Purist vs Spectacle?

[Just_a_fan]

Here's some attendance stats from the Australian F1 GP for race day:

04 - 121,500
05 - 118,200
06 - 103,000
07 - 105,000
08 - 108,000
09 - 105,000
10 - 108,500
11 - 111,000
12 - 114,900

04 and 05 put on a better show.

The 04 season overview? "The championship was dominated by Michael Schumacher and Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro with the German driver winning the Drivers Championship for the fifth consecutive year and the Italian constructor winning the Constructors Championship for the sixth straight season."

No-one seemed bored to watch that year.

I remember watching the Schumacher years. And I remember being bored quite often. And I remember defending F1 against people who said things like "it's so boring because it's just a procession and you know that Schumacher will win". It was tedious unless you were a Schumacher / Ferrari fan. There were times that the TV directors showed action going on elsewhere in the field and some of that was fun - sadly there were races where the director spent an inordinate amount of time following the lead car. This was a period when you could go and make a cup of tea and return safe in the knowledge that you were unlikely to miss anything. Do that today and you spend five minutes hoping for a replay of the incident the commentators are still talking about.

And for those who decry the current tyre situation, let me remind you that Michael benefitted from a bespoke tyre service from Bridgestone at this time too. One of the reasons he was able to be so consistently quick is because he had a tyre that was basically designed for him and his car. 2005 saw the tyre rules change and Bridgestone's tyre dominance was destroyed overnight (except in the US of course!). Oh yes, and unlimited testing helped Michael too as they fine tuned the car and tyres.

The "good old days" have never existed...

[bhall]

For those who decry the dominance of any particular driver/team/tire manufacturer, let me remind you that every other team/driver/tire manufacturer was free to stop the dominance at any time. They either couldn't or they wouldn't.

The regulations have done what competitors were unable to do. If anyone needs evidence of added artificiality, there it is.

[browney]

Here's some attendance stats from the Australian F1 GP for race day:

04 - 121,500
05 - 118,200
06 - 103,000
07 - 105,000
08 - 108,000
09 - 105,000
10 - 108,500
11 - 111,000
12 - 114,900

04 and 05 put on a better show.

The 04 season overview? "The championship was dominated by Michael Schumacher and Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro with the German driver winning the Drivers Championship for the fifth consecutive year and the Italian constructor winning the Constructors Championship for the sixth straight season."

No-one seemed bored to watch that year.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Those stats show the drop off in attendance after moving the GP from Adelaide to Melbourne. It does show that just because a city has more population and money doesn't mean that attendances will be higher (certainly doesn't mean the track will be better!).

[beelsebob]

Here's some attendance stats from the Australian F1 GP for race day:

04 - 121,500
05 - 118,200
06 - 103,000
07 - 105,000
08 - 108,000
09 - 105,000
10 - 108,500
11 - 111,000
12 - 114,900

04 and 05 put on a better show.

The 04 season overview? "The championship was dominated by Michael Schumacher and Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro with the German driver winning the Drivers Championship for the fifth consecutive year and the Italian constructor winning the Constructors Championship for the sixth straight season."

No-one seemed bored to watch that year.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Those stats show the drop off in attendance after moving the GP from Adelaide to Melbourne. It does show that just because a city has more population and money doesn't mean that attendances will be higher (certainly doesn't mean the track will be better!).

Uhhh... they moved from Adelaide to Melbourne in 1996... 8 years is a bit of a jump to account for this as a "drop off" because they moved.

[Cam]

Here's some attendance stats from the Australian F1 GP for race day:

04 - 121,500
05 - 118,200
06 - 103,000
07 - 105,000
08 - 108,000
09 - 105,000
10 - 108,500
11 - 111,000
12 - 114,900

04 and 05 put on a better show.

The 04 season overview? "The championship was dominated by Michael Schumacher and Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro with the German driver winning the Drivers Championship for the fifth consecutive year and the Italian constructor winning the Constructors Championship for the sixth straight season."

