say overtaking is not esential are Schumacher/Ferrari supporters.

Well, that isn't any surprise is it? That is just the way they like it. And for the life of me, it had better change when he leaves the sport.

Gt_R:

People can say how Ferrari and their success (and lack of overtaking) is killing F1. But last check, I do believe Ferrari still contribute the most fans at the tracks and in purchasing merchandise and some statistics actually do agree with it.

Well Gt_R, everyone likes a winner. I just wonder how many of those fans are true?

I think the biggest problem is that we the fans are tired of Michael(and it is only Michael)winning the races in the manner he does and then his fans screaming that he is the greatest. This is getting to be rather annoying and I can say that I'll be more than happy when he leaves, and it has nothing to do with his success. It is the way he and his team go about their business that irks me to the end.

Aysedasi:

as a parting shot though, I just feel a tad sorry for the three people who said they either weren't bothered about overtaking in F1 or didn't care about it...

Me too!

Tye

[Knowlesy]

Your observation is probably accurate KB. I guess if you support a team you take a view of F1, and whether it has any shortcomings or not, through your team rather than an overall picture of what the sport is really like....this is natural it seems.

[Adam43]

Well the best way to combat this perceived situation that team favouritism influencing this (or any) debate is to just discuss the current topic.

This thread is about who someone supports it is about overtaking in F1.

It is as easy to suggest someone says they are happy with F1 just because they are a Ferrari fan as it is to suggest they are unhappy because they are not a Ferrari fan.

Such arguments are pointless.

Apart from anything else, isn't it obvious when one of these arguments is suggested it is just as valid in reverse?!

Next well have a spate of posts saying 'I think such and such and I'm a so and so fan. So what! Let's get on with the important things.

[Knowlesy]

Originally posted by Tye

Well Gt_R, everyone likes a winner. I just wonder how many of those fans are true?

Not a lot I'd wager......at Silverstone over the weekend you couldn't move for Ferrari fans, or more specifically Schumacher fans.

Speaking to some of them, and a lot had no knowledge of F1, it's past or even its present. It was all Schumacher to them, all they knew about. Glory hunters I suspect.

Put it this way, when people fail to acknowledge Senna and think that Mansell was a touring car champion you begin to wonder whether these people are for real.

[Knowlesy]

Although I must say, the majority of Ferrari fans here on ten-tenths are knowledgable....let me put that on the record.

[Adam43]

Firstly, ignorance is not limited to any set of fans.

Secondly, this thread is way off topic and is endanger of being closed. Which would be a shame because it is an important topic.

[Knowlesy]

I know it's off topic Adam, but I think whatever you're a fan of, if your team is winning you are bound to be less critical of the sport because you are happy with the results. I'd say 95% of people would be like that. If it ain't broke don't fix it.....perfectly understandable. But bloody frustrating for us non-tifoso!

Anyways......forget it.

[Gt_R]

Reading how this thread has developed, i can only say that it's pathetic.

If people think that the argument is based on being pro-Ferrari, then i feel no need to discuss with you at all.If people cannot keep team-favourtism out of a discussion, i suggest they keep themselves out of the discussion.

Last check, but in Rubens and Michael, Ferrari have 2 drivers who are more than capable of pulling off good overtaking moves.

I find it laughable that certain members think that they are the ONLY true fans of racing and that others don't know a nut about it, just because they don't see overtaking as the definition of racing.

I know that there are a portion of glory hunters among Ferrari fans, but honestly, i don't give a **** about those people. In fact, i don't even associate myself with those who jump onto the bandwagon after Ferrari/MS's success. It's quite sad because you know they'd be gone the moment Ferrari's in trouble. But admittedly, every team and driver have their own group of "false fans".For example, how many female fans of Kimi are only there because Kimi's cute?

I wouldn't complain F1 is boring just because Ferrari/MS isn't winning. I watch F1 just the same way before 1999, and it's consistent. What i'd dispise is if rules are changed just for the blatant reason of "forcing competition by disadvantaging the winner", which FIA had so happily impose after 2002.

And if people do bother to read, i prefer quality overtaking than quantity overtaking. It's easy for a Williams to slipstream pass a Minardi..but is that what we want? Or we rather battles like JPM vs Kimi at Hockenheim in 2002? Or Rubens fightback from 18th?

