[Pudu]

[spoiler ="Shanghai"] Fascinating race. I saw the winner's photo on the front page of the paper before I watched the race - looked away instantly but knew he either won it or died in it. Even so, the race was excellent to watch because of the different strategies. Exciting to the last corner of the last lap.

I wish there was a happy medium between tires making it interesting and completely dominating the spectacle though. Still, I'd take this over one stop marathons with no place changes. I also agree with Brundle that the DRS and qualy rules need to be tweaked given the way the 2013 tires/cars are performing. I'm glad the teams that ran in Q3 were rewarded.[/spoiler]

Going to F1 races in person is more about soaking up the atmosphere than watching the race - stay home for that. If you have to choose one race for atmosphere, nothing tops Monaco. Just make sure someone else is paying.

Montreal is great if you want to get to the circuit without spending 4 hours sitting in a traffic jam and there are tons of parties during race weekend - fun race actually.

Spa oozes history and pedigree, but is a total pain to get to/from the circuit on race day and you only can see the tiny part of track right in front of you.

Silverstone is great for the camaraderie of the fans. You get to a packed circuit at 6 am and spend the whole day hanging out with everyone else, rain or shine - it's like and all day picnic.

I went to Sepang a couple of times (one of my favourites) and will likely hit India this year. But the only one I really, really want to see anymore is Singapore. I just got back from a trip there and walked around a good junk of the circuit. It would be a treat to see it all lit up at night with the cars screaming around Marina Bay. But even more than that, I want to go see Le Mans. If I can spend a weekend camping at Circuit de la Sarthe, with my kids, amid the prototypes and GT goodness ... I could happily retire from attending races.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

I went to Sepang a couple of times (one of my favourites) and will likely hit India this year. But the only one I really, really want to see anymore is Singapore. I just got back from a trip there and walked around a good junk of the circuit. It would be a treat to see it all lit up at night with the cars screaming around Marina Bay. But even more than that, I want to go see Le Mans. If I can spend a weekend camping at Circuit de la Sarthe, with my kids, amid the prototypes and GT goodness ... I could happily retire from attending races.

 
Singapore is nice, and being in the city, you don't really need tickets if you know someone who works in one of the many buildings overlooking the circuit.
The Indian circuit is alright, but getting there is a hassle, so is accommodation.

 

[Pudu]

Yep, I can agree with you there.

Luckily I have the accommodation thing covered - I'll just stay at my place . But you're right about getting out to the circuit - you can't get anywhere here quickly. That's why I didn't bother going last October, I just couldn't face the traffic.

 

[wink]

Being a car racing purist, I find all these contrived rules concocted to make racing interesting for the normal pleb abyssmal.
 
It's all about putting bottoms on seats.
 
The more of a russian roulette you can make the results the better is the name of the game.
Whatever happened to the principle that the best team had the best chance of winning the race.
 
Here in Australia we have the same debacle with the V8 Supercars where the different brand of car is almost non-existent.
Holden, Ford, Nissan & Mercedes. and the only real difference is the motor manufacturer.
 
It's not about real racing anymore, it's all about marketing.
Frankly, for mine, I'm not buying.

 

[tissot]

Quote:

The more of a russian roulette you can make the results the better is the name of the game.
Whatever happened to the principle that the best team had the best chance of winning the race.
 
Here in Australia we have the same debacle with the V8 Supercars where the different brand of car is almost non-existent.
Holden, Ford, Nissan & Mercedes. and the only real difference is the motor manufacturer.
 
It's not about real racing anymore, it's all about marketing.
Frankly, for mine, I'm not buying.

 
 
I personally get as much enjoyment from the strategies and the tech on F1 as much I do from the racing. Example the tires were no secret to any team before the season started, every team had the same time to get best out of them and that's again part of it all. To me its as much about the teams as it is about the drivers.   

 

[smial1966]

Surely as the technical stipulations and design parameter rules apply equally to all of the teams, isn't this theoretically a level playing field? Moreover, doesn't the team capable of eking out a little more aerodynamic capability and extracting a smidgen more engine power from their cars - thereby producing a faster vehicle - become the best team?
 