No-one seemed bored to watch that year.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Those stats show the drop off in attendance after moving the GP from Adelaide to Melbourne. It does show that just because a city has more population and money doesn't mean that attendances will be higher (certainly doesn't mean the track will be better!).

I guess my point here was to show that the numbers are still pretty good for attendance even when 'boring' domination occurred. While trying to determine whether a purist F1 or spectacle F1 is better, this is one avenue I'm comparing. If the claims that people hated the domination of a team/driver - which is the leading call for requirements to hobble the leaders and close up the pack - are correct, we should see a decline in all areas. I'm not seeing that so far. If anyone else has stats, good or bad, I'd love to see them.

[Cam]

Another question would be how the teams really feel about this 'lottery' style of racing. Part of the manufacturers and tech developers ethos is to race on Sunday and sell on Monday, whether that's a car, engine, gearbox or other component. Previously, you could tell who was good, even if they didn't win. I mean, coming second constantly proved you had good gear. Coming in around 12th all time meant your gear was maybe not as good as the leaders. Now, who knows? You win one race, then stumble around mid pack for the next few races. Is that down to gear or tyres? As a consumer looking to invest substantial cash into tech it certainly would now place doubt in the minds as to who has the best gear and methods.

From a marketing point of view, doesn't this damage reputations? I mean, who wants a Ferrari that's good in cold climates undrivable in hot climates yet remarkably quick while it's raining and you can't drive fast in it if you want the miles??

[Cam]

And for those who decry the current tyre situation, let me remind you that Michael benefitted from a bespoke tyre service from Bridgestone at this time too. One of the reasons he was able to be so consistently quick is because he had a tyre that was basically designed for him and his car. 2005 saw the tyre rules change and Bridgestone's tyre dominance was destroyed overnight (except in the US of course!). Oh yes, and unlimited testing helped Michael too as they fine tuned the car and tyres.

The "good old days" have never existed...

I guess that's where the Purist and Spectacle line is drawn. You're right about the tyres for Mick, but it was measurable and they could take those results across tracks and still dominate - so the tech worked beautifully. Same team, people and drivers can't use that same tech now as it doesn't work - so the tech is gone........

Imagine Pirelli going up to Fangio saying "you have to use these tyres, you won't be able to get consistency and if it's colder you simply won't win a race. Everyone's going to love it." Would the sport be where it is now? The good old days existed and they were glorious, because they all used tech to improve, go faster and try to dominate - and that's what people paid to watch. Are we loosing that?

[Lycoming]

I wonder, why is "artificiality" decried?

At the moment, they may artificially induce or encourage better racing by DRS, KERS, tyres, etc. but they do not artificially create a close field; they aren't actually using a random number generator to determine grid position, etc.

I can understand disliking cheap knockoffs or adding melamine as an "artificial protein" but we're talking about racecars; overtaking is still not easy, and passes don't just happen. The tyre lottery is another matter altogether, but I just want to try and understand why people argue that they dislike this "artificial" style of racing.

[raymondu999]

Because it's artificial, really. KERS I don't mind so much because it's the same for everyone. But something like DRS is giving a car an advantage.

[bhall]

I wonder, why is "artificiality" decried?

At the moment, they may artificially induce or encourage better racing by DRS, KERS, tyres, etc. but they do not artificially create a close field; they aren't actually using a random number generator to determine grid position, etc.

I won't speak for others, but I think that the regulations, for various reasons, have been narrowed to the point that they've created a situation whereby DRS, KERS, tires, etc., are absolutely required for there to be any meaningful performance differential whatsoever between the cars. In this context, when I say meaningful I mean that which will allow legitimate opportunities for "unenhanced" overtaking. I don't even know that KERS is a factor, because its competitive scope is no larger than having a lighter unit that can be placed closer to the reference plane.