Keep team-preference out. I don't think it helps in the discussion.

[Tweed]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Or we rather battles like JPM vs Kimi at Hockenheim in 2002? Or Rubens fightback from 18th?

Nothing, IMHO, has come close to that in the 2 years since.
And it only happened because it was a slow corner onto a straight into another slow corner.

Can we have this back on topic?? Please?

[Woolley]

The poll's looking fairly conclusive anyway, and remember this is an enthusiasts' site. The casual observer is probably even more put off by the lack of overtaking.

The problem for me is the lack of suspense. I don't need the cars to actually overtake, just to know that if they don't it was because the guy in front was good enough to keep the other one behind. I watched Silverstone all the way through, and found it very hard to get interested because I knew that if Kimi managed to catch Michael there was little chance in him bing able to get passed, even on the slight chance that Michael made a small mistake. If I know the result, barring failure, at 1/3rd distance then there's no anticipation.

It doesn't matter who is following who, personality or team, without the possibility of overtaking it's just qualifying, only slower.

[Teretonga]

If we had tyres that went the full distance and no refuelling would we get Mikey in front from beginning to end race after race. That would be even more boring!

Pole would become even more important than it is now because of the aerodynamic situation and drivers stuck behind a slower car (DC/Bernoldi at Monaco) might never get past. Look at Alonso at silverstone -from contender in France to struggling to make the top ten-not because he's slow!
Overtaking is important not just for it's own sake but because it is evidence of competition taking place and a GP is a competitive event. If there is no sense of competition it is boring and at the moment it does seem that way due to the domination of one driver.
Austria 2002 promised some relief from that until the last corner and while it ensured the result Ferrari wanted the fans gave it the thumbs down- it wasn't a 'true' result of the competition on the day.
Seeing two drivers battle it out is a sign of the competitive aspect even if no overtaking takes place.
The aerodynamic situation in F1 is part of the problem and until that is tackled changing race rules and formats will not produce what we are seeking (or what the sport has lost).

[Andrew Hornsey]

Sorry Teretonga, but I have to disagree with the first part of your comment - no pitstops does not necessarily mean leading from start to finish. As the race unfolds, cars handling characteristics change, and a car that is good at the beginning may not be good at the end.

Do you go flat out for the first half of the race and then have poor tyres for the second, or conserve them and then take the lead just before the end.

In my humble view, the two biggest problems in F1 are the lack of overtaking, and the pitstops. If you change one of these, the other may not be so important, but something needs to be done.

The rest of your message though, spot on!

[jj2728]

Originally posted by Gt_R

In fact, i don't even associate myself with those who jump onto the bandwagon after Ferrari/MS's success. It's quite sad because you know they'd be gone the moment Ferrari's in trouble.

i don't even associate myself with those who jumped on the ferrari bandwagon after surtees won the championship in 1964.....sorry, but i just had to inject a bit of humour here and yes, i have been a ferrari fan since before 1964........

[krt917]

Originally posted by Woolley
The problem for me is the lack of suspense. I don't need the cars to actually overtake, just to know that if they don't it was because the guy in front was good enough to keep the other one behind.

Spot on. Max Mosley has, in the past, said that he didn't want to see F1 have so much overtaking that only the last lap mattered, but he didn't seem to realise that there is a BIG difference between overtaking being vaguely possible and being 'too' common. The possibility of a pass is what we want, sometimes it should happen, sometimes not. The actual passing ratio isn't high enough at the moment.

Originally posted by Andrew Hornsey
Sorry Teretonga, but I have to disagree with the first part of your comment - no pitstops does not necessarily mean leading from start to finish. As the race unfolds, cars handling characteristics change, and a car that is good at the beginning may not be good at the end.

Do you go flat out for the first half of the race and then have poor tyres for the second, or conserve them and then take the lead just before the end.

In my humble view, the two biggest problems in F1 are the lack of overtaking, and the pitstops. If you change one of these, the other may not be so important, but something needs to be done.

The rest of your message though, spot on!

Well said Andrew. I'd ban fuel stops (though not tyre stops) completely, but that's another thread...