Purist vs Spectacle?

[Cam]

The 2012 Pirelli tyres have, for me anyway, brought up a clear question about why I watch F1 - "should F1 primarily be the pinnacle of racing or primarily be about the spectacle of the event". With many teams, drivers and fans all agreeing they have no idea who will win a 2012 race, the 'lottery' factor does, for me, detract from the essence of elite precision engineering and fast racing that F1 has advertised for many decades and that originally attracted me to watch it in the first place.

As a 'purist' myself, I'd prefer to see a dominant car and see other teams pushing development of their own car to beat them - the technical race. Many wonderful innovations have surfaced as a result and I just love the arguments when a team finds something new to exploit. Meanwhile, everyone's going flat out on the track, all through qualifying and all through the race - the drivers race.

The 2012 tyres aren't the only issue highlighted here. Banning technical developments to 'hobble leaders' is not new to F1 either as many ingenious ideas have been implemented and banned over the years. Cost is a factor, but there are many categories others can go play in if they cannot afford F1 - so complaining one cannot afford to race in this category is not an excuse to change it. F1 is elite in all aspects. It's aspirational. It's not champagne on a beer budget.

So, should F1 race results remain in the hands of the driver/team/engineering combination (purist) or should control items (spectacle) continue to dominate race results?

Where does the soul of F1 sit? Why do we all watch it and what does it mean for us?

[bhall]

Father?

[Lycoming]

Cost cutting is something everybody is concerned about. Even setting aside the fact that it would kind of suck with only 4 teams, all of them are interested in reducing costs. Nobody, not Mclaren, not Ferrari, not Red Bull wants to go back to nearly twice their current expenditure.

F1 is definitely about the technology; but it can't be all about the technology. It never has been, and it never should be. What I mean by that is, the racing is important; people don't come to watch a car drive around a track in circles. That gets old very quickly after more than a few laps, which is exactly what qualifying is. The point is that it would be terrible to have one car dominate, and to have the same finishing grid at every race. People want to see drivers fighting wheel to wheel for position, and F1 should be an environment where they can do that on roughly equal grounds, but where there is also room for technology to provide some separation between the tiers. A close grid is exciting, because then it isn't all about the car. Its boring, and hardly a sport in that sort of situation.

What is not exciting is the tyre lottery. Its stupid to be at the point where the teams and drivers have so little impact on finishing position. But I'm not sure that this is the current situation. The teams seem to understand the tyres as well enough. Though it is exceptionally tricky to make them do what you want, in the past few races drivers/teams have gotten to where they are mostly on merit. I don't think the tyre "lottery" is quite so overwhelming as of yet. Moreover, I would not at all be surprised if the current situation is short lived, as the teams come to terms with this year's pirellis as they did last year.

The current evolution of the technical regulations is quite heavy handed in banning innovative concepts. But the important thing is, they aren't banning innovation. They can't, really. They can't stop people from dreaming up fantastic solutions. Besides, if you think about it, most of the changes in the past few years have been pretty sensible. They can do a lot worse.

I also disagree that going flat out 100% of the time is such a big deal. In the good old bad old days, they had to nurse the car just to get it home at times, and Prost was well known for his ability to make a late race charge after conserving his car early on. The car should be able to run at or near its maximum most of the time, but as both a cost cutting measure and to introduce an element of strategy, I don't see anything wrong with turning down the engine or limiting the revs or saving the tyres at points; just as long as that isn't the entire race.

[Cam]

I guess the technical side for me is a bigger deal and I feel is part of the DNA of F1. Look at this website for instance. So many topics, posts and viewers all interested in the minute details of the tech, which is great, I love it too. All motorsport is a passion for me and I watch a considerable amount of it, yet I don't trawl through the tech, teams, developments etc like I do F1, as those categories are not about development, it is about the show. No-one cares what suspension they're running.

When I hear things like this: 'We are getting less new parts than last year, instead investing more time to understanding our car," confirmed Red Bull team boss Christian Horner.' I feel like a little bit of F1 has died. They're actively slowly development, simply becasue no-one knows what's going on.

So why now is there such a push for F1 to put emphasis on 'the show'. Wheel to wheel is great and I get that excitement from DTM and V8's and NASCAR and INDY, MotoGP etc, so there's plenty of series out there for that close action where the winner is never assured. Shouldn't F1 be above that? Why can't F1 be above that?

[bhall]

I think it's up to teams and drivers to keep one team/driver from running away from the rest of the field. That's not for the regulations to decide.

I also don't know how to reconcile calls for cutting costs with the fact that the teams with the loudest bark on that front left the sport anyway, and FOM continues to demand obscene fees that continually increase from circuits (fans) T.V. outlets (fans).

Privatize gains. Socialize losses. Repeat as necessary.

Did someone actually think that formulating regulations that produce identical cars would make for good racing? Or did simply no one really think the matter through?

Much like the current debate over stimulus versus austerity in Europe, it seems F1 has made a habit of ignoring the sensible middle ground in favor of flashy declarations one way or the other.

[raymondu999]

It's all a matter of opinion really. Some people like the current formula, some people like it the way Cam does. I personally share Cam's view. F1 to me should be about excellence, in racecraft, driving and chassis design, be it mechanical or aerodynamic.