So, in essence, that means, to me at least, that F1 is now a series of teams competing for the title of Best DRS, Best Use of Tires and so on, and that strikes me as awfully artificial and very unsatisfying.

Maybe artificial is the wrong word to use when discussing the matter. Circuit racing, by its very nature, is artificial, and it always will be. But, it just seems to me that F1 is now as far as it's ever been from the roots upon which it became famous. The very aspects that initially drew me to the sport are being deemphasized more and more every year. Part of that is a reflection of progress and economics, aspects of reality that simply cannot be denied. I don't see F1 taking any steps to reasonably identify any sort of strategic vision with regard to reality as much as I see a collection of very rich individuals playing with smoke and mirrors in the hope no one will notice that we're all still paying F1 prices for something that's no longer really F1.

[Cam]

I see a collection of very rich individuals playing with smoke and mirrors in the hope no one will notice that we're all still paying F1 prices for something that's no longer really F1.

Couldn't have said that any better.

Whether the show is better or not - it's certainly not F1 anymore. It's been quietly happening for years really hasn't it and I think the 2012 tyres has brought it all out. Maybe existing and new audiences will love it, but it's not the real F1 - it's just a logo on another product.

[Fat_T0ny]

Not sure why people think Pirelli = Lottery. Close competition is what it is.

The cars aren't all the same. They each get their pace from much differing philosophies. e.g. Red Bull = High drag, Renault = Low drag. Considering how close in pace all the cars are its not surprising to see drivers at the both ends of the top ten at the end of the race. The close pace also makes strategy more difficult during the race. Pit stop timing to minimise traffic.

Hamiltion, Grosjean, Räikkönen, have been all on the pace at every race. You could even throw in the Red bull & Merc drivers. Considering how close quali times are its not surprising to see drivers at the both ends of the top ten in quali.

Just because the tyres are hard to manage doesn't mean its a lottery. There are so many variables to F1 racing in terms of car design/setup/driver/track/conditions/strategy/race start/accidents/lapped traffic. When the competition is close your not going to get the same result over and over due to so many variables. The competition has not been this close in the 15 years I've been watching.

If you don't like Pirelli's, the only other way to get some good racing is re-fuelling. But even with re-fuelling some degradation in the tyres is required.


If F1 was to for the purist only (more liberal design rules), it would be Mclaren vs Ferrari and the rest of the field 2 laps behind. The sport costs too much thats why there are various restrictions on how you can design a F1 car.

Remeber when the rules used to be more liberal?

Late 80's/early 90's - Mclaren used the lap the nearly the whole field.
Early 2000's - Ferrari won everything with no contest.
2008 - Cars had so many wings all over them, you could only get wihtin 2 sec of another driver before hitting a dirty wake wall.

The current rules allow for plenty of innovation. There are still large differences in the way they are designed. F1 should be equal parts driver, car mechanical, car aero, car engine. I personally hate the aero dependance of F1 cars of the past 10 years. The other parts of the car don't seem to matter.

But to conclude the current format is a mile better than anything I've seen in the last 15 years of watching F1.

..........and lottery? I think not. Have we seen Caterham, Marussia, HRT do anything this year?

[raymondu999]

Remeber when the rules used to be more liberal?

fondly

Late 80's/early 90's - Mclaren used the lap the nearly the whole field.
Early 2000's - Ferrari won everything with no contest.
2008 - Cars had so many wings all over them, you could only get wihtin 2 sec of another driver before hitting a dirty wake wall.

Ah... those were the days

lottery? I think not. Have we seen Caterham, Marussia, HRT do anything this year?

Be careful what you say - don't count your chickens before they hatch. Monaco is around the corner.

[Fat_T0ny]

Why is it exciting watching 1 car lap the whole field?

[raymondu999]

Because it impresses me. Greatly. To awe at the ease with which 1 driver and team can be so on fire to be able to lap the field so easily. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.