Cheers,
Andy. 
 
Quote:

Being a car racing purist, I find all these contrived rules concocted to make racing interesting for the normal pleb abyssmal.
 
It's all about putting bottoms on seats.
 
The more of a russian roulette you can make the results the better is the name of the game.
Whatever happened to the principle that the best team had the best chance of winning the race.
 
Here in Australia we have the same debacle with the V8 Supercars where the different brand of car is almost non-existent.
Holden, Ford, Nissan & Mercedes. and the only real difference is the motor manufacturer.
 
It's not about real racing anymore, it's all about marketing.
Frankly, for mine, I'm not buying.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Being a car racing purist, I find all these contrived rules concocted to make racing interesting for the normal pleb abyssmal.
 
It's all about putting bottoms on seats.
 
The more of a russian roulette you can make the results the better is the name of the game.
Whatever happened to the principle that the best team had the best chance of winning the race.
 
Here in Australia we have the same debacle with the V8 Supercars where the different brand of car is almost non-existent.
Holden, Ford, Nissan & Mercedes. and the only real difference is the motor manufacturer.
 
It's not about real racing anymore, it's all about marketing.
Frankly, for mine, I'm not buying.

 
Well, I would agree if it wasn't F1, or maybe something thats still 'pure' in the sense of using traditional technology (like NASCAR).
 
Given a free run, time and again its been seen that manufacturers with the most money and resources tend to obliterate everyone else, and soon no one wants to compete with such a team.
The best example I can cite is from the FIA GT series, where "homologation specials" were used in the GT1 category.
Mercedes did it with the CLK GTR, Ferrari with the Maserati MC12, Porsche with the 991 GT1, and soon there weren't any GT1 contenders left because of the escalating costs.
Williams did it with their active suspension in FW14.
 
Rules help level the playing field. You can see that in F1 many cars run on the same engines, but their performances are still pretty different, so they're not all the same after all.
 
Still, I wonder if the spending is limited for all teams, would they still need the technical regulations? Maybe design issues are easier to inspect than financial spending.

 

[oqvist]

Regulations is always needed if you are going to lower the spendings. But anyway I don´t think that should be to much of a focus on formula one. We have formula 3, GP 2 and other series that is more equal and offer better racing. Still of course your sucess depend a bit on which team you are able to secure a seat in. F1 you watch because it´s the best cars and best technology and the most competitive.

 

[customcoco]

Quote:

  Williams did it with their active suspension in FW14.
 
Rules help level the playing field. You can see that in F1 many cars run on the same engines, but their performances are still pretty different, so they're not all the same after all.
 
Still, I wonder if the spending is limited for all teams, would they still need the technical regulations? Maybe design issues are easier to inspect than financial spending.

 
I would agree if there was still some little "garagistes" in F1 (just like when Renault introduced the turbo engine..).
 
Come on, it's a constructor championship ! They're all rich, and who cares if the little ones stay behind since it's already the case!
 
Formula 1 is the pinaccle of non-militarian technology, just imagine what it could be if the engineers were allowed to think out of the box !
 
The DRS is a great idea, if only it could be used everywhere at anytime... Again, a great idea ruined by the FIA's stupid rules..

 

[Hutnicks]

Quote:

 
I would agree if there was still some little "garagistes" in F1 (just like when Renault introduced the turbo engine..).
 
Come on, it's a constructor championship ! They're all rich, and who cares if the little ones stay behind since it's already the case!
 
Formula 1 is the pinaccle of non-militarian technology, just imagine what it could be if the engineers were allowed to think out of the box !
 
The DRS is a great idea, if only it could be used everywhere at anytime... Again, a great idea ruined by the FIA's stupid rules..

 
This is what happens when a species stops reaching out and focuses on control. You get hamstrung auto racing, Olympic javelins redesigned so they do not go as far, etc. It stopped being about pushing envelopes long ago and became a show.
 
Recommended reading: Neil Postmans "Amusing Ourselves To Death".

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Come on, it's a constructor championship ! They're all rich, and who cares if the little ones stay behind since it's already the case!
 