If there's a control variable which is equal for all, then it should be strictly controlled so it is equal for all teams. We shouldn't (in my fantasy world) have a team being able to switch the tyres on while the others can't, because to me that sort of defeats the purpose of a control variable.

Should this lead to a dominant car, in my view, so be it. Should it lead to a static pecking order through the year, so be it. If we have a 0 overtake, 0 pitstop race because of that, so be it. I personally don't care much about overtaking. It's nice, sometimes great to have - and exciting to watch, but I don't mind not having any overtakes. As a matter of fact I sometimes prefer having strategy-based "overtakes." Something like Schumacher did in Hungary 1998, or Webber did in Hungary 2010, or some such, or seeing the daunting pace of someone who is on a more-stop-but-quicker strategy. For example I greatly enjoyed seeing how the laptimes to'ed and fro'ed between Rosberg and Button in China 2012 until the McLaren pitcrew neutralised Button's victory challenge, and between Hamilton and Vettel in China 2011. I loved seeing how at the phase before Rosberg/Vettel's pitstops Button/Hamilton was clearly quicker, but then Vettel/Rosberg pit and they're suddenly quicker than the other guy, but with the knowledge that Button/Hamliton will be massively quicker after the last pitstop. I love seeing time gap races.

I agree with Bhallg2k in a way - F1 doesn't seem to be able to compromise one way or another. Either we had a tyre construction which had a race-lasting supersoft, or we have hards that last just about a quarter race distance. What happened to the massive gap in the middle?

[Cam]

Privatize gains. Socialize losses. Repeat as necessary.

Maybe you're right and that's what all this is about.

Just a thought, maybe it in fact goes something like this:
1) Drinks with old mate Flavio
2) Initiate 'lottery' style races
3) Generate controversy
4) Increase viewers
5) Attract more advertisers
6) Better share price for float
7) Cash out
 Leave F1
9) Start GP1
10) Smile

If it is, then F1 is doomed. A quote from Bernie back in 2007, a slip of the tongue or a window in to what was coming all along - "At QPR, we're in Formula Renault at the moment. Next, we want to move up to GP2 and then GP1."

[raymondu999]

Didn't he and Flavio sell their QPR stakes to Tony Fernandes?

[Cam]

Didn't he and Flavio sell their QPR stakes to Tony Fernandes?

No idea. The article was back in 2007 when he bought it I think [http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ive-719344]. Funny how he mentioned the step up to GP1 and not F1. Weird how these things pan out.

[raymondu999]

Fernandes bought them out some time like October last year.

[mx_tifoso]

We have this type of thread pop up quite often. And although the new issue is with the tyres, you will always be going around in circles with practically the same points. Show or racing? Spectacle or Purist? But I guess it is from the new members that these threads originate from, and it's understandable. Carry on...

[raymondu999]

The thing is it's almost two ends of an extreme scale. You'll always have one group happy and the other unhappy. IMO the downhill slide began with them introducing the floppy rear wing.

[Cam]

Should this lead to a dominant car, in my view, so be it. Should it lead to a static pecking order through the year, so be it. If we have a 0 overtake, 0 pitstop race because of that, so be it. I personally don't care much about overtaking. It's nice, sometimes great to have - and exciting to watch, but I don't mind not having any overtakes. As a matter of fact I sometimes prefer having strategy-based "overtakes." Something like Schumacher did in Hungary 1998, or Webber did in Hungary 2010, or some such, or seeing the daunting pace of someone who is on a more-stop-but-quicker strategy. For example I greatly enjoyed seeing how the laptimes to'ed and fro'ed between Rosberg and Button in China 2012 until the McLaren pitcrew neutralised Button's victory challenge, and between Hamilton and Vettel in China 2011. I loved seeing how at the phase before Rosberg/Vettel's pitstops Button/Hamilton was clearly quicker, but then Vettel/Rosberg pit and they're suddenly quicker than the other guy, but with the knowledge that Button/Hamliton will be massively quicker after the last pitstop. I love seeing time gap races.

Agreed. That's whats so unique about F1. That's what's disappeared in 2012. I imagine it's like dating the wife's twin, sure it looks similar, but all the fine details have changed and and it's just not the same. It doesn't feel right. Sure, it might be good, but it's not what I committed too.

But is this what everyone wants?

[raymondu999]

But is this what everyone wants?

It's what some want, clearly. But not what someone like you or me would. Interesting analogy btw

[Cam]

The thing is it's almost two ends of an extreme scale. You'll always have one group happy and the other unhappy. IMO the downhill slide began with them introducing the floppy rear wing.

Maybe. All the innovations, whether deemed legal or not and are banned or not, all originate within in the team itself while trying to improve the car. I have no issue with this, in fact I love it. Using control items, such as size limits, weight restrictions etc are a part of any formula and it gives a certain guide to build too, that I get too. The current trend however is dumbing the cars down so much that pretty soon a GP2 car will do similar lap times. The reason is not for safety, it's for the show. Old mate Bernie says that's what people want to see. For a spectacle yes, I agree, but when there's so many other sports already doing a great job of that, why dumb down F1? Educate people of the tech side and get them to fall in love with the team, the innovations, the science. It presumes the audience is stupid and that's not smart.