 
I can understand your viewpoint, and its a really enticing proposition. If viewers are happy with a 3-4 team no holds barred race, so be it. 
 
Then, I can see another side of the argument popping up, "Its the car, not the driver".  "Human skills don't matter anymore, its no fun".
 
The problem is, viewers want competition. Such a style of racing would be similar to boxing in the 19th century; there were no weight classes, and size mismatches would result in overly dangerous games for the smaller boxers and unsatisfied viewers.
 
Maybe F1 can have two classes as well, like the FIA GT series.  The top tier has no restrictions, teams who wish to limit their spending can race in the second, regulated class.
 
 

 
Formula 1 is the pinaccle of non-militarian technology, just imagine what it could be if the engineers were allowed to think out of the box !

 
Thinking out of the box may end up handling more and more stuff electronically. A lot of the teams have proper simulators, with the tracks mapped down to millimeters, and its possible they can increase the performance by making the onboard electronics handle more controls automatically. They may end up not needing the drivers at all.
 
PS : Its a real shame, the FIA GT has the most balanced cars around, and yet there's not much viewership for it. I don't know who or whats to blame.

 

[Hutnicks]

Quote:

 
I can understand your viewpoint, and its a really enticing proposition. If viewers are happy with a 3-4 team no holds barred race, so be it. 
 
Then, I can see another side of the argument popping up, "Its the car, not the driver".  "Human skills don't matter anymore, its no fun".
 
The problem is, viewers want competition. Such a style of racing would be similar to boxing in the 19th century; there were no weight classes, and size mismatches would result in overly dangerous games for the smaller boxers and unsatisfied viewers.
 
Maybe F1 can have two classes as well, like the FIA GT series.  The top tier has no restrictions, teams who wish to limit their spending can race in the second, regulated class.
 
Tried that in the Cosworth vs Turbo era where poor teams could not afford a turbo motor. The result of that fiasco is largely what influenced the rules you see today. Two tired F1 is a contracition in terms. It is either A formula or it is not. If it is not they need another name and Bernie wont stand for that. The fanbase wont stand for a "Best in Class" championship either. Funny none of the other formulas have these issues.
 
Thinking out of the box may end up handling more and more stuff electronically. A lot of the teams have proper simulators, with the tracks mapped down to millimeters, and its possible they can increase the performance by making the onboard electronics handle more controls automatically. They may end up not needing the drivers at all.
 
Tried that too and pit telemetry adjustments were banned as well. Be a tough fight to implement the same features with OCC. The FIA will kill that before it gets tabled.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 

 
Exactly. There's no way out of this. Maybe make things more analog again.

 

[Pudu]

...It is either A formula or it is not...

This is the heart of it.

Formula 1 isn't an open-ended, anything goes series - it never has been. The formula has to continually change to take account of new engineering and materials... and budgets. What is the difference between limiting engine size and limiting budget? It should be about doing the best job within the formula.

My problem with these tires isn't that they force strategy to play a part - that bit is brilliant. The problem is that these current softs degrade so quickly that no one would use them if they didn't have to. Tires should open up potential strategies not hamstring them. And they should not turn qualy into a non-event.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

This is the heart of it.

Formula 1 isn't an open-ended, anything goes series - it never has been. The formula has to continually change to take account of new engineering and materials... and budgets. What is the difference between limiting engine size and limiting budget? It should be about doing the best job within the formula.

My problem with these tires isn't that they force strategy to play a part - that bit is brilliant. The problem is that these current softs degrade so quickly that no one would use them if they didn't have to. Tires should open up potential strategies not hamstring them. And they should not turn qualy into a non-event.

 
Most racing series have had a formula. The question is how detailed that formula is. Maybe the current formula is so restrictive that most teams end up with a somewhat similar design, and have somewhat similar performance. As long as there's enough competition, its fine with me.
Soft tyres are definitely faster, and it depends on how they're used. I think the degradation is being used as a surprise element in the race.\
 
No one has complained about the tracks, so here goes. Some of the modern tracks suck, especially the last race, and the upcoming one as well.  I dozed off in the last race, and I don't think I'll be watching the next one.